Are You An Animal?

My underlying understanding of human beings is that our behavior mirrors that of animals and that we have an additional capacity for behaving in a way which is opposite to animals. That is to say that we have the “free will” to shut down our animal programs and behave in an opposite fashion. So, for example, we can steal like animals do or we can choose not to steal (even in the face of hardship). We can hoard our wealth like animals do or we can share or give away our wealth away. We can kill like animals do or we can choose not to kill (even when threats are upon us). These things, this ability to stop our programs from running, is (I believe) a uniquely human thing. What the ability also seems to do (when operating properly) is to create guilt when we act contrary to it (i.e. when we act like animals). Many Christians (while most lack a fundamental understanding of the principle) call this component the “Holy Spirit”. It is also termed “your conscience”, “your morality”, “your spirit”, “the son of god”, “Allah”, “Jesus”, and most often simply “god”. None of the terms (as classified) change the component nor it’s functionality. For the purposes of this discussion I will call it the “god component”.

A basic problem arises in the operation of our god component in two different ways. The first arises because (unlike animals) we humans can rationalize animal (immoral) behavior. This gives us an added dimension which permits us to operate in an animal mode while producing what we claim is a good reason to do so. Usually one which looks rather humane at first glance. That is to say, we are able to continue to act like animals and yet justify our behavior (to ourselves) in a way which makes it appear to be the correct and moral behavior. And thereby eliminate the guilt we would otherwise experience. We rationalize the behavior as moral behavior even though it amounts to nothing more than being and acting like an animal. For example, when we steal we can rationalize that behavior by saying things like, “the other guy had more than enough anyway.” Or when we hoard our wealth we might say “I worked hard for it so why shouldn’t I reap the rewards, why should I share my money?” Or when we kill, we label it a “penalty” and rationalize it as a necessary evil to deter other killings. Many people make the ultimate guilt-relieving rationalization and justify immoral behavior by believing that it is sanctioned by god. And this type of rationalization permits limitless guilt free animal behaviors. In short, we can find many reasons to justify animal or immoral behavior. And these rationalizations work to suppress our otherwise god-component-related-guilt.

These types of rationalizations come from different groups of people and for different reasons. Often the justifications for acting like animals is presented in the context of survival and preservation. Or the “us against them” context which actually plays upon our contemporaneous animal needs to create bonds and maintain power structures. Of course the means to maintaining this survival is usually by “any and all means” - including those which are exclusively animal in nature (killing, hoarding, stealing, etc.).

In short, by rationalizing animal behavior, we are able short circuit our god component and thereby alleviate our guilt, ignore our conscience, and behave immorally without an individual mental consequence. In effect, we fool ourselves in to believing that our behavior is justified when in fact it is not.

These types of rationalizations are not limited to packs which are inherently concerned with power. They also exist in groups which claim to follow god. Historically. we often see animal behavior exhibited in the confines of a belief in god. Couched in the blessing of or at the request of same. In fact, all religious organizations fuel the continuation of programs which have historically created conflict among we humans by creating divisive power structures which beckon to our animal needs to defend and fight. More specifically, those programs which control our innate need to dominate or be submissive. To “lead: and to “follow”. To be sided up with and defend the dominant pack. And, of course, the ultimate pack is the one with god on it’s side - of which each religious group claims exclusivity. None of these affiliations (in and of themselves) speak to anything other than behaving like an animal. Either in the context of filling our need to belong (to rule, to follow, etc.) or our animal need to survive (in this case transfixed from biological survival to eternal survive). And within these hierarchies, no matter how much one person claims to be “following” god, what they are really primarily following is their pack. Their instinct to protect their pack is primary. Even when there is a complete and utter absence of any justification to do so. Their desire to be a member of the powerful pack is prevalent. We have, as a result, the Muslim extremist who kills in the name of Allah. Or the Catholic who defends a priest’s behavior regardless of the fact that that behavior has it’s loyalty in animal behaviors. As I noted before, having god as a rationale for animal behavior is the greatest means of eliminating our conscience (our guilt). God (or the thought that our actions are morally correct) permit us to act like animals in a guilt free fashion. How could I be wrong to kill the infidel if this is what god wants? How could it be immoral to stand up for the unjustifiable acts of a man of god? A man who stands for all of those things which god wants? What these justifications really are is a means to eliminate our guilt and suppress our god component. In the case of defense they are propagated by an innate need to defend our packs. I suggest that this type of defenses is one of blindness and that the blindness stems from systemic programs which are unrecognizable in their operation by us on a conscious level.

The second problem arises in the fact that these animal programs are highly imprint-able on our behavior. For the sake of brevity I will only touch upon this second obstacle to behaving as our god component suggests. Once we engage in something like stealing, our brains attach a high to the behavior (as is intended in our biology) and we want to do it again - even in the face of our guilt. The more we engage in this animal behavior, the more we want to engage in it. It becomes a vicious cycle for us in that at some point we are physically required to behave like animals, have created a strong biological need to behave like an animal, and yet have the guilt remain as a result of our god component’s normal operation. This type of suppression does not alleviate the guilt, but rather creates a duality and a conflict that can even lead to mental instability. But more often than not simply leads to habitual behavior. For example, when we defend a position we are running innate programs. The more the position is attacked the more we need to defend it and the greater the lengths we will go to defend it. The effects of operating these animal programs is therefore cumulative and progressive.

The most troubling part of the programs which are at war with our god component is that they are strongest when they are both permitted to run and re-run and when the justification for behaving as such is simultaneously rationalized as moral. The equivalent of two jet engines pushing the behavior to normalcy. Resulting in a simultaneous condition of unawareness of action and a satiation of an underlying biological need or needs.

It therefore stands to reason, that until we can successfully identify our own sub-conscious animalistic programs, consciously eliminate them, and avoid reinforcing our animal programs, we humans (individually and as a collective) will continue to be nothing more than animals.

Oprah's Religious Power - YOU WILL BELIEVE!!!

I wonder if Oprah Winfrey came to us today and said “last night I spoke to god and he said there’s a new set of rules to follow” if anyone would eagerly line up to get the hard copy? In a similar fashion, I wonder if a group of people led by Oprah came to my door and said “Larry Willaby just performed ten miracles and he says he the new messiah” if I could buy in to that? Especially if ten was his miracle limit and I missed them all. It’s these types of hypothetical ideas that make me question how anyone who believes the messiah is actually going to come back (or get here for the first time) will be able to identify that event when it happens. I have to surmise that any advance alien form could do a few alien card room tricks and turn the world upside down. Seeing how some religious texts already warn about false prophets it’s going to be a hard call no matter what the scenario is. Imagine for a moment that two alien races show up throwing fire balls at one another – each claiming to be angels of god. The level of religious confusion that this could generate is out of this world. But then is there really some exact level of believability in such a skeptical world that would permit someone (anyone) to believe that the new messiah had arrived?

When I talk to Jews or Christians or Muslims or any religious people about their beliefs they have a hard time articulating just why it is they believe what they do. Especially when you make parallel comparisons to hypothetical modern day scenarios. So you wouldn’t believe Oprah spoke to god last night but you believe Abraham did? You wouldn’t believe Larry Willaby and his ten miracles but you believe the Jesus set? How come? How come Jews believe that Moses parted the red sea but they don’t believe that Jesus walked on water? How come Christians believe that Jesus spoke to god but Mohamad did not? Doesn’t it make more sense to believe modern day people who say they saw Mr. Willaby do all these miracles than to rely on a less advanced people who claim to have witnessed the miracles of Moses or Jesus or Mohamad? If Oprah said god now designated the people of New Jersey as the new chosen people how is that any different than Abraham saying that about the Jews? “But Abraham was a great holy man”. Okay, Oprah is a great credible and believable gal - now what? “But many people witnessed the miracles of Moses” Yeah, a whole bunch of people said they witnessed the miracles of Jesus, Mohammad and Mr. Willaby also.

Clearly ALL religious beliefs are based upon a system of passed down stories which people take as truth without any rational thought as to whether they have any valid basis. For the most part these beliefs are based upon nothing other than a past account which has been and is taken as true. But what makes people take hold of one belief and not another? What makes people believe something so strongly that they are willing to kill and die for it? Certainly it can not be the rational examination of the belief and the infallibility of positions which can not be proven. Especially those which are easily challenged in their provability by competing beliefs with the same or similar substance and origination (for example recanted second-hand tales of miracles). Nor can it be the degree or value of the claims made to support the belief (i.e. the TEN Mr. Willaby miracles are not controlling).

Most people, in fact, do not have any understanding of why they believe what they do other than that they were told to believe it. The source and the credibility of the source of this telling are critical factors in whether the belief will take hold. Figures designated holy or worth while, parental figures, persons shown to exhibit leadership qualities, seemingly intelligent people, all exhibit influence in what we believe. Perception of the source is critical. But this in and of itself is not the controlling factor in why we believe what we believe. Because clearly many people are swayed to believe things from less then reliable sources (in my mind inept political leaders often fall into this category).

How can two people believe in two competing positions so strongly when neither is based upon anything other than a recantation of events they were not a party to? In my examples above this method of recantation (in and of itself) does not seem capable of swaying someone to a particular belief. But what if you revered and loved Oprah? Well, you’d be more likely to take her word for it (of course). And this is why our parents play a critical role in the development of our beliefs. Nevertheless, one would tend to think this alone would neither create nor maintain a strong belief. What if Oprah formed a group dedicated to Mr. Wallably (the Wallabies?)? With this added element I think the scenario of a Mr. Wallably religion gains momentum. The simple fact that you can join these other individuals in a common goal (with someone like your beloved Oprah!) places Mr. Wallably at a new level of believability. And if belonging is coupled with a displayed understanding that this is the superior pack (to which you the outsider are made to feel welcomed and even wanted) the underlying belief is further propelled. In a sense these cumulative elements are what is required to create and maintain a belief. While you can be born in to a belief system, maintenance requires allegiance to the pack. Consequently, I believe the most essential element to be the establishment of some hierarchy with perceived strength or ability. A hierarchy which permits the reinforcement of our genetic program to belong - which is in lineage with that of pack animals. There is some program in us that says belonging to a group, and especially a strong group or a group with the answers, is essential and necessary to our survival. Such a requirement of our programming makes sense, given that the goal of our programming is to further our survival. Our post-conscious desire to circumvent this existence in favor of some after-life has caused our pack alignment program to be repositioned to account for this extension by making us align with the strongest after-life pack we can find. The one which we believe will get us to the point of survival beyond death. In fact, most religions preach that their belief system is the pathway to eternal salvation for this very reason.

When do people jump ship from their religion? When their beliefs are in conflict with those of the pack; when the fell unwanted (misallegiance); when their position in the pack is diminished; when some other pack invites them in and in doing so provides rearticulation of that program that requires a sense of belonging to a powerful pack; when they question the beliefs of the pack in rational thought and can find no acceptance of those beliefs; when they are rewarded or feel they will be rewarded for changing packs - or any combination of these or like things.

Reinforcement of religion is therefore best accomplished by a reinforcement of the rewards of the pack (“you will only go to heaven if”), the strength of the pack (“we are the chosen people”), the weakness of the other packs (which is why religious persons often belittle the substance of other religious beliefs, i.e the Pope Benedict XVI) and a constant never ending attack on any belief which may be contrary to those of the pack, a separation and definitive line establishing the distinction of the pack (usually made vis-a-vis physical separation, by wearing some symbol, celebrating some holiday, wearing a particular clothing, engaging in particular rituals, and the like). The rules of organized religion mirror many other pack facets in our culture and society. From armies to sports teams to civic and political groups these basic methodologies and requisite elements of maintaining the strength of the pack and allegiance to the pack are present.