POLITICAL DOMINANCE STRATEGY
by Scott Hoge
(Click here to download this essay)
As shown in the diagram, the expected reward of following Christianity may be very low, due in large part to insufficient evidence for God's existence and to its disabling effect on the true follower. However, when alternative activities (e.g., seeking a boyfriend or girlfriend, punishing a wrongdoer) either consistently fail to bring one the normally expected reward or are unavailable, the reward expectation of following Christianity rises in comparison, and a formerly preposterous-sounding notion -- of the government of the entire world by an invisible deity who rewards or punishes at death -- suddenly seems more enticing.
"If you would be perfect, go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have
The servant is discouraged from speaking freely or making commitments:
"What comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person ..." -Matthew 15:11
Even acts of kindness that visibly raise one's social standing are discouraged:
"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for
The function of all these teachings is, according to CPD, to disempower the servant as described. This is the negative or disabling function of Christianity in CPD: to land the servant into a state of relative powerlessness so that he or she may be easily dominated by other Christians. These teachings stand in contrast to those that encourage generosity and loving-kindness, which belong to the positive function of Christianity:
"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all
This is not to say that the command to love God itself is the positive function of Christianity, as Christianity has both functions. It is merely to say that such commands motivate the servant to be hard-working and productive, a state of affairs that is perhaps desired, but it must be remembered that increased productivity through the encouragement of loving-kindness is only one facet of Christian manipulation. The other is domination of the servant.
"I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed
In the Parable of the Net, we see the true nature of sin concealed in a metaphor about 'good fish' and 'bad fish,' potentially allowing the manipulator to decide on a case-by-case basis -- again, even on something as minor as physical appearance -- who has sinned. * * *
Argument from Divine Authority: God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because God wrote it. * * *
Argument from Design: The universe is sufficiently well-designed that only a designer could have created it. That designer is 'God,' who must, in turn, be the Christian God. * * *
Cosmological Argument: All events have preceding causes. A causal chain cannot be infinite in length backward in time. Therefore, there must be a first cause, 'God,' who must, in turn, be the Christian God. * * *
Ontological Argument: Entities stand in order of greatness. Because the property of existence adds to greatness, a maximally great being called 'God' must exist, who must, in turn, be the Christian God. * * *
Moral Argument: Without God, there would be no morals. But morals do exist; therefore, God exists. * * *
Pascal's Wager: Because there is no loss for believing in God if God isn't real, and a loss of being sentenced to Hell for not believing in God if God is real, it is wiser to believe in God. * * *
Argument from Sign or Revelation: Astonishing events or coincidences that appear as if signals from God provide one with sufficient reason to believe in God or to enforce religious law on others.
Despite overwhelming evidence that the Christian God does not exist, including recent discoveries pertaining to the true origin of the universe that had not been made at the time the Bible was written, the existence of other religions that are similar and perhaps even superior to Christianity, the fallibility of the methods of revelation allegedly used by God, the logically oversimplified terminology and vagueness in the written laws and teachings of Christianity, and the failure of Christianity to bring happiness to certain people, a recent poll suggests that about 77% of Americans still believe in the Christian God.
But why? How can the great majority of the most scientifically and technologically advanced nation on Earth still believe in a being we can't even see, for whose existence we have scant evidence?
There are a number of non-scientific incentives for professing belief in the Christian God and for 'having faith,' so to speak -- a concept further elucidated in On Trust -- including easy consonance with others who already believe in God, linguistic evolution, the prevalence of religious expressions, such as "My God," and "Jesus Christ," majestic artwork composed in the name of Christianity, and our religious holidays, including Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving. In this essay, I will propose as a theory another possible incentive, one that is partly based on Darwin's theory of sexual selection and may perhaps lie at the basis of Christianity: the ability to manipulate certain people -- including slaves, lower class citizens, the less attractive, and less fortunate people in general -- for personal gain. More specifically, according to this theory, which I will call 'CPD' (Christianity as Deliberate Lie and Political Dominance Strategy), Christianity is used to manipulate people who are, by nature, sadder and more desperate, in an attempt to simulate self-disempowering and self-sacrificing altruistic behavior by means of a lying promise of reward.
In what follows, I hope that Christians will not be too offended, as I am neither a follower of Nietzsche nor a Satanist, and I do not intend to ruin Christians' enjoyment of life. I also hope that those listed above as possible victims of manipulation -- especially the less attractive -- will not be offended either, as I have compassion for them as conscious beings and do not seek their torment.
The Social Preconditions of the Christian Lie
In order to elicit self-disempowerment and servitude from followers, Christianity needs a target group. According to Darwin's theory, human attractiveness evolved to signal fitness and fertility to potential mating partners, who in turn have evolved to detect these signals in attractiveness. Occasionally, a human being is born with a deformity or genetic maladaptation who does not signal as well with attractiveness. We know this as a less attractive person (see Darwinism and Sexual Selection).
Due to their decreased fitness and desirability as mating partners, less attractive people, in general, have been found in the lower classes and have possibly been considered less useful for tasks such as parenting than more attractive people. In addition to being romantically rejected more often than usual, they are, according to CPD, the primary targets of Christian manipulation.
However, this doesn't mean that less attractive people are the only targets of such manipulation. Other people, including slaves, certain minority groups, social outcasts, sympathizers, and possibly even the entire working class, could be such targets. For example, we readily see from the New Testament that some of the teachings of Christianity concerned the bonds and relations between masters and their slaves. In CPD, the Christian lie is directed at anyone who feels discontentedness, sadness, pain, or desperation, and who would perhaps look to a promise of reward and follow Christianity as an alternative to either more enjoyable activities that are forbidden to him or her, or activities that are, at any rate, less enjoyable as a result of his or her circumstances.
The Purpose of the Lie
As we have seen, CPD states that less attractive people are the primary target of the Christian lie. The main purpose of the lie, according to CPD, is two-fold:
In this way, people less desired as mating partners are 'utilized' for the benefit of other Christians in a way that renders them relatively harmless. The net result is a collection of servants who will work for the manipulators, but possess very little power of retaliation in the face of harm or injury. Consequently, they have the potential to become 'suffering servants.'
In what follows, I will refer to all Christians who are primarily victims of manipulation, less attractive or otherwise, as Christian servants, the manipulators themselves as Christian manipulators, and those who receive the generosity of the servants as Christian enjoyers. The first of the two effects listed above could be called the positive function of Christianity on servants, and the second, the negative or disabling function of Christianity on servants. The two effects work in combination to produce a personality that is distinct from one that has powerlessness or generosity alone.
Servants, manipulators, and enjoyers are not precisely delineated groups, and it is possible for a Christian to have qualities of all three. If CPD is real, however, then they are definite concepts used in the plan to derive free labor from, and bring about the self-sacrifice of, the less attractive and other targeted individuals of the lower classes.
How the Lie Manipulates the Target Group
The decision to follow Christianity comes as a temptation to those who are discontent, frightened, or desperate as a result of their circumstances or treatment by their social group. In contrast to the manipulators, who may not follow Christ's teachings or even truly believe in God, they are perhaps more likely to opt for religion out of sheer frustration when few other enjoyable activities are available.
A scheme of dominance could already be in place against the victims of manipulation, as in the use of vagueness in written law to decide at whim who is to be subjugated or punished, and for what actions -- if actions alone are even the basis for such retaliation. In addition, certain laws or regulations could be sustained on the alleged basis of God's existence, the existence of an afterlife, or the wisdom of following his commandments, such as laws permitting cruelty or banning voluntary euthanasia. The Christian lie, then, may function as an 'added touch' to a system of control that is already oppressive, or even be an attempt at hypnosis made against the oppressed citizen.
Therefore, even highly intelligent people can succumb to the temptation to follow Christianity, provided that they are, somehow or another, deprived of the means to enjoy other activities. The intelligent Christian servant, however, is still to be distinguished from the Christian manipulator and the Christian enjoyer.
Another temptation, especially for the more compassionate, is to claim that one is Jesus. Christianity states that Jesus will eventually return to Earth, allegedly knowing that he is the Son of God, in order to build a kingdom. A victim of manipulation who is dissatisfied with the present state of the world and has sympathy for the lower classes might fall prey to this temptation and tell others that he is Jesus returning to Earth, depending on a number of factors, including government involvement, desperation, and the Christianity of his social group. (Although I am not Jesus and have never claimed to be, it is possible that there has been government involvement in my case. For more, see Am I a Victim of Intellectual Sabotage?)
According to CPD, all of these decisions of the servant result from altered reward expectations of the servant's possible actions. For example, in order to maximize the controlling effect of Christianity on the servant, the intensity of proclaimed reward and punishment in Heaven and Hell are themselves maximized. Other non-scientific incentives include, as we have seen:
These incentives for the servant to follow Christianity coexist with added incentives for the manipulators and enjoyers: servitude from, and dominance over, the disempowered target group.
It can be imagined that the repeated sacrifices of Christian servants create a positive feedback loop of increasing desperation, suffering, and hope of reward from Christianity. The term 'positive feedback loop' here does not refer to a satisfactory relationship with God, but is rather a technical term for a process that strengthens itself over time, based on what it has already accomplished, as distinguished from a negative feedback loop, in which a process is weakened or discouraged for becoming active. In the case of Christianity, the positive feedback loop is a 'vicious cycle' of increasing loss and desperation, and may coexist with a negative feedback loop of discouragement for non-Christian behaviors. The idea that Christianity creates a disempowering feedback loop in the servant is important to CPD and may, together with the incentives for manipulators and enjoyers, explain both the prevalence of Christianity and the tenacity with which some hold to their beliefs.
The intent to create such a feedback loop is further supported by passages of the Bible that depict God as a being who further harms those who already hate him (Romans 1:18, Deuteronomy 7:10), worsening their circumstances and, imaginably, their hatred of God.
In order to create the illusion of alliance with the target group and thereby strengthen the persuasive power of the Christian lie, deeds are performed by manipulators in service of other less fortunate groups, such as starving children, deeds that appear superficially kind, and yet, while perhaps helpful on a smaller scale, do not fully remedy the problems of the less fortunate as a whole. It must be added that we are not disputing the moral value of such acts per se, but rather their use to bolster a lie, defend religious legislation, and elicit the desired behavior from the target group.
Finally, the real demands of sacrifice made by Christianity (see Matthew 19:21 below) are ignored by the manipulators and enjoyers, who, perhaps having already found contentment in life, feel less threatened by the possibility that God is real, even more so if, as CPD states, Christianity is a deliberate lie.
The Role of Specific Teachings in the Christian Lie
The truth of CPD is already supported by a plethora of passages from the New Testament in which the promise of reward for self-disempowerment and self-sacrifice appear as recurring themes in the teachings of Christianity:
treasure in Heaven; and come, follow me." -Matthew 19:21
"Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to
him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your
cloak as well." -Matthew 5:39-40
"Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
-Matthew 10:39
"If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." -Mark 9:35
"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not
enter it." -Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted ...
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil
against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great
in Heaven ..." -Matthew 5:2-11
"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
Woe to you, when all people speak well of you ..." -Luke 6:24-26
"Do not take an oath at all ... Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more
than this comes from evil." -Matthew 5:34-37
then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." -Matthew 6:1
your mind and with all your strength." -Mark 12:30
How the Concept of 'Sin' Discourages Self-Empowerment
According to CPD, the definition of 'sin' is deliberately left vague in order to confuse the servant about the nature of moral righteousness in Christian ethics, to decide at whim whose actions are sinful, especially on the basis of attractiveness or social standing, and to keep the servant in fear of God's (or anyone's) retaliation for actions that might be sins. Connections are made between:
In addition to the vagueness inherent in the notion of a sin, the servant is taught that sinning -- whatever it is -- is deserving of gruesome punishment, including dismemberment, drowning, or being thrown into a furnace:
adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out ... And if your
right hand causes you to sin, cut it off ... " -Matthew 5:28-30
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better
for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into
the sea." -Mark 9:42
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish
of every kind. When it was full, men drew the net ashore and sat down and sorted the good into
containers but threw away the bad. So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out
and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace." -Matthew 13:47-50
The main purpose of the concept of 'sin,' in CPD, is to weaken the servant by threatening the life impulse, which includes all behaviors associated with self-empowerment, the fulfillment of certain drives and wishes, and acts of revenge against Christian manipulation. This loose association between life-promoting activities and 'sinfulness' further intensifies the positive feedback loop of repeated self-sacrifice and desperation for reward, distracting the servant from such activities and holding his focus on Christianity.
Thus, festivity and self-esteem are discouraged as Pride and Gluttony, reactions of anger to the infliction of harm upon the servant are discouraged as Envy and Wrath, material possession is discouraged as Greed, the sexual response is discouraged as Lust, and refusal to serve one's manipulators is discouraged as Sloth. This is not to say that the intent of all religious law is to dominate the servant, but that the concept of 'sin' and of its connection with a snake is used in particular for this aim.
A Critical Examination of the Golden Rule and of the Notion of 'Hypocrisy'
Although the Golden Rule has been highly cherished in our culture, it appears to hurt the less attractive. It does not state, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them," but, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." By a mere rearrangement of pronouns, the problem of individual difference is swept under the rug, and we are not told whether the rejection of the less attractive, or, for that matter, the criminal siege of the more attractive, violates the rule.
More importantly, the Golden Rule in this form does not settle the issue of whether the target group should suffer. In more technical terms, the motive to please or harm in doing unto others might be conditional on the personality of the recipient. For example, an attractive person might choose only to harm those he deems less attractive, and excuse himself under the Golden Rule by saying that another acting as he did would not hurt him, as he, himself, is attractive.
In a similar vein, one may count oneself as belonging to a privileged group -- even a group consisting solely of oneself -- when making any command that might be considered hypocritical or in violation of the Golden Rule, in order to excuse himself or herself on the basis of individual difference. The Golden Rule therefore appears to contain a flaw, as does the notion of hypocrisy.
Summary of the Theory
I have here presented a theory of Christianity as a systematically manipulative lie and political dominance strategy used to derive free labor from its target group. More specifically, Christianity operates within a political framework that is already controlling on the basis of religious law in order to encourage hard work from its servants, but also submission and self-sacrifice. In doing so, it confers temporary survival benefits to at least a fraction of the population, albeit at the expense of the servant.
This theory of Christianity, which I have called 'CPD,' is based largely on Darwin's theory of sexual selection. The primary target group of Christian manipulation, according to the theory, is the less attractive, although others could be made targets as well, including slaves, outcasts, sympathizers, the entire working class, or anyone who feels sad or unfortunate. It could explain how Christianity came into existence, and why so many continue to follow it despite evidence that God does not exist.
A Moral Comparison of the Idea of Reincarnation to That of Eternal Afterlife
In addition to the theory that Christianity is a deliberate lie made to the less fortunate for personal gain, a surprising moral comparison may be made between reincarnation in religions such as Hinduism and eternal afterlife in Christianity. While reincarnation, by nature of the idea, promotes sympathy, compassion, and kindness to others, the notion of eternal afterlife is bound up with the idea of never having to experience the consciousness of another. In contrast to reincarnation, therefore, eternal afterlife has the inherent potential to promote selfishness, cruelty, and psychopathy.
We see this very readily in Christians who speak cheerfully of others' eternal damnation and hope to enjoy the luxuries of Heaven even with knowledge that other conscious beings are suffering in Hell below. In the sense that Christianity, as well as the notion of eternity as oneself, have this potential to create an emotional detachment from the feelings of others, Christianity may be said to be morally inferior to Hinduism and to other religions in which reincarnation plays a role.
Seven Arguments for God's Existence Refuted
Nevertheless, in an attempt to persuade people that the doctrines of Christianity are true and that there is an invisible being called 'God' who rewards and punishes at death, various arguments have been proposed as proofs of God's existence. When an inference is made to the existence of the Christian God, these arguments are almost always fallacious and reveal either faulty thinking or an intention to deceive on the part of the arguer. To conclude this essay, I will briefly summarize seven arguments for God's existence and point out the flaws in each. These are the Argument from Divine Authority, the Argument from Design, the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, the Moral Argument, Pascal's Wager, and the Argument from Sign or Revelation.
Objection: This argument is an instance of the Fallacy of Begging the Question. In order to know that the Bible is the infallible word of God, we must first know that God exists. But in order to know that God exists, we must already know that the Bible is the infallible word of God. The conclusion is merely assumed to be true in the premise of its deduction.
It could also be argued that the moon is made of Swiss cheese. Why? Because it has cheese holes in it. But how do we know that they are cheese holes and not craters caused by asteroid impacts? Because the moon is made of Swiss cheese, and cheese doesn't have craters. This argument is an instance of the same fallacy: the moon could both have craters and be made of something other than cheese.
In the same way, the Bible might contain false statements written by man and God might not exist.
Objection: This argument is an instance of the Fallacy of Equivocation. Although we may, if we choose, give the name 'God' to the force, law, or entity responsible for beauty and orderliness, it would not follow that this 'God' is the Christian God, any more than it would follow that this God is Krishna, Allah, or Zeus. What follows from one definition of 'God' does not follow from another.
In subtler form, the argument notes that many constants in the laws of physics are 'fine-tuned' for the development of human life, and an inference is made to God's existence as the best possible explanation for this fine-tuning. We must remember, however, not only that 'God' might not be the Christian God, but that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, multiverse theory, and even the Anthropic Principle by itself serve as competing explanations of the conditions of human life. To infer the existence of a bringer of happiness and beauty and call it 'God' may be valid within the limits of human understanding, but an inference to the existence of the Christian God is still fallacious.
Objection: All premises of this argument are unfounded. The first premise invokes a vaguely-defined notion of temporal causality that is distinct from the purely logical notion, in which universal statements about the behavior of matter in the world are made, the second discounts the possibility of an oscillating universe, the third presupposes a beginning of spacetime that is topologically closed, and the conclusion results from the Fallacy of Equivocation.
Objection: First, the concept of greatness has not been sufficiently well-defined to allow us to determine whether greatness can be ranked. Further, even if greatness could be ranked, it would not follow that there was a maximally great being any more than it would follow from the fact that finite numbers can be ranked that there is a maximally great finite number, and even if existence did add to greatness, it would not follow that a maximally great being would be one that existed.
It could similarly be argued that because a sparkly aura would add to a woman's beauty, the most beautiful woman on Earth must have a sparkly aura. This argument is equally unsound: it does not follow from the premise that a property adds to beauty that the most beautiful being has that property.
Objection: Independently of the notion of divine reinforcement, we are able to found morals in the interest of human happiness. In fact, several ethical systems have already been invented that do not invoke the notion of a dominant being who rewards and punishes: virtue ethics, deontological ethics, the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and various political systems that propose to alleviate human suffering, as Christianity, to date, has not.
Objection: If CPD is real, then there is a loss for believing in God: political doctrines that are oppressive and manipulative. Additionally, in the calculation of expected reward one offsets the severity of punishment in Hell with the unlikelihood that Hell actually exists, and in doing so, one arrives at a figure for loss that is small enough to be compared to that of social and political oppression, particularly as states of mind comparable to Hell on Earth are enforced today under Christian law.
Objection: Depending on the event, we can imagine that this argument won't do us much good, especially if the sign or revelation is of an ambiguous, mysterious, or perplexing nature.
As tempting as it would be to enforce religious law or follow religion in fear of God after an astonishing or frightening coincidence, we must remember:
In fact, alternative scientific explanations of patterns and coincidences in nature by themselves reduce the likelihood that such events are signals meant to be trusted as revelations of divine authority, as such an authority would need to understand that from the point of view of the recipient, his, her, or its existence is only a mere possibility -- if the existence of such a being, as described, is even conceivable -- and that a non-religious course of action by the recipient may, in the end, be found the most rational.
Send me mail
Back to My Essays
View my Guestbook
