replicator.org ... continuous garbage collection

I am glad that I was not born into a very religious family. My parents were Catholics, but visited the church only a few times a year. We never prayed together, though sometimes, my mother said she did. I never asked them, but I think their answer to the “Why” would be simple “Because everyone they know is religious”.

In my youth, my parents were pragmatic. They cared for their jobs, our housing and food. There were some political discussions every now and then, but they never questioned democracy. They had no proper education and so no high income jobs, but they never forgot how lucky they are to live in Germany.

Not the worst family to grow up.

Though I am sometimes labeling myself an introvert, growing up also means talking and interacting with other people. People who have specific perspectives and people who believe in a religious god. Interestingly, these discussions with strongly religious people stuck in my head, because I felt that there is always a point we can never find consensus.

In my experience, discussions with a religious person always ended similar to “there can be only one god”, “we can prove that other gods don’t exist” or “without a god, morality would be pointless”. And there was never a slightest chance for me to get their thinking beyond that point, where they could – at least in theory – imagine an alternate reality.

I felt this huge wall in their mind. A wall that – I assume - can only be built and cemented with years of steady external and self-energizing indoctrination. Though being large, solid and inflexible, this wall represents value. A safe monolith on which they can rely on to exist after a bad day or a tragedy.

I don’t think that a mind-based “safe haven” is a bad thing to have. I even think that it is a very important thing to ensure personal stability.

But think that this “safe haven” must be chosen wisely. More specific, I think it must be “actively chosen by the individual” and “be a wise choice”!

So let’s see what I would consider the properties such thing. Be warned, this may get personal and you may have a different view:

• non-controversial I personally don’t like to discuss hours about these virtual entities in my head that keep me stable. Because I prefer to be pragmatic, such discussions are mostly pointless, wasted time and often lead myself to the impression that there is some childish “personal competition” going on.
• flexible, adaptable Even if some runs it over, it can be built up again, for example by considering an extra passage for the runner for the next time. Putting this into consequence, it can not be something solid, it’s more like a plan to (re-)build arbitrary structures. This ensures that a mind can be a lot more “open” and able to repair itself in case of an infection.
• supports openness, empathy and morality I don’t necessarily want to be the “nice guy” next door. But I want to able to feel other people and act accordingly. Some people seem to make a harsh distinction between empathy and “getting it” logically. For me, these two types of “perceptions” often fuse. Sometimes, I feel something in other persons that I “understand or interpret” afterwards, and sometimes I understand some impression logically and then feel it the same moment. That “safe haven” should in no way interfere with the product of empathy, that is, morality.

A hard to grasp concept. Perhaps it’s just a “proven plan“ to build a “safe haven” or just “feeling the confidence” of getting through all unforeseen. Of course there are other earthly properties we may prefer, but I don’t consider them essential to continue.

Now back to the point I’d like to make. When I take a look at my rough description the properties of “what I like to be my safe haven”, I am actually seeing the total inverse of the felt barriers I recognize in religious people. I am now starting to suspect that there can be only one single logical conclusion to this obvious perception:

Because religious people built their “safe haven” on something they did not built by themselves (got indoctrinated) and so have no “plan” to rebuild it differently, they must always live in the “fear” that someone else comes along and – if powerful enough - destroys their basis, their religious god and so their “safe haven”.

The above statement finally explains to me why in most religions, strong and explicit rules and rituals are required to maintain “religious morality”, because otherwise “counter-religious fears” may turn into hate, aggression and wars. It is obvious that “religious believes” are discriminating a lot of other people, and sometimes lead to actions similar the ones caused by racism.

I suspect that “religious morality” or “learned morality”, that is inflicted into or learned by a child before “empathy based morality”, acts like a compensating plug on their fears which would otherwise make them a crowd of ruthless, self-defending maniacs.

Recent scientific studies have shown that “the fear” from change is mostly exaggerated compared to the experience it takes to live through it. Taking this into account, isn’t it obvious for religious people to make the first step and “JUST” throw their concept of religion together with their “learned morality” away?

Can’t they see that they could end thousand years of criticism, disbelief and fear … with one single change of their personal orientation and so would make us all instantly equal in terms of “religious believes”. Isn’t that everyone hopes for? Isn’t this the only possible logical next step to proceed?