Fear of death seems to be core root of all religions, with respect to the human condition and psychology, e.g. rituals and ceremonies help to reduce the behavioral stress of greater life events. In this sense, religion can help us to cope with the unknown in our pilgrimage of life.

Yes, dear Stanley Wilkin , religions were and are colonising, also in political and territorial terms, because it seems to be difficult to cope with the unknown. Oral, written and legal canons were often rewritten to conquer the unknown or to refute the religious adversary (e.g. Ezra the Scribe (עֶזְרָא הַסּוֹפֵר‎ ʿEzrāʾ hasSōfēr).

Religion is very human and human behavior is territorial, a relict from the animal kingdom, therefore religion is always colonising by conquering (gaining) territory, minds and hearts. Redemption is always promised at the low price of surrender of your critical faculties, i.e. religion interferes with my faith.

------

The most beautiful ape is ugly when compared to a human. The wisest human will seem like an ape when compared to a god with respect to wisdom, beauty, and everything else; religion is a disease, but it is a noble disease.

Heraclitus

Greater (μέζονες) deaths (μόροι) win (λαγχάνουσι) greater (μέζονας) portions (μοίρας).

μόροι γὰρ μέζονες μέζονας μοίρας λαγχάνουσι

Heraclitus, Fragment, B25

The word ``colonizing'' carries with it the mode of violent conquest, as does your introductory comment. If this could be tempered to include non-violent expansion (gaining new members over a wider territory), then a slightly different view and future of religion could be obtained.

Science and religion have the goal of advancing humanity. (At least, if they don't, they die) The method of solving problems of long term duration and high complexity is basically trial-and-error. Both science and religion use this method. The distinction is that science uses observation and experiment to determine the better (surviving) theories to be used ton advance humanity (read stronger armies if you must). When the problem is to form a stronger/larger society, religion creates morals which it then enforces. The better moral structure forms better groups which make better use of resources and, in times not too long age (perhaps even today) allows stronger armies. The armies fight, the better morals win and humanity advance, the winning morals spread, societies grow from tribes, to chiefdoms, to states, to nations. The next step is a world government. The more recent attempt has been the failing UN. But the EU wanting to expand has pushed Russia into a corner and the war is being fought now.

The one characteristic of religion that each believes (remember: no experimentation so belief without proof- faith ) it is best. So, war is the only way to prove which requires intolerance. However, tolerance has been a key ingredient of nation building and of Islam and Christianity (since Galileo and the advance of Protestant forms). Yet, no religion actively incorporates tolerance and wars still occur. So, colonizing is still the method religions use to advance.

As at the last, we are apes but no more selected than those before us. In a cosmos large beyond imagination we are infinitesimally small actors imbued with consciousness, an awareness of all but not our own insignificance.

But Stephen you are making the mistake of thinking this question is about religion rather than the reality of religion as simply a political actor. Christianity absorbed the imperialism of Rome, not seen in Judaism who didn't want their religion to be joined by everyone. Islam as the final religion wants to control the entire universe! This concerns as much the urge to control. Control thoughts as with its half brother communism, Nazism, etc. In the end my point is what else came from monotheisms not just what you see as the spiritual sides, which I see as existing with or without religion.

Absolutism? Totalitarianism? What else?

I have questioned the morality of these religions, partly for the reasons above but also to provide the language of good and evil in order to effect control.

John, well both Islam and Christianity have advanced themselves through violence thereby both encouraging and authenticating its use. Famously Islam did it with the sword and Christianity followed suit. How many cultures were exterminated or eradicated in order to impress one monotheism or another on it. Both Christianity and Islam have a rhetoric of peace with both applying the opposite. The Hebrew tracts and Qur'an are violent.

Where it comes to humanity it is a specific kind of humanity connected to authoritarianism and obedience to authority figures.

But-Christian humanity, where is is genuine, arises from the ancient Greeks and also the ancient Sumerians before violence and masculinity became attached. Also, ancient Egyptian scripts. Monotheisms attitudes to humanitarianism is leavened with a lot of constructs of control.

Both of your responses Stanley Wilkin John Hodge are deep ones. The fusion of religion and politics was and is , imo, a dangerous merger, because no human has the ultimate answer. All other things are about territory and dominance, i.e. exercising physical power to gain dominance and territory by ideology and/or religion.

Stephen yes such merges are dangerous, in part because religions are the work of human beings and human beings are, or can be, violent, controlling and like YHWH and Allah brutal and narcissistic. The latter are simply the main characters in iron age epics and new narratives are needed, without gods.

• Ah, another issue. Religions preach as it is in heaven (Valhalla, Olympias, etc.), so it is on Earth. So, religions suggest an organization approach for humanity. Christianity suggest a totalitarian regime, perhaps following Plato's idea as implemented in Roman Catholicism. Some of the older religious forms suggested each individual (God) could exercise power (democracy). When the Roman Christian Pope exercised power toward tolerance (pre- Galileo) the Renaissance followed. But this was followed by the Protestant threat in the north and Islam in the east. So, the Church went back to totalitarian methods in the Spanish Inquisition and that success triggered the response to Galileo. The result- science moved North and power went with science. This organization difference was transferred to different approaches in the new world. South America became totalitarian against the tolerance and power of the early US. Totalitarianism and its cohort socialism/communism fail in today's world if competing with tolerant societies. But then tolerant societies become too humanitarian (support of the weak and failures ) which wastes resources and causes collapse. What is the path forward?

John,

Why should there be a way forward, or in any direction? Why should we presuppose valid conclusions on anything? I believe we need to faithfully analyse our thinking without say recourse to religion, using it as a comma or full stop. John you yourself said and indeed say ideas on religion that you feel relate to both past and present, as all religions do, and yet while rhetoric is commonly expressed on peace Iran, a theocracy ruled by senile old men, kills young people because hey they can prove Islam demands it: trouble is they can. Trouble is the proof lies in all religions. The Iranian government is a terrorist state whose elite forms a kleptocracy, Russia is a terrorist state ruled by a kleptocracy which includes a Patriarch, who like the members of Putin's government which he approves of is a billionaire who steals money from the people he preaches Christianity to (originally a religion of charity and poverty), he has also given god's approval for Putin's murders (Russia now nicknamed the Death State). And the Pope who recently approved of Ivan the Terrible and Catharine the Great, two monsters of the past interested only in imperialism. Pawned his beliefs fawning over Jingis Khan?

John, what do we do? Learn honesty and courage? Let us admit the monotheist experiment with its morality based on authoritarianism is a lost cause?

Or wait for the next person to say that Islam, Christianity are about peace? Yeah, right. Hey, what evidence do you have? The rhetoric has to die at some point.

Stanley Wilkin

2 things

1) over the centuries, humanity has seen increases in size (population and territory) of societies. This has resulted because of the changes in morality (organization of society). e.g the protestant morality (reward work and results) allowed/caused the US ideas. At the same time the Catholic morality resulted in the limitation of political (totalitarian) societies. Certainly, increases in knowledge allows increases in power which allows one state to conquer another. Such knowledge increase works by developing more effective weapons and better use of resources. And there is the problem. Rome and China developed their society to the extent that they collapse and were conquered AFTER the collapse. Over 1000 years elapsed before Europe started to understand how to build like the Romans. Such a collapse today is possible (even likely) as small states go to war and large states disintegrate. So, find a world order or have another dark age.

2)No religion is about peace and poverty at heart. Such ideas are part of the collapse. That is, a generation becomes so secure, that external challenges are unlikely and resources become diverted to support ``humanitarian'' wishes. Such waste of resources become unstable and society collapses. So, IMO, the way out of this cycle is the next world order must allow nature's need for change and competition to not be wasted. But concurrently, the internal order (which seems to support peace and poverty) must still be balanced with the external threat of collapse or being conquered. The question is HOW? The US succeeded for a century. Rome and China about the same (before beginning collapse), Britain (1700s-1800s) about the same. Socialism and communism for far less. The EU for far less. The UN didn't even start. The Bretton Woods organization fared slightly better. I agree humanity does NOT know the solution to the increased-size-need problem. But it's time to create another try.

Its time but with better analysis and honesty. The Iranian theocracy are criminal types, the Pope a fascist!

I would nevertheless challenge your view of Rome as it changed rather than collapsed and your view of a specific collapse would be challenged anyway by Byzantine, which considered itself the Roman Empire. The changes in Rome were ethnic, economic and cultural. An expression of that change of course was Christianity. Violence briefly became defensive-St. Augustine. In western Europe Rome became the Papacy, the Carolingian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, even Hitler's Thousand Year Reich and Russia's imperial empire, and well EU and yes I suppose NATO, but their inclinations and actions changed.

Except in Russia, imperialism is now a dud bullet lying on the mantelpiece.

The effects of population size is overrated. Read anything about civil wars in China and India recently?

Stanley Wilkin

Well, yes. But the collapse was a change from several powers (the financial families of Rome) to a totalitarian (emperor). Catholic developed during the collapse and did not carry forward the knowledge the Romans had. Byzantine empire was totalitarian and was conquered by a more tolerant (at the time) empire that selected their emperors by merit (results). This form could be a positive example of how to form a world order. All the empires in their growth (not stagnant of decreasing) stage the lasted over a century in the same form could be examples of how to organize.

John,

Remember the part played in authoritarianism by economics, and of course by knowledge or claims to knowledge. One reason for the totalitarianism of Putin's government is his and his group's control of resources, while with Stalin it was control of and over the system. Putin's elite group are criminals intent on amassing enormous wealth and their use of power is a means of preserving and continuing that accumulation. Russia's involvement in Africa concerns a new resource to be utilised and terror remains a means of preventing interference.

Hi Stanley,

How are you?

Your writing appeared before me after a long time.

You raised few interesting and thinking points.

I won't deny conversion and conquest went on together, yes often.

And sword, it's a long discussion topic matter. It was word in those days, mens ornament or pride you can say, though not Muslims only, it was world's men those days. Boys toys in simple term.

About Christianity, yes world witnessed and living non-eraseable evident. We democracy believing beings learnt from the past. Thee aren't much of believe or faith living in Western world as much nowadays. For democracy we must apply democracy properly, well and evenly.

Works order is a big question, political leaders doesn't look like will agre to one.

What is the fate of the future from now?

Regards,

Fatema Miah

Fatema, good to see you again.

I do not have any answers partly because I believe things can work out as long as we analyse everything fearlessly. Within reason, we should not impose solutions.

Where it comes to Islam and the sword, it must be remembered that Islam arose during a period of martial religions, that is even Christianity, supposed to be both peaceful and passive, was a martial religion and this came into the Byzantine war with Sassanian Persia, and was a consequence of that war.

My disclosure on Islam and Christian colonialism concerns something we discussed a year or so back and a Q and A I came across here recently whereby it was suggested that the West was the only coloniser in Africa. Now apart from this subject not being that clear cut, although the regions around Benin, where I once lived, and Nigeria, where I once lived also, did involve true-blue British colonisation (nothing to do with me I might add as I was simply teaching and creating colleges there) I pointed out that religions were also colonising tools and Islam/Arabs etc colonised parts of Africa long before the West was involved. In fact Islamic armies (I suggest the Arab armies that conquered Egypt were not Islamic, but simply there by conquest and consisted of Arabs, Jews and Christians) rolled down Eastern Africa with a determination to convert as well as conquer. This they did with modest success at first.

I view these matters in my Historian jacket not from any other reason!

I use the term colonisation not only because whole tracts of Africa were taken over by force but also minds and behaviour were subject to change. Religions take the view, mainly the monotheisms, that if we take you over its for your own good, and the reply should be 'no, we are fine as we are.' I will add, take over your minds, the way you dress, change your relationships, change your environment, provide you with an afterlife you may not need and want. Wholesale colonialism. Arrogance?

While I'm aware the monotheistic religions did and still do a good job in besmirching pagan religions they were equally ethical with their own standards. Pagan societies were fine and often, but not always, less eager to run rough shod over societies unlike themselves.

Tell that to the Vikings, Aztecs, etc. Pagan societied tend to be tribal or chieddoms. Most of the males in such societies died violently.

Ian Morris, ``War! what is it good for''. and" Guns germs and Steel''

How is the spreading of democracy any different than the religious role in colonization? Also, notably to aggression of the EU toward Russia.

Aggression by the EU towards Russia? Dear John, you yourself have been colonised? You do mean the country run by criminals at present attempting to colonise Ukraine and Africa?

John I have been writing about Russia for twenty years, tracing Putin's career for twenty years and his criminal career began in 1991. But then again, you may be right. Those damn EU troops (EU?) running amok in Russia, bombing their cities, deporting their children while they rob their own countries dry sitting on billions, protecting their riches while they send their poor people to war to die shouting: "Stop colonising us. You are Russians! All Russians! You have just forgotten."

John from a Russian scientist to me: " Once we take Ukraine we will invade your country and kill everyone of you Satanists there."

The failure to engage with history produces results, and remarks, like this!

Wirth noting, John, you have confirmed my position. The effects of the Russian Orthodox Church, which again I have studied, created imperialism within the early Muscovy by telling its rulers they had a holy mission. The psychological effects of this are still evident. Interesting you should see democracy as a bad thing and robber politicians a valuable alternative!

The ethical evolution of humans is an ongoing process, i.e. we are still work in progress; the capacity for ethics expressed by the diverging systems or codes of ethical norms is driven by cultural processes, but the moral sense in humans changes biological outcomes. Discrepancies between accepted moral rules and biological survival are necessarily limited in scope; otherwise, it will lead to the extinction of the groups accepting such discrepant rules. The behavioral need for moral values does not determine the codification of moral values: morality can be understood as a useful adaptation that increases the fitness of its holders by providing a selective advantage. In this this sense, approaching a workable model about religion, politics and colonizing Stanley Wilkin John Hodge Fatema Miah seems to be a matter of applying evolutionary ethics, in terms of the possible real-world choice or disposition to be or do good.

________

Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately, this power does not long endure.

The highest stage in moral culture at which we can arrive, is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.

Charles Darwin

Stephen,

I often feel you are looking for the big solutions and that has been the problem all along-an incremental approach is more realistic and bypasses great ideas and wonderful answers to what is and what will always be a muddle. The big ideas carry with them large problems, solved by the next big idea.

Of course this is my big idea!

Wishing all of us an an expansion of our spirit; perhaps our spiritual outlook can be a tool not for limiting our world, but for expanding it. Therefore, in summary, we should try to avoid getting stuck in to the ‘it’s never going to be any different’ attitude, but rather realize that we are not limited by norms.

We must remind ourselves daily to strive for freedom in order to hear, and to strive to hear in order to be free.