Belief without the middle men - second version

Belief without the middle men

 George Clark, 29 Nov 2007

We are social animals and thus ruled by 'shoulds' and 'oughts'. There are various options for the source of these. Some of the possibilities (mainly relatively recent euro-american) are briefly outlined in what follows. This leads to a broad mapping of future possibilities which may be with or without a God.

 

1	God è	Pope è	King è	Elite è	People	Catholicism
2			King è	Elite è	People	Divine Right of Kings
3				Elite è	People	Protestantism with an elect
4					People	People's Protestantism
5					çPeople	Mysticism
6	No God				People	Anarchy
7				Elite è	People	Humanism
8			Leader è	Elite è	People	Tyranny
9		UN è	Leader è	Elite è	People	World Government

 

The God options (1-5) - our Father who art in Heaven

1. Catholicism

God tells the Pope (and his priests) who tells the King (and his nobles) who tells the people what the Bible says (and therefore what God's intentions are). The abuses to which such a system lends itself (eg the selling of indulgences)  triggered the Protestant Revolution.

2. Divine Right of Kings

After the Protestant Revolution (and especially after Henry VIII's spilt with Rome in 1534) the Pope was often cut out of the picture. The king and his archbishops, bishops and priests tell the people what the Bible says (and therefore what God's intentions are). Trying to convince people led to much burning at the stake and blood on the streets.

3. Protestantism with an elect.

In 1649 Cromwell executed the King and although the Royalty made it back it was with greatly reduced powers. The state was now run by society's elite. The Bible was available in the languages of the common people but the elect (there were still church officials!) had a large say in its interpretation. Also in 1649 the Levellers were butchered for objecting to this new form of authority. These days in the US we have the rise of the evangelical conservatives.

4. People's Protestantism

Cut out all middle men and make people aware that, through the Bible, they have a personal hotline to God. There have always been freethinkers and non-conformists amongst the faithful. Gentle people like the Quakers, Mormons and Mennonites. These days in the US we have the rise of the evangelical conservatives.

5. Mysticism

Cut out all middle men and even the Bible. Encourage people to be mindful and to meditate such that they experience the indivisible Oneness and thus the peace that passes all understanding. This allows an embrace of the perennial philosophy which has existed in all times and all places. This is arguably the best option if we are to give peace a chance. The mind sciences begin to point to exciting new possibilities in this area.

The no-God Options (6-9) – power to the people

6. Anarchy

Cut out the middle men, the holy books and all thought of a divine force that intervenes. Subsidiarity, devolution and decentralisation put power back in the hands of the people such that they manage their own affairs at the local level. Civil Society has a greater say in what goes on especially through community based organisations. This free market line of thinking is popular in mainstream development rhetoric at the moment.

7. Humanism

This is similar to anarchy except that there is a vanguard of the intellectual and political elite to make sure that the people make the 'right' decisions. 'Reason' must prevail and policy must be evidence based. Much use is made of independent consultants and technical experts.

8. Tyranny

We are social animals and thus might be programmed to be  led by leaders. In the old days there were kings; these days we have charismatic leaders whose ideas may be more or less benevolent.  Many feel that they have been elected to make decisions on behalf of the people (the lumpen proletariat).

9. World Government

Some national leaders go overboard and need to be held in check. An evolved UN system might come to serve this purpose. There is also a need to deal with transnational issues such as corporate power and various environmental problems. This begs the question of who supervises the supervisors.

Notes:

Stages 1 to 3 allow hierarchies of shepherds which of course suggest that people are servile sheep who are dependent and childlike rather than mature and independent.

Stages 1 to 4 involve top down patriarchy and the belief that God is 'other'.

Stage 5 embraces the possibility of experiencing the Unitive state and thus of transpersonal interdependence and interbeing. These have neural correlates.

Stages 6 to 9 are based on 'reason' rather than on divinity. The ultimate authority is thus said to be the people – especially if they are 'well informed' (hegemonised) by the intellectuals, the politicians and the business community.

Stage 6 sees the w ithering away of all external authority other than that of your small, native community. This is an ideal of both Protestants and Marxists. It is perhaps unrealisable in its pure form but might enlighten thinking about decentralisation.

Stage 7 – "Be reasonable, do it my way". Hegemony and elegant power – brainwashing.

Stage 8 – "Do it my way, or else". Brute Force and totalitarianism.

The Future?

It would be nice if, in the future, there was less violence, more social justice and better stewarding of the environment. Much thought is needed to figure how this might come about. There is a continuum of options –

Predetermined, blueprint approach	A middle way	Organic, emergent approach
Top down		Bottom up
a global, super elite (democratically selected?) figures things out and causes the masses to go along with their plans (sacred and/or secular?)		the masses are empowered to change how they themselves think and feel about the purpose in life and the best way to live (sacred and/or secular?)

 

Whichever option is chosen there is the question of 'agency'. Who acts and for what reason? How might the people and their elites develop appropriate 'shoulds' and 'oughts'?