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.