# Why Organized Religion Doesn’t Lead to Sentience Date: 2023-06-22 --- --- ### Why Organized Religion Doesn’t Lead to Sentience In this blog we purse the line of thinking that only memory and culture, the layers of programming above our genetic software, can lead to sentience, going beyond original programming, OP. Then one obvious choice of culture to help alleviate the restrictions of OP is organized religion. ![Image](https://disrael.github.io/blogs/assets/why-organized-religion-doesn-t-lead-to-sentience-35fe3e5eb1.jpg) Christianity, for instance, even has the concept of original sin which plays out as very similar to original programming. Something went wrong during the creation of humans and humanity needs to [atone for this sin](https://andrewspringer.medium.com/five-views-on-the-atonement-of-christ-d71dddca9b84). That’s so very close to the genetic version — humanity was created by evolutionary forces that leave us with OP that is not always suitable for modern living. But where the genetic version leaves some hope that OP can be conquered, the Christian version posits *absolute lineage*. Humanity cannot break from their lineage with Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ only escapes original sin through nepotism. It’s not that Jesus Christ broke free of original sin himself or even that God created a perfect human. If God were in the creating perfect humans business then he would have done so for Adam. It’s purely Jesus Christ’s primogeniture that breaks him free of original sin. This leaves Christianity wholly bound up in genetic original programming as escaping sin comes down to who’s your daddy. Jesus Christ could have been the story of a man whose original programming urged him to sin but helped by worshiping God he resists temptation. That’s a story that demonstrates a culture driven sentience. Which leads us to Siddhartha Gautama who has come to be known by the title [Buddha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha). The [Noble Eightfold Path](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path) again has broken OP as a premise: > In early Buddhism, these practices started with understanding that the body-mind works in a corrupted way (right view), followed by entering the Buddhist path of self-observance, self-restraint, and cultivating kindness and compassion; and culminating in [*dhyana*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhy%C4%81na_in_Buddhism "Dhyāna in Buddhism") or *samadhi*, which reinforces these practices for the development of the body-mind. However Siddhartha Gautama’s story is different from culture freeing a person from OP. He and his followers are urged to *individually* conquer OP much the same as one might diet to conquer fat. > The rise of Buddhism coincided with the [Second Urbanisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Urbanisation "Second Urbanisation"), in which the Ganges Basin was settled and cities grew, in which [egalitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism "Egalitarianism") prevailed. According to Thapar, the Buddha’s teachings were “also a response to the historical changes of the time, among which were the emergence of the state and the growth of urban centres.”[[97]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha#cite_note-FOOTNOTEThapar2004169-113) While the Buddhist mendicants renounced society, they lived close to the villages and cities, depending for alms-givings on lay supporters. Having renounced society it’s up to you personally to follow the diet like instructions of Buddhism and achieve enlightenment. Siddhartha had teachers but ultimately he meditates alone to achieve liberation. The problem is that sentience is a group activity. Most of the guidelines built into our DNA apply to interacting with other humans. > Better it is to live alone; there is no fellowship with a fool. Live alone and do no evil; be carefree like an elephant in the elephant forest. > — Gautama Buddha, from DhammapadaZ Fellowship with fools is unfortunately exactly what we are after — the main goal that OP prevents. It maybe that the definition of “organized religion” itself leads to practices that are less likeley compatible with culture driven sentience. [Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) seems much less organized in that it is not “dogma and an institution traceable to a single founder”. > The Vaidika dharma or “Vedic way of life”, states Lipner, does not mean “Hinduism is necessarily religious” or that Hindus have a universally accepted “conventional or institutional meaning” for that term.[[90]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#cite_note-FOOTNOTELipner200915%E2%80%9317-108) To many, it is as much a cultural term. The kind of religion which leads to culture driven sentience might seem more like culture itself and less like what is traditionally thought of as religion. Perhaps immersed in enough local Hindu culture an entire village could go beyond OP. The poor but happy village is a [bit of a trope](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pulling-through/202303/endorsing-the-poor-but-happy-trope-excuses-inequality). We cannot easily judge rural life and urban life is increasingly less traditionally religious. We can say that the more structured and powerful a religion is the less likely it is to break from OP.