Chapter 16

Is it Time for a New Religion?

 

 

Is the application of super-eusociety compatible with existing religions? Well, we have discussed super-eusociety, but what is a religion? The major religions are very old, as shown by the following table.

Origin of Religion – Important Dates in History:

1. 2000 BC: Time of Abraham, the patriarch of Israel.
2. 1200 BC: Time of Moses, the Hebrew leader of the Exodus.
3. 1100 – 500 BC: Hindus compile their holy texts, the Vedas.
4. 563 – 483 BC: Time of Buddha, founder of Buddhism.
5. 551 – 479 BC: Time of Confucius, founder of Confucianism.
6. 200 BC: The Hindu book, Bhagavad Gita, is written.
7. 2 to 4 BC – 32 AD: Time of Jesus Christ, the Messiah and founder of Christianity.
8. 32 AD: The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
9. 40 – 90 AD: The New Testament is written by the followers of Jesus Christ.
10. 570 – 632 AD: Time of Muhammad, who records the Qur’an as the basis of Islam.

(AllAboutReligion.org)

 

A multitude of new religions, or variants have been started over the last 1500 years, far too many to list here, and such a list can be found on Wikipedia, List of founders of religious traditions. So, what is a religion, and why do we have them?

 

‘Since Paleolithic times each tribe – of which there have been countless thousands – invented its own creation myth…. The creation stories gave the members of each tribe an explanation for their existence. It made them feel loved and protected above all other tribes. In return, their gods demanded absolute belief and obedience. And rightly so. The creation myth was the essential bond that held the tribe together. It provided its believers with a unique identity, commanded their fidelity, strengthened order, vouchsafed law, encouraged valor and sacrifice, and offered meaning to the cycles of life and death’. (The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson, p 8)

 

From above, creation myths define a tribe and apparently are necessary to the tribe. So necessary that they could be considered a factor of survival of the group. This is not unexpected when one considers that eusociety, for insects, needs a nest that can be defended as well as the ability to survive the foraging of food from around the nest. For humans we need extra factors, namely, a nest, preferably that will provide protection from the weather and wild animals, and can be warmed by a fire as well as a creation myth to further bind the tribe together.

 

‘People are prone to ethnocentrism. It is an uncomfortable fact that even when given a guilt-free choice, individuals prefer the company of others of the same race, nation, clan, and religion. They trust them more, relax with them better in business and social events, and prefer them more often than not as marriage partners. They are quicker to anger at evidence that an out-group is behaving unfairly or receiving undeserved rewards. And they grow hostile to any out-group encroaching upon the territory or resources of their in-group.’ (p 60)

 

Obviously, groups are crucial, but they have limitations, as the following shows. ‘Human infants, to acquire large organized brains and high intelligence, must go through an unusually long period of helplessness during their development. The mother cannot count on the same level of support from the community, even in tightly knit hunter-gatherer societies, that she obtains from a sexually and emotionally bonded mate.’ (p 253)

 

 

The reason for the need of a creation myth could be ethnocentralism as a means of holding the tribe together, and further, ethnocentralism is another word for (a very) extended family. But an extended family has practical limitations. The surrounding foraging area will only support a limited population and over time, what happens to the children produced by the group in light of the following. ‘The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction. This phenomenon, one explanation for the incest taboo, was first hypothesized by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891).’ (Wikipedia, Westermarck effect) Further, the Westermarck effect has been around for a long-time. ‘In all the social nonhuman primate species whose sexual development has been carefully studied, including marmosets and tamarins of South America, Asian macaques, baboons, and chimpanzees, both adult males and females display the “Westermarck effect”’ (The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson, pp 200-201 )

 

So, how do small groups prevent inbreeding over extended periods of time? ‘Among apes, monkeys, and other nonhuman primates, the method is two layered. First, among all nineteen social species whose mating patterns have been studied, young individuals tend to practice the equivalent of human exogamy. Before reaching full adult size, they leave the group in which they were born and join another…. their departure appears to be entirely voluntary.’ (p 200) The second effect is the Westermarck effect.

 

These effects ‘are the “epigenetic rules”, which evolved by the interaction of genetic and cultural evolution that occurred over a long period in deep prehistory. … they determine the individuals we as a rule find sexually most attractive. They lead us differentially to acquire fears and phobias concerning dangers in the environment, as from snakes and heights; to communicate with certain facial expressions and forms of body language; to bond with infants; to bond conjugally ….Most epigenetic rules are evidently very ancient, dating back millions of years in our mammalian ancestry. Others, like the stages of linguistic development, are only hundreds of thousands of years old. At least one, adult tolerance to lactose in milk and from that the potential for a dairy-based culture in some populations, dates back only a few thousand years.’ (pp 193-194)

 

Is it Time for a New Religion? That is the question that we would like to answer, but it depends on some of the attractors above. So using the Mathematics of the Mind, and starting with the creation myth, let’s look at where the above leads us.

 

All tribes have creation myths and they are an epigenetic part of us, just as fear of heights and snakes are part of us. But some of these epigenetic programs that are part of us are, probably, hardwired, such as jumping back when you glimpse a curved branch. This reaction is probably part of the muscle-ganglion-muscle automatic system that reacts when you touch a hot surface. It is automatic, instinctive and fast! Consider a fear of heights. This is deep seated and requires the application of great care to overcome or suppress it. It takes a lot of willpower to overcome the fear. Another culture that is extremely important to us is the creation myth, which no doubt evolved to maintain the integrity of the group. It is so important that, from above, every tribe has one.

 

On the other hand, whilst every tribe has one, they are all (more or less) different. In other words, it is important to have a creation myth, but it does not matter what it is! After all, every tribe has (probably a different) one! To show the fact that a creation myth is necessary, but its content is not important, consider the following. In effect, every offspring of every tribe, in other words, everyone, has to change their belief to a new creation myth when they move to a new tribe! I have previously wondered why people, so easily change their religion when they marry outside of their faith. It is the fitting-in that is important!

 

Some more ‘proof’. Why are all the religions that are so old, so out of date, still around and still practiced by so many people? ‘The illogic of religions is not a weakness in them, but their essential strength. Acceptance of the bizarre creation myths binds the members together.’ (p 259) So, the question is answered, we do not need a new religion, because any of the religions will do! Notice that the multitude of new religions have not been able to oust the initial major religions.

 

That is the simple answer, that any religion will do, but if we take into account more attractors, things change, and we should be looking for predictions using super-eusociety. Eusociety is competition between nests (or families), whilst super-eusociety is competition between countries which fall under one government. It does not matter if there is only one global government provided that it implements survival of the best. The case of separate countries is more likely in the foreseeable future.

 

Women, given access to super-eusociety, have the choice of changing their racial characteristics (over very few generations). They have the choice to move out of arranged marriages if they choose, assuming that the government provides adequate wages, accommodation etc. Radical preachers cannot compete with successful businessmen or professionals as prospective fathers, and women can sideline their effect. Why would the women want to be restrained by unusual clothing styles when they are guaranteed safe accommodation for them and their children by the government.

 

Currently, under eusociety, countries are pushing multi-culturalism, because, I believe, it cannot be handled easily. Under super-eusociety, the means is available to bring back the ideal that a country is an entity. Consider the following. A survey conducted last year by the French Institute of Public Opinion found that 43 per cent of respondents believed France’s 5 million Muslims represented ”a threat to French national identity”. Just 17 per cent said the Muslim minority enriched society. A large majority of those surveyed, 68 per cent, blamed problems with immigrant communities on Muslims who refused to integrate.’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 10/6/2013)

As I have said previously, the decision about children is up to the mother-to-be, and each woman has the right to be able to make that decision without being influenced by members of her family, her religious group, the government etc. If she makes the decision, it is survival of the ‘best’, whilst if one of the other groups makes the decision, it becomes eugenics, with all the negative connotations associated with the word. Survival of the best is scientifically acceptable, as part of super-eusociality, and religions are not in the business of going head-to-head with accepted scientific thinking. From above, they do not need to!

 

Surely, the benefits of the government supporting, with the aid of members of the churches, as happens with the aged-care industry, the disadvantaged (women and their children) by paying them a considerable amount of government money is to everyone’s advantage. It would be nice to think that

the disadvantaged women would gradually be phased out, but I am sure that there will always be enough to keep the churches’ busy! But, and this is the point, these (previously) disadvantaged women are taught how to produce a superior child that will be an asset to the country and at the same time (gradually) unify the country by breeding with (or incorporating) ‘regression to the norm’.

 

A country is stable with several different religions or sects under eusociaity (from above), but there is often violence between the sects. Super-eusociety tends (over a few generations) to reduce sectarianism by instigating the movement of women to the religion and ethnicity that appeals to them. The government has to allow them that choice. Once early childbearing is over, they could marry and that would allow the excess males to take their place in the world. This is in line with the emotional state of males versus females, where males are often seven years older than the females at marriage. It also brings childbearing to the early years when learning is taking place instead of putting children off until it may be too late.

 

 

One further point, is that our genes are stuck in the Paleolithic. Whilst groups carry our genes forward and allow them to progress and keep track with our environment, our environment is moving too fast. Super-eusociety allows the genes to change rapidly, in fact so rapidly that the genes will always be able to keep up, because the females have to be healthy enough to fall pregnant and the selected male has to be seen to be healthy. But, do we want bodies that can exist on the ‘cheapest’ amounts that (often) cause sickness and a short life, or do we want a well-nourished body and a long useful life? The question is considered in later chapters.

 

 

postscript: ‘I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. The physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must be a deep level of explanation.’ (Paul Davies, The Mind of God, quoted in The Loom of God, C. A. Pickover, p 45)

 

I have quoted the above because it needs an answer and as a postscript it can be condensed. The Big Bang has a certainty of one because it occurred, and came out of a probability space of creation of Big Bangs and we are dealing exclusively with probability spaces that ONLY contain a logic operator, by assumption. This space is indeterminate unless a mind is measuring or observing anything in it, which only occurs with evolution.

 

The logic that we use, and indeed all organisms with two or more nerves in their brain, is not formal logic (true/false), but the logic of the universe, which I call the Logic of the Half-truth and contains elements of time (causation) and chaos.

 

The Half-truth is: true, false, true some of the time and false the rest of the time (causation) and true and false at the same time (chaos, indeterminacy)

 

It is the only ‘dimension’ of the universe and creates Big Bangs, our language, the logic of our action etc. In fact everything except space-time. Thus, I postulate that EVERYTHING occurs within these 5 ‘dimensions’ and can be described by them.

 

Space-time (interval) arose out of the necessity to catch prey or avoid predation and is unique to all the larger organisms and is heritable. Because of the particular architecture of the brain of ALL sensing organisms, that created Theory of Mind and we can sense each other and lead to herds that offer protection etc. The proof is that if they do not sense each other they will be eaten, and have automatic defences against bacteria etc.

 

We have evolved a reality in the probability of existence! Notice that magic (unexplained occurrences) occurs when reality is not complete and our brain/minds go to great lengths to create reality, such as filling in for our nose because, the closer to a reality, the better that we confabulate, and the better we guard against predators.

 

Notice that the Mathematics of the Mind uses the five dimensions, that mathematics and Chaos Theory are special cases, that Big Bangs occur naturally, that God must be the God of Truth or a natural occurrence, that all the beauty that we perceive, we perceive only because of our mind. Our mind ‘pulls’ the indeterminacy ‘down’ using the Logic of the Half-truth and converts it to the ‘best’ form for us to confabulate. It is all quite simple.