Imagine no Religion...
By
Roberto Diego
You can Read the Entire Book
On This Website
133 Pages Price Free
Copyright 2008 Roberto Diego. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any manner without the written permission of the copyright holder.
Below is the Introduction to this earth shattering book. To order click on the order form link. Special: The next ten copies of this book are free.
Table of Contents
AcknowledgementSee below
Foreword See below
Chapter 2. Modern Cultural Paradigms
Chapter 3. The Principle of Progressive Benignity
Chapter 6. How Does Altruism Feel?
Chapter 7. The Psychology of Collectivism
Chapter 8. The War against the Ego
Chapter 9. The Psychology of Moral Triangulation Link coming soon
Chapter 10. The Influence of the Enlightenment Link coming soon
Chapter 11. A Culture in Moral Crisis Link coming soon
Chapter 12. The Tyranny of Organized Religion – Cult as Culture Link coming soon
Chapter 13. The Separation of Church and State Link coming soon
Chapter 14. Is Religion the Foundation of Society? Link coming soon
Chapter 15. Rationalism Link coming soon
Chapter 16. Cynicism and Chauvinism Link coming soon
Chapter 17. Definition of Religion Link coming soon
Chapter 18. Curing Man Link coming soon
Chapter 19. Disenfranchising Unreason Link coming soon
The disenfranchisement of religious cultural leaders Link coming soon
The disenfranchisement of the Suffering Savior paradigm Link coming soon
The disenfranchisement of the good/evil paradigm Link coming soon
The disenfranchisement of the chorus (collectivism) Link coming soon
The enfranchisement of the ego Link coming soon
The establishment of reason Link coming soon
Prologue Link coming soon
The author would like to acknowledge an intellectual debt to novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand as well as philosopher Leonard Peikoff. Over many years, I have been a student of the philosophy of Objectivism that was originated by Ms. Rand. I have found the principles identified by Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff invaluable to my intellectual development. In particular, Objectivism’s identification of the importance of reason; the identification of the principles of an objective reality and the primacy of existence have been central to my own development. Ms. Rand’s and Dr. Peikoff’s identification of rationalism and intrinsicism as fallacies inherent in religion, in particular, were also important to the writing of this book.
The author asserts that he is
not a spokesperson for the philosophy of Objectivism. I am responsible for my
own interpretations of history in this book. I would also like to distinguish
very clearly a division between Ms Rand’s philosophy and the development, by the
author, of the concept of cultural paradigms and the principle of progressive
benignity that were originated by the author and not by any other thinker.
“When a philosophy is reduced to an ingredient in the materials of a culture, the philosophic significance of the doctrines which are preserved in the form of common beliefs, or opinions, or forms of speech is all but forgotten.” – Richard McKeon – “The Basic Works of Aristotle”
With the publication of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand in the 1950s, many early readers of the novel felt that the culture would change drastically once the book became widely distributed and read. It was felt that Ayn Rand had made such a compelling case for the value of reason in man’s life, that most intelligent people would reexamine their basic premises and begin to foster reason, freedom and individual rights. The disappointment for these people came when the culture did not change appreciably; in fact, the book was widely ridiculed in academia, misrepresented and very often ignored. Although Ayn Rand herself did not expect the culture to change immediately to any significant degree, many of her followers could not understand why her ideas made little difference in the culture. They had failed to understand the ability of the prevailing culture to cloud peoples’ minds to new ideas.
When an entrenched, anti-reason culture is presented with new ideas that challenge its fundamental premises, it relies on the power of what is taken as knowledge in the culture in order to defend itself. Indeed, when corrupt ideas are accepted as knowledge, as firm, people will not readily accept new, better ideas. In fact, those new ideas will be seen as false by many people because the entrenched ideas that are being challenged have a feeling of being obvious. Indeed, as I will show, when the prevailing culture is dominated by ideas such as rationalism, faith and collectivism, these ideas take on the power of a self-imposed cultural dictatorship, a non-reception system that blocks any idea that challenges the established ones.
Further, the entrenched culture of our time has established and perpetuated what are called “role paradigms” in which people learn to invest their lives. Philosophy is essentially a normative study and because so, when reason is precluded as an option, people can only fall back on normative role paradigms as guides to action. These roles are based upon reenacting the lives of the gods that are presumed to exist or to have existed. Since those examples are based upon religion and taught to children before they are able to judge for themselves, they work subconsciously to affect habitual action and are seldom accessed by the thinking mind. Until and unless those paradigms of action, otherwise known as rituals, are openly challenged, there will be no change in the culture.
Indeed, when a compatible set of cultural institutions dominate a society, the culture is affected in ways that are difficult to monitor. Our particular cultural context is replete with institutions that have controlled most of man’s societies for centuries. In fact, the dominant culture today, which is religion, possesses the power of precedence, the ability to set the terms of debate and thereby extricate itself, through propaganda, from being identified as the source of many human problems.
There is a cultural clash in our society today. This clash started with the U.S. Constitution which advanced the separation of church and state in government. The Founding Fathers recognized that religion had a history of dominance and tyranny; and they knew that many of their fellow Americans had fled to the new world in order to escape religious intolerance in Europe. Indeed, many religious denominations in the new world had emigrated en masse in order to escape the demands, intrusions and persecutions of European governments that enforced other forms of religion. The wilderness of the North American continent gave these believers refuge from the intolerance of Europe and, when our new government was founded, many saw that the separation of church and state would enable them to openly worship God in their own unique way without governmental intrusions.
The result of the separation of church and state, and the other freedoms acknowledged by the Constitution, was a secular culture where individuals enjoyed the freedom to think, say and do what they wanted. These freedoms made possible something that no other government in the history of the world had made possible: the pursuit of happiness. Because the mind of man had been liberated, inventors were allowed to practice the inductive method that was championed by such illustrious men of the past as Galileo, Bacon and others and, over time, they began creating giant industries that revolutionized and improved peoples’ lives. The resulting capitalist system enabled these men to develop huge amounts of investment capital and over time peoples’ lives were made even more comfortable, clean and enjoyable by the large industries that were created. The employees of American industry began to demand even more products as they strove to learn new methods of production and took leadership positions in industry themselves. In addition, they exerted the right to influence their government and determine the goals and priorities of society. The result was a new kind of individual, a secular individual who was better educated and better informed; an individual who was important in his own right and interested in maintaining economic freedom in order to protect the political and economic environment where he could continue to pursue the American dream.
Through out the history of our nation, religion thrived because there was no authority for religious persecution, no need for people in a free country to engage in religious conflict. Since no religion was able to take control of government, it could not persecute and destroy other religions and it could not demand that all people tithe for the sake of the poor. The power of religion to exert political power was eliminated. No single religion was the ruling authority as had been the case for centuries in Europe and other continents. Religion was an option for people, not a requirement, and each religion had to use persuasion in order to grow. No religion could legislate itself into power. Religious people could stay in the same religious denomination generation after generation while others could change their religious affiliation weekly if they chose to do so. This was unprecedented in history and it was caused by the new secular nature of society, by the individuation of each American, by his right to choose. Indeed, the new trend in our society was a trend toward individual self-reliance and individual thinking.
As time went on, the new movements developing in Europe toward dictatorship took hold and began influencing America. The result for Europe was fascism and communism. Fostered by potential dictators; these systems uprooted whatever democratic experiments were in place. They led to racism, genocide, war and the present state of the world. In America, eventually we saw the emergence of socialists, who early on sought to transform our society through labor unions and legislation into a socialist utopia with fierce political resistance from conservatives and a public that saw socialism as antithetical to freedom and capitalism. The Democrats eventually came to see that socialist ideas were a way of buying votes while the early Republicans disapprovingly saw them as a means for the destruction of freedom.
This struggle between liberals and conservatives persisted for most of the 20th Century and dominates the present century as well. The socialists have transformed themselves into the present crop of progressives who no longer talk about their socialist roots but advance the principles of socialism nonetheless. The far left has moved closer to fostering anarchy by advancing such ideas as American imperialism which led to their successful ending of the Vietnam War and their efforts to end the War in Iraq. On the domestic front, the progressives cynically seek more entitlement programs as a way to continue buying votes while “neocons” on the conservative side do the same in order to take issues away from the dominant progressives.
A new “conservative” movement arose during the latter part of the last century called the religious right. This movement was an effort to create a society dominated by the Christian religion. It sought to attack the secular nature of our society and undermine the separation of church and state. It reinterpreted the intentions of the Founding Fathers and insisted that they never wanted a society where religion could not have political power. It also put forward the idea that our society had really been founded upon religion, ignoring the fact that our society was founded as a secular society with proof of that in the Bill of Rights. In addition, they have taken the deceptive tactic of interpreting many events in the recent history of our nation as attacks on the freedom of religion when in fact they are merely efforts to maintain or expand the separation of church and state. This new “religious right,” through these tactics, has brought religion to the forefront and has even captured the tacit agreement of a President of the United States.
All throughout the history of our nation, when religion was outlawed in the public arena, we were essentially a secular society. But, in my view, there has always been an undercurrent of religious cultural domination. Religion was entrenched because it ruled people through culturally established role paradigms that entrenched religious morality. Where people were rational and inductive in their work lives, where they individuated themselves as independent thinkers economically, many were still ruled morally by religion on Sunday. And this dominance of the culture by religion has worked to undermine the freedoms of our society by providing the precedent for exploitation of man through the philosophy of altruism, the idea that man’s moral imperative is that he sacrifice for others. This idea has worked to slowly undermine freedom and the pursuit of happiness and turned man’s government against him through legalized theft. It has also given religious leaders a platform for clouding peoples’ minds about what is actually being done to them.
Religious institutions dominate our culture today, bringing with them an antipathy to both reason and secular society. Religion is antithetical to a free society because it encourages man to disrespect everything that is important to him on a personal level; his mind, the ego, survival and the possibility of objective morality. By expressing a hatred of the individual, religious institutions make the life of every individual uncomfortable and guilt-ridden. They teach him that he is not important; but more than this, they create for him a number of cognitive mistakes that destroy his efficacy in the world. Religionists are once again demanding political power, increasing their attacks against secularists and yearning for a day when they will once again control the world.
During the last few decades, another religion has been gaining influence. The Muslim religion is based upon the belief that God talked to a 7th Century man and ordered him to make war against infidels and create a new world power. After centuries of strife and warfare, this religion held sway in many parts of the world with Christianity as its avowed enemy. In modern times, the religious leaders in several Muslim countries became influenced by the propaganda of the now defunct communist philosophy and began to propagandize that the United States represented evil on earth. They accused it of seeking an “Empire” through free trade, modern inventions and a massive war machine. They bought into this myth about America and because of the ascetic nature of their own religion, they disapproved of the secular nature of our society, and they declared a war against infidels which meant a war against capitalism, freedom and secularism.
One of the key facts to note about what are called “radical” Muslims is that they do not advocate freedom for man. They are not inclusive, tolerant or benevolent. They are dictatorial…they intend to rule and in order to rule, they must destroy everything that the United States and any secular country stands for. This is presented as a product of their piety, their utter devotion to (their faith in) God and the charter that was inaugurated by their prophet to rule the world. This blind faith is supposed to indicate the rightfulness of their cause and many in the West have no answer to it because our society contains many people that have the same blind faith in their Christian God. In effect, Christians have no answer to Muslim ruthlessness because they see Muslims as devoted to their cause and the rightfulness of it.
Indeed, the Muslim “radicals” see only ruthlessness as the path toward victory; they idealize total self-sacrifice and there is nothing in their philosophy that bears any resemblance to secularism, tolerance of differing views and especially the pursuit of happiness. There is only the right to the pursuit of death. They are fascists that interpret the efforts of the West to defend itself as an attack on their “freedom” and their “right” to sacrifice themselves to their god. When you hear arguments about what the West has done to Palestinian people, you will never hear from them that they intend to make life better for the Palestinians because they don’t intend to do so. They intend to destroy the West with no concern about the drudgery and misery they seek to impose on people. They have every intention of imposing that drudgery; it is a tenet of their faith that man should suffer. They are killers and murderers, not because they want freedom, but because killing and murdering is what they have convinced themselves their god demands, and as dutiful “suffering saviors” they will do it with relish. Indeed, if they get enjoyment from life, if they share any pleasure among one another, it is the enjoyment they get from killing infidels.
This religion of Islam has all the premises of many religions as they existed prior to the Enlightenment and it brings to the modern world the idea of total self-sacrifice of the individual – especially a total disregard for the value of the individual life and a total dedication to a mystically invented god. They intend to make us into Muslims or else they will kill us. They have already offered us the opportunity to “convert” while warning us of the dire consequences of not subjugating ourselves to their god. Those dire consequences are indeed nuclear in nature.
The result of the influence of Islam and the weak response to it by Christians in the West is a drifting toward brute force for man all over the world. A culture of faith and self-sacrifice can only yield to someone who would impose that faith and demand that self-sacrifice under the pretext of advancing the “good.” If we are to avoid this future, we must countenance the promise of a secular society and we must learn what it means to protect individual rights. We must learn that the effort to fight for freedom is more than just a matter of disagreement with religious zealots; it is a matter of life and death for mankind; a matter of fighting for the good against a truly sinister evil – the very evil that existed before the creation of our secular society. We must learn that the rights of man are more than just a difference of opinion; they are universal principles that, once lost, mean the loss of everything sacred to man. Without this knowledge we will fail against the encroachments of religion.
This book seeks to develop a foundation for understanding religious culture, and through this understanding, free men from oppressive institutions that have given only misery and exploitation. To imagine no religion is to take a perspective that understands the influences of both religious cultural institutions and mythology on modern society. This book focuses both on understanding the cultural and psychological consequences of religion and on discovering the intellectual alternatives as they are found both in reason and the natural world. It seeks, in effect, to separate what was always there about man, the best within him, from those institutions that have wrongly positioned themselves as authorities on his nature and morality.
The author understands fully the nature of the discussion in this book. Among many today it is considered an insult to discuss or criticize religion. Many believe that God can’t be questioned, that only Christ-haters would stoop to discuss religion critically. I would like state that this book represents a philosophical analysis of our religious culture. That some people consider it an insult to disagree with religion is unfortunate, but that view is indeed, the problem of religion, and it is the reason why it must be fought and defeated by reason. Religion brings moral coercion into man’s life and this very coercion is why it must be discussed openly.
Indeed, the view that religion should not be criticized holds that we have learned all there is to learn and that we can correctly conclude that religion is good, positive and fruitful for man. I maintain that no institution is beyond criticism because all institutions are the products of man’s mind. To study them, analyze them and disagree with them is the hallmark of learning. It is time that religious people stopped persecuting those that disagree with them by calling them haters and devils. A civil discourse requires a mind open to reality and to the real-world consequences of all ideas held by man, including those fostered by religion.
In order find freedom from religion, the first order of business is to define the term culture. A culture is the sum of the dominant ideas of the society as they are reflected in metaphysics, epistemology, moral premises, and in our time, role paradigms. Culture represents the values, actions, concepts, art and other institutions that dominate and set the terms of interaction among all individuals.
A culture can also be described as the personality of the society. Indeed, much of our cultural influences come from ancient religions and societies that developed out of centuries of “pre-history,” a time when little was put into writing and most knowledge was communicated from parent to child using moral messages and stories of fantastic deities and their adventures. These stories, throughout history, have supplied the essential “moods” of the culture, its feelings, actions, expressions; and they provide the foundation for organizing them into our modern religions.
Today, it is essential that the thinking individual become both a critic of religious culture and a challenger of the basic premises that have given it dominance through the generations. For this, we need a new culture of reason, discussion and better ideas, a culture that is open to scrutiny and discourse. This new culture rejects the arbitrary, the unproven and the mindless. It does not need storm troopers who unthinkingly riot in the streets and bully people. It requires intellectuals that think and question. We do not need criticism of man but criticism of dominant culture so that man can live for positive values.
Philosophical discourse is the unabashed search for truth, certainty and morality. The cultural critic does not cower under the arbitrary assertions of those who claim that we can’t be certain of anything. He does not cower beneath the false assertions that the problems of the world are caused by pride and egoism and that we must stop living selfishly. He does not cower beneath the false assertions that the purpose of life is to live for others. Instead, he openly looks at these assertions and understands them for what they are: lies. This is because he has learned that any idea originated in the ineffable and un-provable has no place in human cognition.
The cultural critic recognizes that it is possible to go beyond religion and atheism. It is possible to imagine a world with no religion. He is not an atheist because he realizes that in a future time, there will be a different perspective that does not see things as “a-anything”; where the search for knowledge is not a challenge to a deity but a search for an understanding of existence. This individual will not be stopped cold by criticism and hatred when he seeks the best within himself. He will learn that not accepting a deity is against nothing but is just a proper way of thinking.
This book is the result of several decades of study of a number of fields including anthropology, psychology, religion, mythology and philosophy. One key principle that I have discovered is called the principle of progressive benignity. This is the idea that, over the millennia, before what we consider historical times, as man both confronted religion and struggled to make sense of its requirements, he progressed by means of cultural rationalization, from early brutal practices, that might, for example, have demanded human sacrifice, and, in stages, moved to a more benign form of the original demand such as progressive taxation or other “giving” forms of sacrifice in order to hopefully satisfy the demands of the gods and their “representatives.” Through the principle of progressive benignity, what was once myth became ritual practice and then the modern religious moral code of self-sacrifice. The beginning of that compromise with religion in the Western World was Plato’s philosophy of ideals. Indeed, throughout history, man’s inherent humanity, in the face of religious domination, and his ability to think, led him inevitably toward creating more personal, less destructive expressions of early brutal religious practices, from cruelty toward more benign daily rituals, a form of religion with which he thought he could live. Each expression of progressive benignity, for example, amounted to the question: “Do I really have to sacrifice my first born? Why would a just god demand that? Why can’t I give a goat?” Through a process like this, the demand of religion for human sacrifice became charity and progressive taxation.
Finally, I’d like to point out that this book does not single out Christianity. It seeks to elaborate the basic premises of all major religions including Islam. As we will show, in the U.S., Christian dominance has been minimized in power by the separation clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, other religions, such as Islam, that were not influenced by the Enlightenment, have maintained their murderous militancy and their goal of world domination. Indeed, the very idea of secularism is what Islam seeks to obliterate. The result is that Islam tends to be more militant and more dangerous because it does not feel itself bound by the limits of a secular society. We cannot exempt it from this study.
This book seeks to establish the premise that loving life, pleasure, reason and the human animal are ideas that should be engaged without guilt and fear. There is no guilt for man in learning to survive, to use intellectual abilities, to enjoy the vast array of pleasures that the human body and mind are capable of enjoying. There is no guilt, and no evil, in questioning the negative foundations of our societies: faith, self-sacrifice and illogic. There is no guilt in thinking clearly and in rising above the intellectual laziness that cultural leaders want for men. And finally, there is no guilt; indeed, there is courage and honesty and integrity, in looking at our cultural foundations; to finally, after centuries of acceptance, ask the questions: “Why?” “What for?” and “By what standard?” There is no guilt in going beyond religion and atheism. We can, indeed, imagine no religion.
– Roberto Diego
To receive the full manuscript go to
We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Diners Club and Discover Card.
| Roberto Diego |