Charlemagne's biographer Einhard, a monk, noted without comment that Charlemagne had children by eight different women. Charlemagne was one of the founders, if not the founder, of the secular-sacred partnership that made the Papacy and Catholic Church what they later became, and the church was not going to say anything. Einhard also noted that when Charlemagne's brother died mysteriously, his widow seemed angry for some reason and fled to Venice. This puzzled Einhard.

As far as I can tell, lay Catholicism consisted of respect and support for the church, affirmation of dogma, and rituals such as prayers, the creed, fasts, and confession. Good behavior was only minimally expected.

One point here: all the individuals you cite are very powerful. I imagine that a life of getting what they wanted all the time probably left very little room to develop the ability to critically examine their actions.
I agree partially with your general point, but one way to understand religion that many atheists find helpful is to think of any belief or identity you were brought up with and had presented to you as profound and unchallenged truth throughout your formative years, whether it's a political outlook, a view of a prticular person or event or a national identity. Most people find such mental heirlooms very difficult to dispose of. For example, I had socialist values drummed into me throughout my childhood and I simply cannot get rid of the set of reflexes and prejudices this instilled in me, even though in terms of rational political thought I've moved away from socialism. Richard Dawkins suggested that the propensity for religion might be an extension of a natural, and evolutionarily highly beneficial, human trait to irreversibly accept any information presented to you as a child, and I think he may have a point.

"Mens' hearts are easily divided and simultaneously sincere in their inclinations."

"How I believe I will behave."

--This was a wonderfully written post.

Religion is a form of group identity. People join religions because they seek to be part of a group. They want to belong to a community.

Most atheists, particularly transhumanist types (like me), are very individualistic and so wrapped up in their individualism that they do not understand intuitively the desire that many people have for being a part of a group or community.

If you accept the idea of religion being group identity, it is very easy to see how one can be tempted by and to give into vice while at the same time maintaining one's religious beliefs.

At least that's how I see it.

Quote: "As you know James II lost his throne because of his sincere Roman Catholicism"

Err, no. If you had to summarise the reasons for his fall in one sentence it would better be 'He lost his throne because he alienated almost the entire English political classes, through his lack of political skill in national and international dealings.'

natural, and evolutionarily highly beneficial, human trait to irreversibly accept any information presented to you as a child, and I think he may have a point
Trivers explained that it is NOT so beneficial to be so malleable. Judith Harris elaborates in the Nurture Assumption. Religion is really the exception that proves the rule.

'He lost his throne because he alienated almost the entire English political classes, through his lack of political skill in national and international dealings.'

necessary, but not sufficient. he had an opportunity to reclaim the throne via tory support if he converted. but i'm not an expert on this, only read a few books. can you offer a scholarly cite?

The primary function of religion and of almost any secular ideology is to divide the world into friends and enemies. Especially in times of conflict the best catholic is not the one who turns the second cheek to the heretical protestants, but the one who does not hesitate to break the sixth commandment in defense of his church.

James was the true Defender of the Faith. Compared to that having a mistress is small penny. By the way there was a malicious rumor running about him that to mortify his flesh he always chose only ugly women as his mistresses. After reading about Gandi’s (another pillar of spirituality) exploits, I’m not sure if this can be dismissed as pure slander.

The primary function of religion and of almost any secular ideology is to divide the world into friends and enemies.

at the level of the group/population, yes.

By the way there was a malicious rumor running about him that to mortify his flesh he always chose only ugly women as his mistresses.

yes, i've read that. i wonder if alcoholic muslims drink only PBR.... ;-)

About this wine thing - is it possible that at certain stages in its history, "Islam" regarded wine as a foodstuff? This is so in Judaism, which is why laws of kashrut apply to it, but not to hard liquor, which is not considered food.

Babur was also a pederast. I remember reading a poem he wrote about a boy lover of his. I doubt that is okay in Islam.

Babur was also a pederast. I remember reading a poem he wrote about a boy lover of his. I doubt that is okay in Islam.

there is *some* ambiguity as to whether that relationship alluded to in the poems became physical. though it seems unlikely that babur never had same-sex contact, so to speak ;-)

"Islam" regarded wine as a foodstuff?

this was in the first 3 muslim centuries (re: caliphs), and sharia was still forming, so it isn't impossible. though the written references suggest that some courtiers objected to being forced to drink wine in order to curry favor because of religious qualms.

About your main point: I am generally in agreement with you. Scientists generally model the human belief and behavior as some sort of formal-logic based symbol manipulator, with the axioms derived via induction. I think it is a fair approximation for broad predictions, but far from an exact model. I am really not sure how humans think, except that most human thinking seems to be intuitive and inexact, with no one checking for soundness or consistency. If I had to bet, I'd say it is some sort of massive artificial neural network, but I don't have any clear thoughts on this.

Also, ambiguity in thinking is very useful for getting along in the real world. Following all premises to logical conclusions is the sure recipe to becoming a social misfit.

Kurt9,
I think you may be on to something about religion fulfilling a need for group identity. I think atheists and transhumanists should easily grasp the concept, because those are groups too, just different groups.

I think atheists and transhumanists should easily grasp the concept, because those are groups too.

This is certainly true. But most transhumanists do not think like this. I think like this only because I lived as an expat in Asia for 10 years and became quite comfortable with the tribal nature that 95% of the human race has in spades.

Certainly transhumanism could be prevalent in a few of the city-states that will be a part of the 1,000 state sovereignty model that the world will become in the next few decades.

I second the thoughts of Kosmo (this was a wonderfully written post) and Kurt9 (although I'm a Christian). The need to belong to a group is very strong - why not one as seemingly benign as a church?

Tom on the rez.

"the 1,000 state sovereignty model that the world will become in the next few decades"

Dream on, Kurt! Perhaps you can tell us which territorial nation-states are going to devolve or disgovern themselves so as to let this happen?

Perhaps you can tell us which territorial nation-states are going to devolve or disgovern themselves so as to let this happen?

India, Russia, and Indonesia are likely (these are all empires). China somewhat less likely (also an empire). Perhaps Brazil as well.

Do realize that 80% of the world still has political boundaries that are left over colonial administrative boundaries. Places where the political boundaries have no correlation with tribal identities. Also realize that family - clan - tribe is the usual form of social organization for most of the human race and that its a very tribal world out there. Ralph Peters puts it best when he says that the post-colonial period has just begun.

Since when do atheists expect the religious to act rationally? I don't even operate rationally all of the time and I'm actually making an effort.

The religious pretty much get free pass to irrationality land. Why expect them to act consistently with their beliefs?

I have yet to meet a person who doesn't operate contrary to their professed "beliefs" on a regular basis. I've run into leather wearing animal rights motivated vegetarians, anti-war pacifists advocating the execution of neocons, and objectivists with a irrational religious furvor that would put a moonie to shame, people who think the world is over populated having kids, etc.

In fact, we are fundamentally irrational, even the best of us. I know from personal experience that my most fundamental desires, the things that motivate my behavior, are often not predicated on rationality or consistency with my belief system. All that pretty much went out the window with puberty.

Here you are criticizing a guy for having a bunch of mistresses? Are you kidding me? I hold some deeply held beliefs that are not consistent with having a harem, but given the opportunity without consequences, you betcha.

brian, great job at saying a lot of nothing :-)

About whether "pederasty" is endemic to Muslim cultures... has it ever occurred to anyone (probably, but rhetoricism helps for emphasis) that maybe "boys" (more likely young homosexuals and trannies) perform function for the most wide-spread "vice" (extra-marital sex) in Islamic cultures that in others (e.g. the British) prostitutes perform for the simple reason that these cultures have great difficulty in accepting that status for women?

Quite a few of those cultures keep women in movable tents even when they are married or somebody's virgin daughter or sister. I know that in the Ottoman culture, they had great difficulty even accepting female theater performers in the 19th century, so most of those that were around were of Armenian, Greek or "donmeh" origin.

Some data could help here.

--

Another entirely unrelated thing which could also use the aid of statistics: the legal status of women in courts. Sharia courts accept two female witnesses for every one male witness.

Has anyone checked, cross-culturally, the frequency and variability of cases involved what could be termed cases of "misrepresentation" or "fraud." We expect most violent crimes to be committed by males, but few people these days would stand up and say (even if it were fully backed by data) "the majority of cases involving accomplices or alleged-witnesses lying involve females."

This is just a hunch, based on human nature and its tendencies. Don't shout me down with accusations of "sexism."

"India, Russia, and Indonesia are likely (these are all empires). China somewhat less likely (also an empire). Perhaps Brazil as well."

You're just making this up (Brazil?). Even if you added up all the remotely plausible possibilities for secession in the countries you list, you wouldn't have anywhere near 100 new states, let alone the 800 new states you need to reach 1000.

We are in an era of thriving nationalism as formerly Third World countries acquire the trappings of national power, such as cash reserves, modern weaponry, and an industrial base. That process is not assisted by breaking up the state.