Researchers are reported in the Economist trying to understand what? about religion. Well, apparently that there is confusion about why religion might reflect the underlying nature of humanity. The researchers then go on to ask questions that can only have answers in the underlying nature of humanity.
Why? Unfortunately for researchers, they also are bound by the underlying nature of humanity, and therefore are bound only to ask questions about human being that have answers about the underlying nature of humanity. Logically, of course, anything that pertains to humanity must have foundations in its underlying nature.
So, why is there some sort of discourse of surprise happening here? Researchers are enthusiastically proclaiming what teachers of humanity have long proclaimed, that moral story and cultural ritual increases cohesion of community; that story about punishment for divisive actions even when unsighted by other humans (karma or afterlife) will increase compliance. Even 140 years after publication, researchers of religion fail to read Baha’u’llah’s significant treatise on the evolution of religion, “The Book of Certitude”, and, while proclaiming their own failure as researchers to make adequate literature search, therefore fail to take the lead from Baha’u’llah’s thesis that diversity of religion is the other side of the coin of the establishment of religion in every culture.
Falling into the trap that there is some surprise in religions association with the underlying nature of humanity, the Economist editorial also falls into the trap of accepting that there are people who are not religious while sharing their dissonance with the world by stating that “Agnostics and atheists think like Buddhists “. In otherwords, while it is possible that some people, people without empathy (the underlying nature), who are psychopaths or sociopaths, are truly not religious because they truly cannot empathise with a greater human nature, they are a rarish group. It is possible that the psychopathic nature was once the leadership nature of early homo sapiens. However, extrapolating Baha’u’llah’s thesis, at a time when homo sapien may have been struggling to survive perhaps even because of a growing consciousness about things to do with death and loss, a member of the clan born to become both a strong leader and, yet, less psychopathic that any previous leader, created new empathic processes in the clan, and perhaps instituted laws against psychopaths and, therefore, the likelihood of them becoming leaders. Initially these may have been around burial and completion while ensuring continuity of clan and leadership. Millenia to millenia, these types of changes in religious understanding, laws, techniques, where impressed on every tribe and region and culture, according to the specific social but future need of that society to forge a greater unity. Whenever society has hit the wall of the need for the next expansion of unity, those societies would become confused and allow psychotics to advance their leadership aspirations. From the place of leadership, psychotics created such destruction among the community that the communities eventually acknowledged the teachings of new unity by the spiritual leader of the day. Today, the Great Educator for the unity of the global society, Baha’u’llah, has advanced teaching that completely neutralises the psychotic disposition from human leadership and organisation once and for all.
Researchers of religion, by flailing around in material that has been resolved for over 100 years, are lingering far behind the advances in religion that are occurring in the present and will grow logarithmically. They will not understand religion and will be completely taken by surprise when global human society metamorphoses into a quite new entity.