My first mistake was believing
I could negotiate with terrorists.
My second mistake was thinking
I was only bargaining for my soul.
But then it dawned on me: if I failed,
I would be jeopardizing the world.
This is what happens
when you let things go for too long:
if you forfeit your soul,
you must deceive somebody else
into being a proxy for yours
and keep it going from there.
This is why culture wars never cease:
the war against illiberal democracy,
the war against corrupt politicians,
and the war against crony capitalists.
I’m standing on a slippery slope
because the devil
doesn’t just desire my righteous soul —
his legions want even more.
By: ElRoyPoet © 2023
A Call for Reason in a Divided World: Bridging Faith and Humanity
The Urgency of Reason in a Fractured World
In an era marked by unprecedented technological advancement and global interconnectedness, humanity faces profound challenges—from climate change to nuclear proliferation—that threaten our very existence. Yet, amidst these crises, a troubling pattern persists: the willingness of individuals and nations to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs. This phenomenon has fueled conflicts, justified heinous crimes, and perpetuated divisions that hinder collective progress. As we stand in the shadow of weapons of mass destruction, the need for a rational, evidence-based approach becomes not just preferable but imperative. This treatise explores why mankind often forsakes reason for faith, how religion influences societal behavior, and how understanding spirituality as a biological necessity can guide us toward a more humane, secular future.
The Temptation to Suspend Reason: Roots in Sociology and Psychology
Human beings are inherently social creatures, seeking belonging, identity, and certainty. Sociology reveals that religious beliefs often serve as powerful social glue, fostering community cohesion and providing existential comfort. However, this social function can also lead to the suppression of individual reasoning, especially when collective identity is threatened or when dogma is used to reinforce social hierarchies.
Psychologically, cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and motivated reasoning cause individuals to cling to their beliefs, even when faced with contradictory evidence. For example, studies show that believers often interpret ambiguous information in ways that reinforce their faith, a phenomenon known as “belief perseverance.” Moreover, the human tendency toward moral righteousness can justify harmful actions if they are framed as obedience to divine command. From a sociological perspective, religious institutions often wield authority that discourages dissent, fostering environments where critical thinking is subordinate to doctrinal adherence.
Religious Justification of Harmful Behavior: A Societal and Ethical Dilemma
History and contemporary events exemplify how religious fervor can justify violence and heinous crimes. From the Crusades to modern terrorist acts, faith has been manipulated to endorse acts of terror and oppression. Sociologist Emile Durkheim argued that religion functions as a social institution that reinforces collective morals—yet, when these morals are rigid or exclusive, they can lead to social fragmentation and conflict.
Religious justifications for violence often hinge on the concept of divine command theory—the belief that moral authority derives directly from God. This can lead to moral absolutism, where humans suspend ethical reasoning in favor of divine laws, even when such laws endorse harm. For instance, some extremist groups interpret religious texts literally, disregarding the broader moral framework of compassion and justice, thereby justifying atrocities. This dangerous abdication of reason in favor of divine authority underscores the urgent need for secular moral frameworks rooted in empathy and human rights.
The Peril of Moderate Religious Accommodation: The Illusion of Neutrality
Many argue that moderate religiosity or religious tolerance can serve as a buffer against extremism. However, this “moderate lip service” often masks the underlying issues, blinding society to the dangers of fundamentalism. Sociologically, the accommodation of religious beliefs into politics can embolden radical elements by providing them legitimacy and space to grow.
Furthermore, religious moderates sometimes inadvertently perpetuate a false dichotomy that pits faith against reason, preventing critical engagement with religious doctrines. This complacency can delay the recognition of fundamentalist threats until they reach dangerous proportions, as seen in many conflicts where moderate voices are drowned out by more extreme factions. An honest assessment reveals that religious moderation, if not accompanied by critical reflection and separation from political power, can enable the very fundamentalism it claims to oppose.
Neuroscience and Philosophy: Understanding Spirituality as a Brain-Based Need
Recent advances in neuroscience offer compelling evidence that spirituality is rooted in the biology of the human brain. Brain imaging studies demonstrate that spiritual experiences activate specific neural circuits associated with reward, social bonding, and the sense of meaning. For example, the prefrontal cortex and limbic system play critical roles in feelings of awe, transcendence, and moral judgment—core components of spiritual experience.
Philosophically, thinkers like William James and Aldous Huxley have argued that spirituality arises from innate human needs for connection and understanding—an evolutionary adaptation that fosters social cohesion and psychological resilience. Recognizing spirituality as a biological necessity reframes it from being an irrational or dangerous delusion to a fundamental aspect of human nature. This perspective suggests that fostering a secular form of spirituality—focused on awe, compassion, and interconnectedness—can satisfy these needs without reliance on dogma or divine authority.
Toward a Secular Humanistic Approach: Embracing Our Biological Needs for Good
Understanding spirituality as a brain-based need opens pathways to address global problems through secular humanism—a philosophy emphasizing reason, empathy, and shared human dignity. Instead of invoking divine authority, societal progress can be driven by cultivating the innate human capacities for compassion and moral reasoning. Education systems can emphasize scientific literacy and ethical reflection, fostering communities grounded in rational compassion.
Policy-makers and leaders must recognize that moral development is possible without religious justifications. International cooperation, conflict resolution, and social justice initiatives can benefit from framing goals around shared human needs and values, rather than religious differences. By acknowledging and nurturing our biological spiritual needs in a secular context, we can build a more tolerant, rational, and resilient world.
Reclaiming Reason for Humanity’s Future
In conclusion, the human tendency to suspend reason in favor of faith is rooted in our social, psychological, and biological makeup. While religion has played a vital role in shaping human culture, its potential to justify harm and conflict cannot be ignored. The evidence from neuroscience and philosophy underscores that spirituality is an inherent aspect of human nature—one that can be expressed through secular means rooted in empathy and reason.
As we confront the perils of our time, including nuclear threats and religious extremism, we must reject superficial tolerance and moderate lip service. Instead, we must embrace a rational, humanistic approach that recognizes our innate spiritual needs and channels them toward peace, understanding, and coexistence. Only by doing so can we hope to transcend the divisions wrought by faith and forge a future grounded in reason, compassion, and shared humanity.
Poem Analysis: Bargaining with the Devil—How Sacred Compromises Escalate into Systemic Harm
“My first mistake was believing I could negotiate with terrorists.
My second mistake was thinking I was only bargaining for my soul.
But then it dawned on me: if I failed, I would be jeopardizing the world.“
These opening lines of the poem dramatize a moral calculus too many of us learn to accept: that existential stakes justify extraordinary compromises. Read closely, the confession is not only personal shame but a model of escalation—an individual concession framed as sacred that quickly metastasizes into public danger. This poem argues that such bargains—whether religiously justified or politically framed as moral imperatives—create mechanisms of deception, proxy responsibility, and institutionalized conflict. To avert the “slippery slope“, society needs secular, evidence-based frameworks that satisfy human needs for meaning without empowering harm.
Stanza 1: The Illusory Bargain and the Global Consequence
The poem’s speaker lists two “mistakes,” each revealing a psychological trap. The first—negotiating with terrorists—is a vivid metaphor for conceding to actors whose ends are absolute and uncompromising. The second—believing the deal concerned only the self—captures a common rationalization: that personal sacrifice can be contained. The stanza’s pivot (“if I failed… jeopardizing the world”) collapses the private and public spheres. This is the exact danger when individuals treat moral claims as transcendent and unquestionable, they can justify actions that extend far beyond personal consequence. Moral absolutism thereby silences doubt and invites catastrophic risk.
Stanza 2: Proxying Responsibility—How Deception Reproduces Itself
The poem’s next image—forsaking one’s soul and deceiving another into acting as proxy—maps onto well-documented social dynamics. When an agent surrenders critical judgment, institutions or other individuals often absorb and reproduce that abdicated responsibility. Sociologically, religious authority or ideological leadership can convert private conviction into public policy or collective practice. The stanza’s “keep it going from there” captures institutional inertia: a single compromised choice becomes a script that others learn, imitate, and perpetuate. The result is not merely individual moral failure but a socialized system of deception and delegated culpability.
Stanza 3: Culture Wars as Symptom, Not Aberration
By listing contemporary battlegrounds—the war against illiberal democracy, corrupt politicians, crony capitalists—the poem reframes culture wars as symptoms of a deeper logic. The same absolutist reasoning that legitimizes a “deal” with extremist actors also empowers political and economic actors who claim existential justification for illiberal measures. Far from isolated skirmishes, these conflicts form a network of rationalizations that feed one another: moral certainty in one domain reinforces righteousness in another. The poem thus demonstrates that culture wars are not merely rhetorical; they are the ecosystem in which proxying and deception thrive.
Stanza 4: Slippery Slope and the Expansion of Appetite
The closing stanza’s image—standing on a slippery slope while the devil’s legions desire “even more”—encapsulates the dynamic of expansion. Psychologically, cognitive biases make further concessions easier once a threshold is crossed. Sociologically, legitimizing compromise empowers organized actors to demand larger gains. The “devil” is not only a theological figure here but a metaphor for any absolutist force that grows by consuming moral capital. The poem’s warning is precise: accommodation without critical scrutiny escalates into organized harm.
Why a Secular, Reasoned Alternative Matters
The poem’s theological vocabulary is powerful because it captures felt realities—fear, meaning, duty. Those realities are biologically and socially grounded: humans need awe, belonging, and moral narratives. But recognizing the need does not require endorsing divine command structures that suspend reason. Secular humanist frameworks can satisfy those same needs—through community, ritual-less awe (art, nature, civic solidarity), ethical education, and institutions that reward critical inquiry—without enabling proxy violence or institutional deception.
Concrete prescriptions to break the slope:
- Civic education that pairs critical thinking with moral reasoning, so citizens can judge claims framed as existential imperatives.
- Create secular communal institutions (voluntary associations, civic rites, service networks) that provide belonging and meaning without doctrinal authority.
- Insist on separation of ideological authority from political power: prevent moral absolutism from becoming legal or state-sanctioned.
- Promote transparency and accountability where personal moral claims could entail public consequences, reducing the ability to delegate culpability.
Conclusion: Return from Bargain to Reason
The poem’s arc—from a private bargain to global jeopardy—offers a compact parable of modern escalation: a concession made in the name of a higher cause becomes a mechanism for deception, proxying, and sprawling conflict. To avoid the “legions” the poem conjures, we must reclaim reason as the default public method for adjudicating existential claims, while acknowledging and satisfying the human need for meaning in secular, humane ways. Only then can we stop treating moral bargains as containable and begin dismantling the institutional pathways that turn individual compromises into threats to the world.
In order to explain why we have systemic racism and a culture of ethics violations within our institutions, we need to understand that all systems in government rely on people to do their jobs in good faith. All it takes is for one key player to cheat, and the system fails. No system is self-moderated, no matter how much we audit and try to regulate it; it is up to the civil servant(s) to do his job to the best of his abilities. All the systemic problems we find are to be blamed on the people in power who are acting slick—not on the system. Blaming the culture is unconstitutional; an individual(s) in that system who is unwilling to support it, is literally breaking his oath of office. This is why a democracy can’t survive without a free press—to force transparency of the government—so that if it is discovered that a corrupt public official(s) is gaming the system, it can be brought to the citizens’ attention, so that the bad actor(s) can be impeached by the checks and balances in place.
“How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause?” Quote by: Sophia Magdalena Scholl was a 21 year old German student and anti-fascist political activist, active within the White Rose non-violent resistance group in Nazi Germany.
“However, I feel anger and frustration at those who simply looked away. I’m now convinced by hard experience that much, if not most, evil is protected and prolonged by good people who choose not to see or hear. But we are each other’s keepers, and by God’s grace—as well as by the power of the internet, good journalism and truth tellers everywhere—it is harder and harder for us to look away. What we do once we face suffering and injustice, of course, remains to be seen.” Excerpt from We got here because too many good people put their head in the sand
“Though liberty is established by law, we must be vigilant, for liberty to enslave us is always present under that same liberty. Our Constitution speaks of the ‘general welfare of the people’. Under that phrase all sorts of excesses can be employed by [authoritarian] tyrants—to make us bondsmen.” By: Marcus Tullius Cicero
The Golden Rule: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Bible, Matthew 7:12
“I don’t write my post-apocalyptic stories, because that’s what I think our future will become. I write them, so that you’ll know what future to avoid.” By: Ray Bradbury
elroypoet.blog 