edgecase_datafeed 181 2020-09-27 This is the date at the time of creation of this datafeed article. A checkpoint article containing a hash of this datafeed article may be created on this date or at a later date. 144 9 2020-05-28 bitcoin b27618deae05910f529240cc6960aeb87f017b12d302327253ee893825ce2bd4 632100 1HtwyqFWNVDoSEVqZwjBRRAV2oEsi8aQXr 13MfGs39pR5aEK4iKdoLjVYXKwi6Y3uyPq
The_Worship_of_Man_by_Yuval_Noah_Harari stjohn_piano 2020-07-26 no The Worship of Man The last 300 years are often depicted as an age of growing secularism, in which religions have increasingly lost their importance. If we are talking about theist religions, this is largely correct. But if we take into consideration natural-law religions, then modernity turns out to be an age of intense religious fervour, unparalleled missionary efforts, and the bloodiest wars of religion in history. The modern age has witnessed the rise of a number of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to themselves as ideologies. But this is just a semantic exercise. If a religion is a system of human norms and values that is founded on belief in a superhuman order, then Soviet Communism was no less a religion than Islam. Islam is of course different from Communism, because Islam sees the superhuman order governing the world as the edict of an omnipotent creator god, whereas Soviet Communism did not believe in gods. But Buddhism too gives short shrift to gods, and yet we commonly classify it as a religion. Like Buddhists, Communists believed in a superhuman order of natural and immutable laws that should guide human actions. Whereas Buddhists believe that the law of nature was discovered by Siddhartha Gautama, Communists believed that the law of nature was discovered by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The similarity does not end there. Like other religions, Communism too has its holy scripts and prophetic books, such as Marx's Das Kapital, which foretold that history would soon end with the inevitable victory of the proletariat. Communism had its holidays and festivals, such as the First of May and the anniversary of the October Revolution. It had theologians adept at Marxist dialectics, and every unit in the Soviet army had a chaplain, called a commissar, who monitored the piety of soldiers and officers. Communism had martyrs, holy wars and heresies, such as Trotskyism. Soviet Communism was a fanatical and missionary religion. A devout Communist could not be a Christian or a Buddhist, and was expected to spread the gospel of Marx and Lenin even at the price of his or her life. Some readers may feel very uncomfortable with this line of reasoning. If it makes you feel better, you are free to go on calling Communism an ideology rather than a religion. It makes no difference. We can divide creeds into god-centred religions and godless ideologies that claim to be based on natural laws. But then, to be consistent, we would need to catalogue at least some Buddhist, Daoist and Stoic sects as ideologies rather than religions. Conversely, we should note that belief in gods persists within many modern ideologies, and that some of them, most notably liberalism, make little sense without this belief. It would be impossible to survey here the history of all the new modern creeds, especially because there are no clear boundaries between them. They are no less syncretic than monotheism and popular Buddhism. Just as a Buddhist could worship Hindu deities, and just as a monotheist could believe in the existence of Satan, so the typical American nowadays is simultaneously a nationalist (she believes in the existence of an American nation with a special role to play in history), a free-market capitalist (she believes that open competition and the pursuit of self-interest are the best ways to create a prosperous society), and a liberal humanist (she believes that humans have been endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights). Nationalism will be discussed in Chapter 18. Capitalism - the most successful of the modern religions - gets a whole chapter, Chapter 16, which expounds its principal beliefs and rituals. In the remaining pages of this chapter I will address the humanist religions. Theist religions focus on the worship of gods. Humanist religions worship humanity, or more correctly, Homo sapiens. Humanism is a belief that Homo sapiens has a unique and sacred nature, which is fundamentally different from the nature of all other animals and of all other phenomena. Humanists believe that the unique nature of Homo sapiens is the most important thing in the world, and it determines the meaning of everything that happens in the universe. The supreme good is the good of Homo sapiens. The rest of the world and all other beings exist solely for the benefit of this species. All humanists worship humanity, but they do not agree on its definition. Humanism has split into three rival sects that fight over the exact definition of 'humanity', just as rival Christian sects fought over the exact definition of God. Today, the most important humanist sect is liberal humanism, which believes that 'humanity' is a quality of individual humans, and that the liberty of individuals is therefore sacrosanct. According to liberals, the sacred nature of humanity resides within each and every individual Homo sapiens. The inner core of individual humans gives meaning to the world, and is the source for all ethical and political authority. If we encounter an ethical or political dilemma, we should look inside and listen to our inner voice - the voice of humanity. The chief commandments of liberal humanism are meant to protect the liberty of this inner voice against intrusion or harm. These commandments are collectively known as 'human rights'. This, for example, is why liberals object to torture and the death penalty. In early modern Europe, murderers were thought to violate and destabilise the cosmic order. To bring the cosmos back to balance, it was necessary to torture and publicly execute the criminal, so that everyone could see the order re-established. Attending gruesome executions was a favourite pastime for Londoners and Parisians in the era of Shakespeare and M_o_l_i_e`r_e_. In today's Europe, murder is seen as a violation of the sacred nature of humanity. In order to restore order, present-day Europeans do not torture and execute criminals. Instead, they punish a murderer in what they see as the most 'humane' way possible, thus safeguarding and even rebuilding his human sanctity. By honouring the human nature of the murderer, everyone is reminded of the sanctity of humanity, and order is restored. By defending the murderer, we right what the murderer has wronged. Even though liberal humanism sanctifies humans, it does not deny the existence of God, and is, in fact, founded on monotheist beliefs. The liberal belief in the free and sacred nature of each individual is a direct legacy of the traditional Christian belief in free and eternal individual souls. Without recourse to eternal souls and a Creator God, it becomes embarrassingly difficult for liberals to explain what is so special about individual Sapiens. Another important sect is socialist humanism. Socialists believe that 'humanity' is collective rather than individualistic. They hold as sacred not the inner voice of each individual, but the species Homo sapiens as a whole. Whereas liberal humanism seeks as much freedom as possible for individual humans, socialist humanism seeks equality between all humans. According to socialists, inequality is the worst blasphemy against the sanctity of humanity, because it privileges peripheral qualities of humans over their universal essence. For example, when the rich are privileged over the poor, it means that we value money more than the universal essence of all humans, which is the same for rich and poor alike. Like liberal humanism, socialist humanism is built on monotheist foundations. The idea that all humans are equal is a revamped version of the monotheist conviction that all souls are equal before God. The only humanist sect that has actually broken loose from traditional monotheism is evolutionary humanism, whose most famous representatives are the Nazis. What distinguished the Nazis from other humanist sects was a different definition of 'humanity', one deeply influenced by the theory of evolution. In contrast to other humanists, the Nazis believed that humankind is not something universal and eternal, but rather a mutable species that can evolve or degenerate. Man can evolve into superman, or degenerate into a subhuman. [A section that discusses the Nazi ideology in more detail is not included here. It runs from page 258 to page 263.] At the dawn of the third millennium, the future of evolutionary humanism is unclear. For sixty years after the end of the war against Hitler it was taboo to link humanism with evolution and to advocate using biological methods to 'upgrade' Homo sapiens. But today such projects are back in vogue. No one speaks about exterminating lower races or inferior people, but many contemplate using our increasing knowledge of human biology to create superhumans. At the same time, a huge gulf is opening between the tenets of liberal humanism and the latest findings of the life sciences, a gulf we cannot ignore much longer. Our liberal political and judicial systems are founded on the belief that every individual has a sacred inner nature, indivisible and immutable, which gives meaning to the world, and which is the source of all ethical and political authority. This is a reincarnation of the traditional Christian belief in a free and eternal soul that resides within each individual. Yet over the last 200 years, the life sciences have thoroughly undermined this belief. Scientists studying the inner workings of the human organism have found no soul there. They increasingly argue that human behaviour is determined by hormones, genes and synapses, rather than by free will - the same forces that determine the behaviour of chimpanzees, wolves, and ants. Our judicial and political systems largely try to sweep such inconvenient discoveries under the carpet. But in all frankness, how long can we maintain the wall separating the department of biology from the departments of law and political science? I have a paper copy of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind in my possession. The excerpts in this article are on pages 254-258 and page 263. Details from the first few pages: - Copyright co Yuval Noah Harari 2011 - Translated by the author, with the help of John Purcell and Haim Watzman - First published in Vintage in 2015 - First published in Hebrew in Israel in 2011 by Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir I was able to find the full text on this page: hyperlink http://silo.pub/qdownload/sapiens-a-brief-history-of-humankind.html silo.pub/qdownload/sapiens-a-brief-history-of-humankind.html I copied the excerpts and cleaned / prepared the text.
iQIcBAABCgAGBQJfcOmHAAoJECL1OzZgiBhw9SIP/2G8smnz9Qf4E+aohdRvH0Fb 6aWIQOHO3JWaXw9UWek/Id/nGmwcAKXZJwKoo5p4tRgMTcU447sA3mR+gev5SJgJ 1zBpGoiMcNWrQO30Ds3HX5oCn9SiKQztF9xYGeWN1YYGNRL/2L/eKFS9g5aEmCQS sEoC4FJUvqjHwKInT6meFB42hcsnjqE1msKGTuev+BvevEaJIWEMUQVGVBOXyXZ3 FgYM8DUFxfbsXgeHtwoXUjMs+60Z1yGC6EqG3boWbGbDgIxdJiSikEjSqYhIfi7C jltJl+r6TXDpGmzh23T4PiG9Ky0VSpODQf5SOCh9prtLXiIEDkLJ+UulvPys2rCz TUQEdIt6ZrlGQtAtulnJv7ZsdcWuxmbaBngSCPCl8JnfyCgd+vTEOgcedkSqawru ST48d4kWDIhAYnbrdtjYKx+O7crpBs6JhLPGmGWKhbDmGzkn09uepQFDnJOpTWPu PEHgkhRoV+Z4ZBec7tAmPgSMJSU2vLi3nHDag2ve/n7rjEuq0MPs4DH2tabQ/jA8 oJArk0zbpdQh1ChF6rjiX6aDFwXtglCPsznr7BPHMKvxXHSOIG3mFJID4KxiVhn+ ec8T6wsyOi66ECzrqcyom2EgRYTtj5pL7KuN6+aMaBpuTlimVrn4pWh4wSd1I5yH J0nCa0ISzY2drQd/ydbX =eEXm