Introduction
There can be no doubt as to the fact that religion played an important role in shaping up socio-political realities, ever since the dawn of history. In its turn, this allows the proponents of religious worldview on culture and science to suggest that people’s tendency to indulge in theological arguments, has inborn qualities. However, when we take a closer look at religion, from the Evolutionary theory’s point of view, it will appear that religion is nothing but one among many aspects, associated with the process of humanity acquiring new existential qualities.
Main body
Homo Sapiens is the specie in the state of continuous evolutionary transition. Therefore, within a context of Evolutionary theory, religion is being viewed as simply the element of continuously evolved humans striving to attain a higher state of consciousness. However, under no circumstances can we suggest that religion has innate subtleties – its existence simply reflects the transitional essence of humankind as intermediary link between apes and super-men. In his book “The Descent of Man”, Charles Darwin states: “There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. On the contrary there is ample evidence, derived not from hasty travelers, but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods” (Darwin, 1871). We can say – apes do not need the religion “yet”, whereas super-men do not need religion “already”. Therefore, we can refer to religion as necessary, but counter-productive element of human evolution. Science might not have answers to all questions, but the answers it has are absolutely veritable, whereas religion does not contain even a single answer to any question of socio-political importance. “Holy fathers” understand this fact very well, which is why it is religion that resorts to science, in order to substantiate its own dogmas, and not the other way around, as it is being illustrated by the emergence of so-called “scientific creationism”, which is nothing but an old Christian nonsense, inside of a scientific wrapper. Thus, the natural question, deriving out of our understanding of religion as spiritual extrapolation of people’s psychological inadequateness, would sound as follows: if it is clear that religion does not benefit people, why many of them continue to cling to it with all their might? Apparently, the answer to this question does not lay solemnly in the field psychology of biology, but also sociology. As Emil Durkheim in his work “The Human Meaning of Religion” had rightly suggested: “The existence of individual cults (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism…) implies nothing which contradicts or embarrasses the sociological interpretation of religion; for the religious forces to which it addresses itself are only the individualized forms of collective forces. Therefore, even when religion seems to be entirely within the individual conscience, it is still in society that finds the living source from which it is nourished” (Durkheim, p. 74).There is an extensive evidence as to the fact that religion cannot be discussed as “thing in itself”, as particularities of religious dogmas directly correspond to socio-biological characteristics of people, among which these dogmas had proven their historical vitality. The reading of Max Weber’s famous work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, comes in particularly handy, within a context of exposing religion (namely Protestantism), as such that derives out of objective socio-political reality, which in its turn, is absolutely rational in its very essence: “A glance at the occupational statistics of any country of mixed religious composition brings to light with remarkable frequency a situation which has several times provoked discussion in the Catholic press and literature, and in Catholic congresses in Germany, namely, the fact that business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labour, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, are overwhelmingly Protestant” (Weber, p. 30). The emergence of Protestantism in Europe corresponded to the fact that, from 16th century onwards, more and more people in Europe were realising themselves as being fully capable of utilising their rationale, as the tool of gaining social prominence, rather then relying on “God’s graces”, as Catholics do. Protestants do not need God as their ultimate benefactor, but rather as some distant authority that does not intervene in their lives actively, as Protestants have grown to realize a very simple fact that material riches do not fall out of sky and that one needs to work hard, in order to achieve a financial prosperity. This is the reason why Protestants believe that that it is when they are being fully self-reliant that makes God to love them. This provides us with the insight onto the fact that the emergence of religious doctrines might not be as “mysterious”, as proponents of these doctrines would like us to believe. Moreover, the close analysis of religious dogmas, reveals them as what they really are – the tools of extracting money out naïve people, the instruments of social oppression and ultimately the “entropy’s weapon”, because religions appear to be capable of reversing the course of biological evolution backwards. This thesis will be illustrated later in the paper.
Today’s Christians try their best to “cleanse” Christianity of its historical guilt for the countless atrocities that were being committed in the name of “Son of Man”, by suggesting that Bible was being wrongly interpreted, for which they should have been burned at the stake as heretics, because the Bible’s “commandments” in regards to the treatment of slaves, women and “goyims” are absolutely clear: “And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.” (Exodus 21:5-6). The “good book” does not only condone slavery, but implies that freeing slaves constitutes a highly immoral act. Throughout the centuries, Christian priests used to instill their “lambs of the herd” with the spirit of social compliance, while suggesting that their refusal to provide donations to the Church will result in them being cast into the lake of fire. And there is absolutely no mystery as to why would Christian leaders strive to spread the “good news” to as many people as possible – it is all about money, as always. The members of Christian clergy are nothing but parasites, which enjoy numerous social advantages, such as being exempted from having to pay taxes, simply because they claim to be representatives of God on Earth.
Nowadays, it became a statement of good taste to discuss the confrontation between Christianity and Islam as “war of civilizations”. The Bible thumpers strive to oppose Islam to Christianity, without the sought that both religions have the same spiritual roots never occurring to them. The reason why it is namely Christianity and Islam that we traditionally associate with fundamental lack of tolerance can be explained by the fact that both religions are of Semitic origin. Semitic perception of divinity, apart from being monotheistic in its essence, implies the existence of “chosen people”, who are in favor with God, and “unbelievers”, who deserve to be exterminated. For example, Bible specifically requires believers to engage in acts of genocide against those who failed to embrace the “shining truth”: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27). There are many similar “pearls” can be found in Koran as well, because both “holy books” were originally meant to appeal to the existential psyche of Jews, who are known for their tendency to refer to representatives of other nations as “goyims”, which literally means – cattle. If we look at the history of Islam and Christianity, it will appear that only the psychologically deviated people used to be attracted to these religions the most. For example, Thomas Torquemada – the head of Spanish Inquisition in 16th century, when burning heretics at the stake was given a status of mass entertainment, was homosexual. The Islamic “holy” prophet Mohammad was 52 when he married his 9 years old “wife” Aisha. According to Koran, men are allowed to indulge in sex with animals, when there are no women around. Anwar Shaikh’s article “Mohammed – a “True Saint”, which is available on the web site of Hindu Unity.Org, contains many factual proofs that allow us to refer to Mohammed as sexual pervert: “For women any sort of sexual exploration is punishable by death. Whereas for a man, any form of perversion is pardoned by the all merciful Allah. Such “fairness” can only be found in the “holiest of the holiest books”, the Koran” (Shaikh, 1989). If we look closer at numerous Christian “saints”, it will appear that the majority of these people suffered from mental inadequateness. They were nothing but sadomasochists who would take a particular pleasure in physical pain being inflicted upon themselves, while following the example of their “guru”, who taught them not to work, not to marry, not to burry the dead and not to wash hands before eating, because “kingdom of heaven was at hand”.
Therefore, it is wrong to think of Christianity and Islam as essentially good religions, while referring to millions of people killed by Inquisition and by practitioners of Jihad, as result of slight deviations from “shining truth”, on the part of Christian and Islamic devotees. These religions were, and continue to be the tools of social, racial and gender oppression. The same can be said about Buddhism, although to significantly lesser extent. Whereas Christianity and Islam can be best defined as Semitic religious worldview that is being adapted to Aryan and Arab mentalities, Buddhism, on the other hand, is best defined as essentially the system of Aryan beliefs, which was being dogmatized by Asians. Unlike Christianity, Buddhism was not being forcibly imposed upon people. Its spreading across South-East Asia followed the establishment of trade roads. During the course of the process, the Buddhism was being transformed from method of achieving self-awareness, to the tool of suppressing one’s desires, as the ultimate mean of eliminating suffering. In recent times, Buddhism started to appeal to more and more people in Western countries. This is because they grow increasingly decadent, just as it was the case with Romans, before they accepted Christianity. Nevertheless, the original spirit of Buddhism corresponds to White people’s mentality more then the Semitic religion of bloodthirsty tribal God Yahweh. The problem is – over the course of millennia, Buddhism was undergoing the process of transformation, which is why it is now often quite impossible to refine this religion’s original essence. Nowadays, Buddhism was being utilized as the tool of social suppression in countries of South-Asia, due to this religion’s lack of inner dynamism, which in its turn, makes it especially appealing to Asians as “people stuck in time”. The quintessence of modern Buddhist teachings is that man needs to strive to adopt a “non-existential” form of existence, which in its turn, implies socio-political activity, on the part of Buddhist, as such that constitutes a sin. Therefore, Buddhism can also be referred to as socially oppressive and counter-productive religion, because it promotes the concept of energetic entropy as the normal state of affairs, thus transgressing the laws of nature.
In his article “Religion as Opium of the People”, Austin Cline makes a perfectly good point when he suggests that it is wrong to refer to the concept of religion as being evil by definition, despite the fact that by doing it, he sounds like a true Marxist: “Religion is not the disease, but merely a symptom. It is used by oppressors to make people feel better about the distress they experience due to being poor and exploited” (Cline, 2007). There are numerous historical examples as to the fact that religion had been extensively utilized to justify the underprivileged status of people suffering from different forms of economic, social or gender oppression. However, makes much more sense to think of religion as supplementary tool of oppression, rather then something from where all the evils of the world originate. It is not their religion that define people who they are, but rather the biological value of such people, which corresponds to the objective properties of a religion, they happen to choose. For example, Arabs have been living by the “word of Allah” for more then 1300 years now, without even trying to adjust Koran to modern realities, unlike Whites, who have been continuously trying to interpret Bible so that the “holy book” would make more sense in their eyes. The reason why the influence of Christianity has been continuously declining, during the course of last few hundred years, is because White race, traditionally associated with this religion, continues to evolve, while other races became fully “specialised” – they can only advance through establishing close contacts with Whites. Nowadays, only senile White folks in “assisted living facilities” posses a genuine belief in Jesus, with overwhelming majority of young Christians thinking of this religion as simply the additional mean of attaining existential comfort. Today, Christianity has largely ceased to be the tool of social oppression, while slowly transforming its essence into one among many dirty businesses (televangelism), unlike Islam, which continues to grow ever-stronger, due to the fat that Arabs are the products of racial mixing, thus representing one among many “dead ends” of human evolution. And it is not the emergence of some new economic reality (after all, we still continue to leave in capitalist society), which had triggered the decline of Christianity, but the fact that White people stand on the brink of new “evolutionary jump”, which will eventually allow them to attain a status of semi-Gods, if they manage to overcome their own existential weakness, instilled in them by proponents of neo-Liberalism. As Friedrich Nietzsche had stated in his prophetic book “Thus Spake Zarathustra”: “All creatures hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and do you want to be the ebb of the great tide, and return to the animals rather than overcome man? What is the ape to men? A laughing stock or a painful embarrassment. And just so shall man be to the Superman: a laughing stock or a painful embarrassment” (Nietzsche, p. 70). Thus, even though that Marxism and Durkheim’s sociology partially explain the properties of religion as the tool of social oppression, they fail to recognise its innate qualities, as simply the reflection of people’s biological makeup. During the course of Russian Bolshevik revolution of 1917, Orthodox churches were being blown up into the air by commissars, with Christians simply standing aside and observing this process in rather unengaged manner. After the collapse of Soviet Union, the former Communists turned into pious Christians, within a matter of one day, as if something absolutely natural. This is because Communism is nothing but Christianity (concept of equality, paradise in distant future, contempt to private property), adapted to the realities of industrial era. In its turn, Christianity is nothing but existential philosophy of slaves with atrophied sense of freedom. The reason why Protestantism (as religion that contradicts the fundamental tenets of original Christianity) became especially popular among Anglo-Saxons, is because these Whites were affected by racial mixing the least, which in its turn, allowed them to “digest” Christianity without much of a harm being done to them, as result. Thus, in order for us to conclude this paper, we need to state that, even though that application of sociological methodology, within a context of analysing religion’s social role is absolutely appropriate, it can hardly provide us with the full understanding of religion as socio-political phenomenon. It is only when we adopt a racially-biological outlook on the issue, that we will be able to view religion as three dimensional category, which relates to biology, physics and psychology, as much as it relates to sociological theories.
Bibliography
Austin, C. “Religion as Opium of the People”. 2007. Web.
Darwin, C. “The Descent of Man”. 1871. Internet Infidels. 2008. Web.
Durkheim, E. (1995) “The Human Meaning of Religion”. NY: Free Press.
Scofield Study Bible. New King James Version (1982). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Shaikh, A. “Mohammed – a “True Saint”. 1989. Hindu Unity. 2008. Web.
Rinpoche, K. “The Three Buddhist Councils”. 2001. Simhanada. 2008. Web.
Nietzsche, F. (1978) “Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for None and All”. London: Penguin.
Weber, M. “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. 2001. University of Virginia. American Studies. 2008. Web.