h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I quite enjoyed this article, and I find myself agreeing on a lot of points. A couple of things that you might want to look at:

The article does seem heavily opinionated. You make it very obvious that you're heavily against organised religion most of the way through. You also state some things as fact where they are debatable. It would probably be better to state them as opinion and provide evidence backing them up. Too many assumptions gives the impression of propaganda.

You might make a mention of anti-clericalism (movement for keeping the church's grubby mitts off of power), and how it seems to spring up in reaction to religion. Probably the best example of this is the Kingdom of Italy versus The Pope from the 1860s to the 1820s.

You could also make a distinction between the church using the state (ala crusades) and the state using the church (such as Hitler seizing control of the protestant church in Germany and using it to support his regime).

Myself, I would disagree that the Northern Ireland conflict is not a religious divide. Its a political and cultural divide as well, but there's definite division between protestents and catholics, hence all the talk about segregation.

Thank you, Bouncy.

Personally, I am against organized religion, but I tried to keep that opinion out of it. I chose to show the relationship between religion and power throughout history, and the fact that the church has misused its power is self-evident. But if you could point out the parts where I say uncomplimentary things about the church which are not established fact, I'll consider them.

Anti-clericalism was a part of the general trend of removing religious authority from government that began with the monarchical reforms in Britain, and the US and French revolutions. I didn't want to get bogged down in details... the purpose of this article is just to show the general trends, with a few examples for illustration. It covers over 4000 years of history, and I don't want to turn it into a 3-volume set of textbooks.

As for Northern Ireland, the root issues of the conflict have nothing to do with religion. Catholics and Protestants both have the right to worship as they see fit. The problem is based on the fact that Irish farmers were displaced by the British to reward Scottish followers, and that fostered resentment throughout the history. In recent history, the descendants of those Irish wish to join the Irish Republic, while those descendants of the Scottish landowners (and further migrants from Britain) wish to remain members of the British Empire. That the Scots brought Knox's flavor of Calvinist Protestantism to a land with its own national version of Catholicism only makes the division deeper... but it is not the heart of the issue.

The Huguenot/Catholic division in France was a religious divide. The Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland would have no beef with each other if there weren't political issues dividing them.

The two least supportable sentences I can see are towards the end:

"...most of the world's governments have discarded religion as a basis for authority..."

For one thing, this may safely describe developed Western nations. But I feel there is still a lot some influence in Eastern nations and often quite a lot of influence in Middle Eastern and African cultures.

Also, even blanketing Western states with that statement requires turning a blind eye to instances where laws match a supported religion without referencing it directly. In the Southern US, for example, seemingly secular laws are often passed after openly religious debate.

There are also many cases even today where religion is referenced by the government in matters of policy rather than law, with the effect of influencing citizens to follow the religion that is implicitly endorsed. Examples might include Britain's "God save the Queen" or America's "one nation, under God, indivisible..."

"...Perhaps the next phase of our cultural evolution is the death of organised religion."

Of course, this is speculation. While I affirm the right of an author to speculate, it would be nice if other potentialities were considered.

These might include a temporary return to religious governmental control in some countries. Or it might entail the gradual gain of power by governments that are and will remain religiously oriented. It might even include a drift amongst beliefs that are currently secular into unscientific religious territory, examples perhaps being pure market capitalism and environmental conservationism.

I would agree that the conflicts in Northern Ireland weren't caused by religion per se. However, I would also submit that religion became a powerful tool of recruitment for operatives of violence. I doubt the conflicts would have been as prolonged without religion to fervently stoke the fires of the past.

All that said, I found this to be an enjoyable and intruiguing article. I especially enjoyed the discussion of religion's role in Greece and Rome. And I always enjoy a fair-minded look at divine right. Thanks.

It is curious that no-one seems to have challenged the presumptions of this entry. In writing Guide Entries we are told to remain factual*; and yet you start off with the premise that religion began as something imposed by rulers on their subjects. There are other likely scenarios, such as the possibility that a propensity for religion is innate, or hard wired in mankind. This supposition is equally agnostic but I think more convincing than yours. People are wonderfully skillful at resisting the imposition of things they have no taste for and nothing to gain from, and we must suppose they have always been so.

In a word, the story has got to be more chicken-and-egg than you make it.

My current hypothesis is:

1 People naturally have a sharply-honed talent for seeking, spotting and promoting the best leader for their group; this would be invaluable in nomadic communitiies.

2 The establishment of agriculture and settled communities (ten to twenty thousand years ago) suddenly escalated the religious stakes. People had a lot to gain (population explosion, wealth) and a lot to lose (catastrophic harvests brought unprecedented famine).

(Note: The curious things are that civilization did not bring increased leisure but increased work. This is what makes us (you) think that religion was imposed from above by the rulers. You have evidence to back you up from the thinly-veiled social engineering of the ten commandments: honour the old *so that* your days may be long.

What I am questioning is the assumption that religion is about nothing. I consider that assumption dangerous, even if I cannot prove it false. Dangerous because the nature of religion is to thrive particularly when attempts are made to suppress it. Better to consider that it will always be with us, and treat it with respect.)

3 When settled groups, each with their own take on religion, grew to border on each other, wars were the inevitable result. Philosophy grew up from the attempt to find common ground between people of different nationality/religion. That is still our hope.

*For my attempt at a well-factual Entry see A954759 "Rainbows End"

Nobody has challenged that presumption because that presumption isn't there. This article does not attempt to discuss the origin of religion in any way. It simply describes how religion was used for social control... as the title clearly states.

Religion got Bush re-elected. There's reason enough to end it.

Well how right you are silly me. I was bamboozled by a casual reading of "So many mysteries in life were attributed to the gods, and gaining the favour of the gods was a full-time pursuit" -- which does not of course say anything about the gods themselves.

And though you may wish to end religion, as many others have, I suggest that we can't and won't; we will have to live with it. Dawkins fulminating against the silliness and duplicity of bishops gets absolutely less than nowhere; he couldn't do a better job for religion if he were a fully-frocked Jesuit.

And conversely the anglican bishop that went on a chat show and complained about the supposed irreverence of The Life of Brian scored several own-goals which will not be forgotten to him.

I don't think anyone expects to completely eliminate religion.

Generally speaking, any attempt to eliminate a belief or idea will meet with social resistance. Usually the best path is to allow the idea or belief to openly exist, yet subject it to fair competition within a rich marketplace of ideas.

If a society outlaws religion, it will tend to offer no viable alternatives for people who find value in a religion's principles. Similarly, a society that demands adherence to a single religion is almost certain to stir up opposition among those parties who desire access to an idea outside that religion's bounds.

Mutual tolerance is the only efficient way to handle this dilemma.

I agree. An interesting case is Falun Gong -- see A2922644 "Falun Gong - an Evil Cult?"

The Chinese authorities are trying to crack this nut with a piledriver by the look of it. That would seem calculated to guarantee its spread. The USSR was not very successful with 75-odd years of state atheism.

Personally, I don't see what good it does to tolerate the intolerant. That also seems to make them behave worse. In fact, everything seems to make them act worse.

Religion is at its best as an underground movement and at its worst as a triumphant conqueror. There should always be a tension between government and church, the church should be a tireless awkward critic.

When people say "Thy kingdom come" they should recognise that that prospect is perpetually in the future, and not imminent. It has to do with the way life occurs only in the crack between order and chaos; the coming of perfect order is just as fatal as the coming of total annihilation.