Endothermic Religious Freedom

Religion Test TubeIntroduction

In High School chemistry you may have learned about chemical kinetics. Chemical kinetics explains chemical reactions in terms of energy states. Remember the fun experiment where you exploded hydrogen in a test tube but then had to listen to a long, complicated lecture on the chemistry behind it?

Below, I will use chemical kinetic-like graph analogies as a tool  to understand religion. Many of my readers have a deeper knowledge of chemical kinetics than I do.  But for those of you who don’t remember or never learned chemical kinetics here is the wiki article and here and here are two simple sites explaining the science. There are thousands of other sites, and if you find better sites, please share those links in the comments.

As a preface to my diagrams, below are classic chemical kinetics graphs showing both Exo and Endothermic reactions (source).



Religious Thermodynamics

Now, instead of molecules, let’s look at human society — in particular, the evolution of religious thinking in society. Both atheists and theists alike acknowledge the evolution of religion to some degree, so I imagine the graph below should not be controversial.


Early in human history, many human groups operated with worldviews populated by many gods/spirits and various shamans to intervene with those entities — there was no central power.  The above graph illustrates part of the “Religious Thermodynamics” of that time period when those worldviews developed competitors.  The outcome: hunter-gatherer worldviews have been largely extinguished. Overthrowing the shamanistic worldview required energy input. An aspiring ruler cast himself as an all powerful tribal chief using a reinforcing worldview which declared that there was only one main god (henotheism) and he claimed to be the main conduit of power and authority throw that god.  For the better or the worse, such a society is often more competitive than shamanistic polytheism/polyspiritism.

But revolutions don’t always succeed — either in the short term nor in the long term.  The other possible outcome is that though the shamans may fall,  the resulting society may become more chaotic, less prosperous, and unstable.  Only history reveals the outcome(s).

Secular Thermodynamics

Now let’s look at “Secular Thermodynamics“. The graph below shows how in recent history we have societies that transitioned from theocracies to secular governments.  That graph shows the same thermodynamic principles of energy needed for change, stability risks and desired end-product.


Myth_of_ProgressThe Myth of Progress

To the right, let me illustrate the “Myth of Progress” and state that I do not hold to this theory. Society can undergo both endothermic and exothermic reactions and reach new stable states in any direction. For though Secular tribes can offer greater prosperity, safety and happiness, for historical reasons, sometimes they fall apart (consider Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan) and society returns to theocratic rule to fulfill some other desire of those who grab power.  History is not stable. The catalysts and interactions of complex systems does not guarantee progress.  Systems are not destined to freedom or happiness: neither evolution, the gods, the universe, karma nor anything else cares.

Philosophical Thermodynamics

OK, in last graph below I illustrate Philosophical or Psychological Thermodynamics.  Using this graph, you can clearly see what theists fear: that without God people will fall into cynical depression or depravity.  Well history shows us that this is not the case, well, not always. But to discuss the issue any further, I thought these models would be helpful.



Religious freedom requires energy — it is endothermic.  But there are several obstacles to freeing oneself from religious oppression:

    • the energy and effort required (education, activism …)
    • the real risk that the change may lead to worse states

When discussing religion, it may be useful to remember chemical thermodynamic models where it is easy to see how, given context, religion can indeed offer benefits.  Yet religion has horrible oppressive components that need changed or destroyed.  The task is complex. Hopefully this model help illustrates the benefits, costs and and risks of change.  All of us are at least subconsciously aware of these and they feed our desire for change or repulsion of change depending on our investments, our temperaments, our perceptions and our social settings.



Filed under Philosophy & Religion

4 responses to “Endothermic Religious Freedom

  1. Its always beneficial to learn tips like you talk about for blog site posting. As I just started posting responses for blog site and dealing with problem involving lots of denials. I think your suggestion can be helpful for me. I will tell you if its work with me also.

  2. Disgustedandamused

    Interesting take on the subject. I’ve played around with a similar idea on how to approach understanding cultural systems, not so much religions per se but simply noting the energy levels and their “time-focus.” Here’s a simple description:

    Cultures with low energy budgets have little resources to devote to their information and management systems, so they rely on whatever information structures they have primarily inherited, without devoting much effort to developing new information or vetting the information they have. They literally can’t afford such a luxury, and may vigorously defend the received information structures: not because they believe them inherently right (they might), but because too much energy devoted to such exploration could open up such a can of worms as to call the survival of the society and its population into question. Tradition and identification with tradition constrains all decisions; the population itself will be defined by received information patterns (tribes to ethnic groups, to castes/ races).

    Next are groups that can afford to deal with maintaining information structures that concentrate on being up-to-date; group identification will reflect this (social classes, and in industrial societies that can afford it, the dynamics of fashion as a means of gauging the flow of current information through the society).

    The most energy-intensive and information-intensive societies so far (like internet-integrated societies) have sufficient resources to devote to a future orientation. In fact, we might not be able to afford ignoring the future, since conditions may change quickly enough due to rapid resource throughput to require a future orientation to avoid being overtaken by normal pace of events.

    Capital structures and information systems, it occurs to me, must be heavily endothermic systems — or at least parts of them must be (the processes used in creating the “endothermic structure” might run through a lot of energy and simply not be as obvious once the intended complex structures are created.

    It might be possible to measure objectively the bands of energy budgets typical for each of these orientations, and deduce where along these energy budgets a society either must make the transition up to the next level, or if facing falling energy budgets, where they can no longer afford a more complex social and time orientation, and they need to acclimate to a simpler, slower orientation… whether they like it or not.

    You’re also on target with the observation about “progress” not being a sure thing — the sense of progress as a perpetual movement forward could be seen as a perceptual illusion based on the perspectives available from one’s historical and cultural vantage point.

  3. phil

    interestingly, i think the states you’ve identified here correlate with the stages of cultural development outlined in the “spiral dynamics” (SD) model of human development (google it). against that model, multi-god = Purple/Red, single god = Blue, no god = Orange. regarding how societies flip from one worldview to the next, i think there’s correlations between your description and that of SD too.

  4. Thanks phil — ah, I see, Ken Wilber endorsed.
    Thanx — looked at it: http://www.fudomouth.net/thinktank/now_integralvision.htm

    Thanxs for the parallel. Maybe other readers will examine.

Please share your opinions!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s