Reddit mentions of In the Name of God: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Ethics and Violence

One of the books I used as a source when writing about religion is "In The Name of God" which is about the evolution of religion and its role in intergroup conflict: http://www.amazon.com/In-Name-God-Evolutionary-Religious/dp/1405183810

>The point I was trying to make is that, in a power vacuum, churches are not going to react the same way as they did in the past. We've been there, and I do not think that humanity would accept it again.

I think that is a very bad assumption to make and it's based on a flawed understanding of human nature.

Monotheistic religions are all inherently defined by their exclusionary principals, and their intolerance to difference. They all lead to violence because the moral framework they construct only works if you can remove diversity of thought and enforce consistent belief. This so cleanly connects with our own tribal and evolutionary development, these beliefs invariably interconnect with our ethnic differences and become intertwined.

Ethnic cleansing is almost always religious cleansing. It becomes very complex to discuss the relationship of state/religion outside the context of the western world where we don't have the compounding factors of tribal and ethnic conflict. This is a big part of what has fucked us up so badly when dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq.

These religions have to be reflexively hostile to new information not already contained within the doctrine, because they all claim to already be in the possession of all relevant human knowledge, or have a connection to a divine source that can extend the doctrine. Either way, ultimately the church itself has to be the arbiter of what is "right" in the world or the whole thing doesn't work. I don't say this in a facile sense. There is a reason that canon and sharia law are so complex, and it's exactly this. Ultimately the church must either make the world incredibly simple for it's followers, or it must become incredibly complex and legalistic. Given that they will always be reflexively defending existing knowledge, not seeking new knowledge, they are always at least a little out of step with a rapidly advancing body of knowledge about the universe. They are under constant threat of having their divine authority up-ended, and that is the basis upon which their entire moral authority is built.

It is always easier and more credible to dismiss new information than to develop bridging logic to existing doctrine or belief. If you are a powerful religion in a weak state, it only makes sense to restrict the inflow of new information to the societies that you control.

If you are a weak religion in one or many powerful states, and you want to continue to exist, you had better become very good at adapting new information to what you already have. Both Islam and Christianity spread quickly in their early lives for a bunch of reasons, but 2 strong ones were:

1. people were by and large illiterate and or nothing was written down. If you made a goof about doctrine you could simply say it was misheard or misunderstood.
   
   
2. A great consequence of that was that you could simply make doctrine up on the fly to convert people and none of the other followers would even know. You could just say you hadn't gotten to that part yet.
   
   Once wide-spread literacy came about, and widespread access to religious texts became available, all the Abrahamic religions had to become legalistic. Much like how we still struggle to interpret the constitution, religion had to start explaining all the ways in which it failed to predict or understand phenomenon with now-unambiguous answers. It also had to continuously develop new reactions to new ideas and actions based on known and constrained and contradictory doctrine.
   
   So --- given all of that, what reason do I have to believe that existing religious pressures could undermine modern knowledge given a weakened secular state? Why would people put up with it?
   
   Dr. Paul actually makes the case very clearly. There are a handful of factors that powerful players use to gain control over societies. I'm going to massively gloss over most of them, but two of the big ones in free states are:
   
   
3. Control of childhood education
   
4. Control of social charity
   
   Generally speaking, if you can instill beliefs when people are young, they become very resistant to change as they get older. Crucially, if you can influence the ages where we're cementing in the neurons for shared social behavior almost everything else is easy to deal with.
   
   And one of the few times in adult life when our brains are actually willing to rewire those neurons is in times of crises. Get a divorce, have a loved one die, go bankrupt, and you start questioning the world view that got you there. If the church is there to reinforce your belief, provide comfort, and explain why god does painful things to good people, your work is pretty much done.
   
   So what you don't do is come in and immediately tear down everything. You've got too many people with different beliefs that will resist that kind of change and you don't have the political capital to make that happen without a revolt. This is still a "free" country after all. So you dismantle the social safety net, and you take over childhood education.
   
   Within 1 generation you can start defunding scientific research. Within 2 generations you can start putting up the great american firewall. Within 3 generations you can be Iran, within 5 you can be North Korea.
   
   All along the way, the church can take over more and more aspects of daily life and more and more parts of the government can be dismantled until they are primarily a form of political theater.
   
   Over time you can become less legalistic and explanatory, and more and more authoritarian.
   
   To win this, I don't have to change you, I have to change your grandkids.
   
   If you're willing to kill a lot of people, you can do this much much faster, but that would be a very hard thing to pull off in the US without some pretty extensive prep-work.
   
   This is all extremely high level, and I'm sure there are a lot of holes here, but this is the general idea. To really do it justice you really do have to write a book. You really need to have a sense of developmental neuroscience, political history, religious history, evolution and psychology.
   
   Here's one book that can covers some pretty big parts of it though:
   http://www.amazon.com/Name-God-Evolutionary-Religious-Philosophy/dp/1405183810
   
   See what I mean about this being really really complex?
   
   EDIT:
   
   Just wanted to add - why do I think this won't happen in the US?
   
   The US has long been a borderline plutarchy, and corporations, especially international corporations more or less functionally determine a lot of policy making in the US. These corporations love big government. They may hate taxes (largely because they have no interest in commanding the allegiance of the public), but they need a big government for lots of reasons. I'd highly recommend reading the leaked state department cables for a stark lesson in who our diplomatic wing of government actually serves.
   
   If for some reason the federal government became weak and a power vacuum emerged, the rich would almost certainly focus all their efforts on re-establishing it. Corporations have much much more money than organized churches, and the churches would lose every time, at least in "free" societies.
   
   Most of the history of the western world can be defined by this conflict of aristocracy, the merchant class, the church, and the general public. Currently the merchant class is winning by a lot. Although arguably with the best outcomes so far.