Why Authoritarians Love Religion

[Eko]

The authoritarian personality finds in religion a match made in Heaven

Authoritarians naturally love authoritarian institutions like religion and the military. They love the idea of someone giving orders and others obliged to take orders, they love the idea of strict punishments like courts-martial and hell fires, they love the hierarchal nature of such institutions and forced gestures like saluting and kneeling, and they love the permission such institutions give you to hate others, all those millions of enemies and infidels.

Of course, authoritarians may also avoid the military like the plague and not believe in gods in the least—remember that cynicism and hypocrisy are also hallmark qualities of authoritarians. But they love the authoritarian flavor of such institutions and intuitively understand that they ought to align with them, at least publicly. That’s why authoritarian non-believers who seek public office will profess a belief in gods in which they don’t believe and a love of religion which they never demonstrate.

For both authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers, religion is a wonderful convenience. It allows them to lord it over other people, since they alone know the truth. It allows them to punish people guilt-free, since that punishment is on a god’s orders. It allows them to deny reason by dubbing the irrational “faith.” It gives them extra ways to bully people, especially women, who are regularly regarded as second class. It is just about everything an authoritarian could wish for.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rethinking-mental-health/201801/why-authoritarians-love-religion

[Blue Owl]

1. K&R

[Major Nikon]

2. Religion always has been and always will be about control

Regardless of how much religionists want to claim it’s about something else there’s still a code of conduct to follow with conveniently unverifiable punishments and rewards for adherence. They either love authoritarianism because they want to embrace it and be controlled or they want to control others with it.

It should be obvious religion and authoritarianism go together like fire and brimstone.

[Eko]

3. I dont think we can lump all religions into this,

but I do think its safe to lump most of them.
Eko.

[Major Nikon]

7. Can you name one that doesn't use hocus pocus to compel a behavior?

[Eko]

11. Deism.

[Major Nikon]

12. Hardly a religion at all

Doesn't fit most definitions. But even if you consider it a religion you have no shortage of deists using hocus pocus to try to control behavior.

[Eko]

13. Saying its hardly a religion means its still a religion.

Most people and most definitions say that Deism is a type of religion so its not just me. I'm sure there are deists out there who use hocus pocus to try to control behavior just as there are Atheists out there that do also. The thing is that Deists are not using their religion to do so. An Atheist and a Deist both using astrology would qualify as your hocus pocus but I believe you were referring to hocus pocus derived from religion in your anwser to me. Since Deism believes that god made earth and disappeared and after that knowledge can only be found using reason and the rejection of religious knowledge from revelation or the teaching of any church I dont see how there is any religious "hocus pocus" for them to use. As for me I am a Atheist and believe in no hocus pocus at all. I also try not to use blanket statements because often there is an exception to the rule.

[Major Nikon]

14. Not quite so black and white I'm afraid

The definition of "religion" varies widely and is not well agreed upon. By definitions that specify an interventionist deity, deism is not a religion. I would not agree with your "most" assessments either. You also seem to think deism is monolithic when it most certainly isn't. There are numerous different forms of it all doing it quite differently. So if you want to tackle the topic of blanket statements, that might be a good place to start.

[Eko]

15. Some people argue just to argue.

Last edited Sun Dec 27, 2020, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you really sitting here trying to tell me that a belief that thinks that god made everything is not a religion? also, I never said Deism is monolithic, no religion is. I never even implied it. At this point I think I have made my rational argument and you have resorted to moving the goal posts, "The definition of "religion" varies widely and is not well agreed upon. By definitions that specify an interventionist deity, deism is not a religion." and while this conversation has been fun you are not bringing up any logical points and it is time for me to move on.
Thanks,
Eko.

[Major Nikon]

16. The contrarian takes a statement and looks for the narrowest exception for contradiction

Kinda like what you did in post #3. So yeah, some people do indeed "argue just to argue" and they aren't hard to spot when they take their ball and go home right after self-claiming the rational high ground.

Cheers!

[Eko]

17. Ok buddy.

Hope you have a good night and a good new year.
Eko.

[Eko]

18. You really think this is a contrarian statement?

"I dont think we can lump all religions into this, but I do think its safe to lump most of them." Maybe you took this as me attacking you, for me I was agreeing with you but leaving out the possibility of there actually being a contradiction somewhere. I didn't know there was until I thought about it and researched it. I tend to give myself room for being wrong. I guess you took it as offensive to you, I certainly was not trying to be and I apologize if it was. I have a feeling that we agree on 99% of all of this and it seems pointless to argue the minutiae and risk offense even more. It just seemed that we had gotten to the point of arguing on what "is" is and there seemed no point to go on. Feel free to continue the discussion if you would like and I will participate if I can add anything.
Thanks,
Eko.

[Major Nikon]

19. You have to put that statement into the context that follows

Along with the rest of it I do consider it contrarian or I wouldn't have said so. Argument means a back and forth discussion that requires a degree of open mindedness. Without it you simply have contrarianism.

The word "religion" implies a lot more than just belief in a higher power. If you want to do some research, try to find two authoritative definitions for religion which are the same. If you can't open your mind to the idea the word is highly ambiguous, then we are back to contrarianism and I really don't care to discuss the subject further.

The word deism in its strictest sense refers only to the belief in a creator. That doesn't fit what I'd call a religion. If it does for you, more power to you. The word "religion" is certainly ambiguous enough I'm sure you'd could find a definition that fits somewhere, but we'd still be talking about two different things.

That doesn't mean there aren't forms of deism that include a system of beliefs, a moral code, a philosophy, along with rites and rituals that most certainly make it a religion, but then you're back to using hocus pocus to control people.

[Eko]

20. Well, I would prefer to define my original reply

not as a argument since I agreed with you for the most part but a discussion. After that you proceeded to take it into an argument. What you call open mindedness allowed you to define religion as something it is not commonly know as. I will present evidence for you here.

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion

Definition of religion
1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/religion

1. uncountable noun
Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshiping in a building such as a church or temple.
...his understanding of Indian philosophy and religion.
Synonyms: belief, faith, doctrine, theology More Synonyms of religion
2. countable noun
A religion is a particular system of belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this system.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/religion

It surely seems that Deism fits all of these definitions in one or another. Feel free to argue that it doesn't. I am confident that I can defend my position.
thanks,
Eko

[Major Nikon]

22. I could certainly argue it doesn't

Using all or any of the definitions you provided along with a few other essays on the subject. I really don't see the point. I have no intention or desire to attack your position or even to claim it's wrong. What I was talking about when I referred to "religion" does not include the strictest sense of deism. It seems more reasonable for you to try and understand what I am talking about, rather than try to prove I was talking about something else entirely.

[Eko]

23. I understand what you are talking about

but I have yet to see a definition that specifies religion has to have an interventionist deity like you have said. Even if there are one or two (of which I have not found and you have not provided) that specify that I have already shown most major definitions do not include that and dont exclude Deism as a religion. As I stated I understand what you are talking about but you have shown no proof of your claim to refute mine. I will ask again, do you think a belief that thinks that god made everything and actually exists is not a religion?

[Major Nikon]

24. Most of the definitions you provided imply if not explicitly require an interventionalist deity(s)

Words listed in the definitions you provided:

Reverence, service, commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, devotional and ritual observances, moral code governing the conduct of human affairs, worship of a god or gods. None of these things are associated with deism. All are associated with an interventionist god.

I will ask again, do you think a belief that thinks that god made everything and actually exists is not a religion?

Christianity would certainly be inclusive of your question, and yes I do think it's a religion. If you are asking if I think all creation myths are religion, my answer is no.

[Eko]

25. I believe you are misreading the definitions.

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence.
Words you picked out of this one.
reverence. If you notice there was a comma and the the word or after it as in ", or worthy of especial reverence." That means that it is not a requirement. If you read it correctly all of those are not required to be a religion just some of them hence the comma's and the word or. For Deism you can absolutely use "holy", "absolute", "spiritual" and "divine" which are 4 out of 6 a majority. Once again the use of the commas and the word or mean it does not have to be all, for that to be they would have used the word "and".

1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Words you picked out of this one.
service
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
We can disregard service since it is part 1 of definition B, since there are 2 parts to part b that means they are different meanings and either would be correct. In part 2 of definition B we have "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance". Once again we have the word "or" a couple of times in there so we can read it a couple of ways and be correct. "Commitment to a religious faith" or "devotion to a religious faith" or "devotion to a observance" or "commitment to a observance." It is safe to say the Deism is commitment to a religious faith.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion
Words you picked out of this one.
devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
For the whole thing I just need one word, usually as in "usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." You left that part out. That means not all of the time and is not required but can include it.

What do you think makes something a creation myth and not a religion?

[Major Nikon]

26. You have one statement in there I found rather interesting

It is safe to say the Deism is commitment to a religious faith.

Deism is a religion because it's religion. I hope you realize this argument is completely circular, and I hope you'll eventually realize it's exactly wrong besides. You have provided no justification as to why you think the words "holy", "absolute", "spiritual" and "divine" apply to deism, and this isn't surprising because nothing about deism relates to them.

Deism is the idea that a creator can be determined by reason. It is the complete rejection of religious faith as the determinant of the creator. The words you can't manage to parse out of your definitions all apply to faith.

If you think faith applies to deism at all, then I'd suggest you don't understand what deism is. I suggest reading the wiki posting on the subject as a start and hopefully you'll discover faith has exactly nothing to do with deism. Deist intellectuals of the enlightenment were proponents of "natural religion" which despite the word "religion" appearing in the phrase was decidedly anti-religion. They sought to completely remove all elements of religion save the creation myth which they claimed was derived from reason.

What do you think makes something a creation myth and not a religion?

I believe a transcendental donkey got his nuts clapped by two transcendental bricks and yelled so loud it created the big bang. Is this a religion? Of course not. It's nothing more than a creation myth.

[Eko]

27. Ha.

I'm sure Merriam Webster is wrong and you are correct since that was their definition and it without a doubt doesn't say its a religion because its a religion, it says it is because its a commitment to a religious faith.
Of course holy, absolute, spiritual and divine apply to deism. Look up the definitions of each of them. Dont cherry pick the parts that help your case rather use all of the definitions.

I suggest you read your link to wikipedia, there are many places where it contradicts what you are saying.

I'm also sure Thomas Payne did not have a clue what he was talking about.
"There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.

"But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes."

“The only religion that has not been invented, and that has in it every evidence of divine originality, is pure and simple deism. It must have been the first and will probably be the last that man believes. But pure and simple deism does not answer the purpose of despotic governments. They cannot lay hold of religion as an engine but by mixing it with human inventions, and making their own authority a part; neither does it answer the avarice of priests, but by incorporating themselves and their functions with it, and becoming, like the government, a party in the system. It is this which forms the otherwise mysterious connection of Church and State; the Church humane, and the State tyrannic.”(Age of Reason, pg. 186)

He is only one of the most celebrated Deists out there, so Im sure you are right and he is not.

[Major Nikon]

28. Pretty sure I've already told you more than once deism can be a religion

Which is why I am careful to include the qualifier "in the strictest sense" which you summarily ignored despite my repetition of it. There's no short supply of people who have viewed deism as a religion and practice it as such not to mention entire sects of people who have done so throughout history. That doesn't mean religion is inherent to deism, or that subscription to the idea automatically makes it a religion. I'm surprised you didn't offer up Thomas Jefferson who while never identifying as deist most certainly embraced the idea along with many of the religious aspects of Christianity. There were also many other prominent deists like him who were in fact Christian deists who embraced religion rather than rejecting it.

The statement I quoted wasn't Merriam Webster's it was yours. I find it rather shocking you'd try to pass it off as theirs as if this wouldn't be immediately debunked.

Again you are slipping back into your misleading intellectual arguments also with the claim that because you can find one deist who merely mentioned the word religion in what was obviously a placeholder comparison to Christianity, I must be wrong and not agree with them. These bush-league banal tactics are utter bullshit an entertaining them further will only serve to grant them some level of acceptance which is completely undeserved. Unlike you, my assurance that I am done here means I'm done. Feel free to have the last word as such things seem to be vitally important to you, but as my interest in your discussion on this subject is done in this thread you can be also assured I'm not going to read it.

Cheers!

[Eko]

29. Cheers.

[Eko]

21. If you have some better scources for the definition for religion

then please share.

[brewens]

4. It's okay to live like shit, because after you're dead, it's all roses and cake forever.

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2020, 03:53 AM - Edit history (1)

I always thought that was a pretty convenient line to feed people you are exploiting.

[safeinOhio]

6. Locus of Control

https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/locus-of-control

Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966) is a construct that is said to be part of our personality. It is a continuum which runs from a strong external locus of control at one end of the continuum to a strong internal locus of control at the other end.
The basic idea of locus of control is that it describes the extent an individual feels in control of what happens to them and the extent to which they, as an individual, can affect their life.

A strong external locus of control describes when someone believes what happens to them is luck or fate and that they are not in control of their life; it is all due to external forces in their environment (for example other people).

A strong internal locus of control describes someone who believes they are in control of what happens to them

As an example imagine ‘Danielle’ does not do well in an examination. She may say that it is because she didn’t work hard enough, and should have revised more. This would mean she has an internal locus of control because she sees herself as to blame for the failure. Conversely, she could say that it was because the teacher couldn’t teach and the exam was not fair. This would suggest that she has an external locus of control and sees external reasons for the failure.

[SheltieLover]

8. In fact, religion is a sociopolitical control mechanism

[rampartc]

9. "opiate of the peopls" marx

[keithbvadu2]

10. Religion and politics use each other to gain power and wealth.