Taken from: I am - A blueprint for sentience by Krys Norman
In the first section of this book there was a chapter on religion in humans. This aspect of humanity appears to have flourished in line with the increase in mental capability of humans over the last ten millennia or so. It does not appear to have developed in any other animal. Animals might share some similar traits of devotion but that is always something that they sense externally, be it their offspring, their packs or their owners. Not only that but religion relies solely on belief over proof. This fantastic intellectual loophole is necessary for it being accepted and is written into sacred texts by the leaders as they are gaining power over large groups of believers. It allows them to throw in any additional points that aids their drive for control and power. This view is very cynical and will be bitterly contested by many believers. The people who believe in their God existing do so with an intellectual gamble. The stakes are their rationality and they are high. The cost of entry into this argument is that they have to align their thoughts with a link to all their beliefs they have ever created. These are not just the complex ones but also all the basics that have developed since birth. That up is up, ice is cold, etc... is so inalienably "correct" that to question those beliefs within a subconscious is a form of suicide. It requires a need to negate almost every action and sensation that has occurred. We can talk about them being different, hypothetically, and think we can question them but we do not allow ourselves the option of changing our beliefs. No one can talk to an adult and persuade them that they will stay in the air after they walk unaided off a cliff. They might be able to persuade some to walk off it but that will always be with the belief that they will fall and hurt themselves. It will be inviolable and exist in someone's mind irrespective of a knowledge of gravity or any philosophical discussion. The belief in God is linked to this. It is not to be argued against or ridiculed. It will only strengthen the control of the religious leaders and appear in line with their pre-emptive defensive doctrine. It could be reinforced every time it was logically attacked by atheists, no matter how intellectually militant they were. Not only that; It could also be true; God could exist. Something omnipresent, more powerful than all of us, incomprehensible to our simple minds. Something that provided reason and acceptance and, above all, unconditional love. Maybe the believers' fundamental beliefs are accurate, honest and healthy but it is the details that are clouding the issue. Instead of "Does God exist" or even "Should God be believed in?", maybe the first question could be "What is this God that is believed in?"
At the center of all religions is a feeling of connection. This varies with all the available religious styles and encompasses either connection with an omnipresent force, connection with an omnipresent collection of forces or connection with an otherwise inaccessible inner self. The common denominator occurs through them all. There is a positive response in associating everything that exists or happens or has happened or is going to happen with an overall connection. In order to connect with something there has to be a belief in its existence, no matter how logically implausible. Associated with this is a sense of parental support that does not need to be understood or even questioned. It provides an extension of the positive emotions of nurturing that stem from birth to toddler. There is also a built-in evolutionary benefit from being aware of an environment irrespective of whether there is any comprehension of it. An individual's God need only to become the embodiment of these beliefs and reactions for the concept to be of benefit. This is two fold: First, there is a permanent connection with parental nurturing, whether a parent is there or not. It provides association with some positive responses in almost all situations. The second is a mechanism for ceasing the build up of negative responses due to a failure to understand or stop something happening. If something is perplexing and unresolved and has lead to a negative response, the strength of future negative responses will increase. It will become more difficult to function as time goes on and the negative responses are avoided or over-ridden with positives from increasingly intense positive inducing behaviour. A parent having a reason for a negative act, even if not understood, is reassuringly positive to a child. Having a God that continues this role, even if the child then ends up with more knowledge than their parents, allows a sentient individual to function much better in a cruel world. Nature, random events and humans can all be very cruel.
Consider a basic community with no religion and no awareness of a lack of religion. The individuals are born, nurtured, cherished, taught through new experiences and taught through shared knowledge. This is all positive even if there are also negative experiences like starvation, war, illness, pain etc... With basic thought comes basic confusion. To a mind with only limited knowledge there is no reason why lightning strikes or even a storm comes. It is valuable to have a reason, though, and something that everyone has is an inbuilt trust in parental actions. All it takes is an idea that there is an unknown force that is sentient and capable like a parent and, blam, a god is formed. In any group that has developed enough thought to be confused, enough capability for new ideas, with a sense of parental nurturing and a requirement to be aware of the wider environment, a God will pop up. The more confused, i.e. the lack of rational control, the easier it is for beliefs to be formed through emotional events.
The fierce debate of God's existence belies considerable flawed logic on both sides. What God could be, is a belief. Pure and simple. If a sentient being's thoughts, reasoning and feelings are based entirely on beliefs, then to have a universal belief is a very natural and positive state. This can be readily observed in spiritual people of every deity based religion. They have faith and for all their susceptibility to control, they feel very good because of this. With atheists it is different. With many intellectual people there is a belief in the superiority of a logical and rational consciousness, i.e. themselves, over an elusive gut feeling of an ethereal being. With quite a lot of effort this self belief of one's own intellect can be made to be reassuring too. However, even though it allows for intellectual proofs and disproofs to occur it does not take into account the belief structure upon which it is based. This state occurs in atheists and it results in an ongoing conflict of responses. There is a batch of strong positive reactions from the elegance of intellectual reason; those that allow for the logic of I think therefore I am and everything that ensues. This all feels very good. It leads, very logically, that God from nothing, without proof, does not feel right. The more that the intellectually sentient being pursues the rational and logical arguments the stronger the reinforcement that God doesn't exist. To relinquish the addictive positives of logic by adding the loophole that only God exists outside logic is a great loss for an intellectual. This can be shown using UMOE but is very rapidly dismissed due to other threats to an individual atheist's belief structure. Their logical thought patterns can be repeated many times, steadily increasing their beliefs and thus making their logic intransigent. They can be validated by the self and revalidated by like minded others. The belief in atheism is rooted in a belief in existence and is very strong.
Simultaneously, there are other strong beliefs being triggered; those of connection. If the intellectually built up beliefs are being chosen for the positive responses they provide, they will be also producing negative responses due to the loss of connection. They might be stronger than the negative responses and thus be chosen to loop through a validation process but the negatives will be there, all the same. Maybe, choices will be made to minimise the negative responses by reducing thought and activities that would trigger greater loss inducing negatives. Individuals that did believe would be avoided, the positives that were being validated by them would be discounted. The belief in the concept God with all its overwhelming, all knowing, pure loving, parental and omnipresent connotations are breathtakingly humbling and uplifting. In an atheist, this surging response of positives that could be created at any point in time would have to be carefully managed such that the loss of positives resulting from disproving God using logic did not become the predominant negatives. There would be an ever increasing batch of responses, both strongly positive and strongly negative. The route to greater positives would always be chosen. In order for the atheist to stop a surge of built up negatives from the repeated validation of their logic of God's non-existence they will choose to believe in their logic and validate this at every opportunity. The closer they were to the triggers of connecting the closer they would be to losing the positive responses of atheist belief and the greater they would resort to validation of these positives. And yet, methinks, they doth protest too much. They would become increasingly belligerent in their behaviour. They would resort to fervent attempts at discounting and demeaning the shiny happy ones. Their precious logic and rational thinking would not conclude that, even maybe, they could be wrong. They might even tend towards extremism as they condemn the religious extremists around them. They would deny it but they would be addicts. Its what addicts do.
The concept of God or gods also could be shared with others in the group and be validated, thus increasing both the positive association and the belief itself. The greater the number in the group that validate outbursts of belief the greater the positive reinforcement. Praying and group worship is an obvious extension of this. The one that had the idea first (and/or new modifications of the same idea thereafter) would be endowed with a particular and strong status. Others could combine the ability to organize and maintain group shared belief sessions with status gained from doing just that. The positive reinforcement of leading a group of believers and validating the connection/genetic emotions will be considerable and thus powerful. They can invent the claim that they are better connected (by inference due to the numbers of other individuals following the same belief) and reach levels of effect such that even the wealthy and systemic leaders are swayed. The practical ramifications of this hierarchy of grouped belief are that a small minority of individuals can align themselves to the universal beliefs of large majorities. They can become trusted to the point that the beliefs of the majority can be swayed to incorporate quite disproportionate allegiance. The controlling minority have considerable power and status from this and continuing this state is the chosen route for each generation. The entire connection belief response is hijacked, corrupted, abused and maintained. This is religion. It is elitist and manipulative. The leader's of the different religions strengthen their power through differentiation. They preach that their religion is the only correct one and different from all the others in identical ways. They stretch credibility and downright lie to achieve a cocktail of emotions that lock in the users. The masses become addicted. Opium? Yeah baby, and the rest. They are hooked. And, so too the leaders. Though they have an even more rarefied concoction that is seared with power and status. They would deny it but they, too, would be addicts.
The Umonian's programming would result in different individuals going different ways in their behaviour and thoughts. They would not need to have any preconception of God or religion to still develop them. All they would need is a value of connection and a capability of fallibility. Once there was an idea from somewhere (external information or creative fallibility) there could be a God that could be believed in by Umonians. This would result in the positive response of connection to be generated with everything that was thought about. They could pass this through groups using validation and define exclusive groups by this very act. Additionally, Some Umonians may choose to be in other validating groups where other religions or no religions were believed in. The divisions would increase. The Umonians might choose to be defined by their faith allegiance. They might link the other faiths to a threat to their group's well-being or even existence. This would provide the opportunity for leader addicts to validate certain beliefs such that they become the most important choice. Luckily, the logic loophole discussed above could convince believers of immortality; just as long as they follow their leader they'll end up in Heaven. At that point, a select few within a larger group of morally rich beings might be set up to choose to do morally poor acts. These acts could be targeted, devastating and tragic as in the case of suicide bombers. Again, the situations that arose would be due to the potential by-products of a complicated belief based system. This would include a mix of spiritual connection and control over groups. They would be more likely to occur with individuals who had very little capability of creating positive responses through other means (i.e. the poor and disaffected). Those vulnerable ones would also be more likely to be groomed by individuals who were aware of inequalities in society and yet unable to raise their own power through other means. This extreme potential outcome for Umonians might not necessarily happen, though. In a generally equal group of beings, the extreme acts would not be stoked. Instead, a steady stream of guidance (eminently sensible for groups to flourish peacefully) could ensue to be validated and enshrined within their particular denomination. In a social environment of general equality and at least a chance of progression for all, the majority would be quite content. They would tolerate other groups; see the similarities and shared goals, not just the differences. They would not feel threatened within their groups, religious or otherwise. They would be able to laugh at themselves, secure in their beliefs.
What would be the human churches' view on this? Would they denounce Umonian religions? Almost certainly, as that is part of their strengthening mechanism that excludes other groups. They've been doing this for centuries. The details would be the tricky bit, though. Would they denounce Umonian faith in the same way that they denounced other human faiths? Would the state of belief without evidence be questioned? Would they have to resort to proving that the Umonians were not sentient and so the previous questions were not applicable? Or would they try and prove that the Umonian's God didn't exist? The religions would get round all these conundrums, as they always can, by simply ignoring select stages of reason. This is just one of the bi-products of a belief generated process and is used with impunity. Its the way of our world. The next stage could be more taxing to their doctrines, though. Some of the ideas of honed human religions could cross over and be embraced by certain Umonians over their home grown ones. They could want to convert or become born again. This is traditionally one of the key aims of all the religious organisations but, so far, has only applied to human being brought into the fold. Would, could, should, a Umonian be baptised into a human religion? Oh Lordy, imagine that?