It is hard to overlook the possibility that Genesis and Timaeus were written by the elite to secure their power even though we cannot say with certainty. Clearly it is men who hold any real power in these works: For example, Timaeus states that cowardly men, recently deceased, transmigrate into women, and according to the Pentateuch, (of which Genesis is a part), mature women are regarded as "unclean" between 9 and 14 days of every 28.
Whether such patriarchal attitudes were merely assumed at a time when strength and survival went hand-in-hand or whether there was a conscious application of such ideas can never be known. We can be sure, though, their being promoted did not hurt those in charge. Plato's Republic, which by today's standards makes Huxley's Brave New World look pleasant, believed that individuals should be placed in a level of society not dissimilar to
The religious text Genesis appeals to the passionate part of our minds while the Timaeus is more interested in the Rational. Plato thought emotions untrustworthy and unreliable and if we take the definition of Passion to mean "lust and strong desire", then Timaeus advises us to keep these base instincts under control. Meanwhile, Genesis as a whole, along with its characters, including God, leaves Reason behind in many instances. Here, I need provide only one example, that Abraham should kill his son for no reason other than that he was asked by God. With every intention of carrying out this benevolent being's request, Abraham is rewarded. "Abraham, kill your mind and your faculties of reason and your son, to boot and I will reward you."
Genesis 9.11: "Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood". Write it down and it shall be so? Is this hopeful thinking on the part of those who wrote it, much like cave-drawings of hunted animals are thought to have been a "visualization of hope" for cavemen? Many stories in Genesis can be interpreted on a moral basis although to different degrees: they can be very open to explanation. Some lessons are obviously clearer than others while some can be interpreted and spinned depending on one's agenda. Although I've not tried, I imagine that countless messages and morals to the fable of Noah disowning his son for seeing him naked can be constructed. (And this to name but one example of a tale from Genesis whose outcome is so severe, irrational, incomprehensible and without reason so as to allow much room for interpretation).
So, as mentioned earlier, (and to get back to my point) these holy texts codified life to make daily living tolerable and relatively peaceful (if not somewhat oppressive and fearful). They provided a code to live by as well as something to believe in. Today, any threat of damnation if certain moral rules are not followed would be scoffed at, but before the common era the average person was brought into the fold without much effort at all. Who would not want to believe in the idea of a benevolent and merciful god watching over us?
Beliefs in similar stories and mores makes for cohesion in a society and if not protection from the harsh realities of the world, these stories provide an explanation. After a disastrous weather system wipes out a season's crops, for example, to give that disaster a human-caused reason gives hope so that the people feel they have some control over the future. "Next year, if we x, y and z, our crops will surely not be destroyed. Until then, we must behave." Behave to the point of sacrificing your own son, should God, or one of his earthly workers, request you to do something so deplorable.
In a world where death is so haphazard and near, it would be consoling to believe that we exert some control over our own fates. People within a society must share their illusions in order for it to function properly. Back then it was religious beliefs that people happily ascribed to to maintain cohesion and the hope that tomorrow will be better. If tomorrow proves disastrous, though, that's OK because all worldly sacrifices and hardships have been tallied and will be reimbursed after death. We wanted to believe because death could come at any time, unannounced.
Today, this dodged topic of death is not contemplated anything like it was in the past. For much of the last two millennia, devout Christians prayed for heavenly afterlives in numbers far greater than today... It is only recently that we, as a race, have all but denied death. We fool ourselves into believing that it is something that only happens to others because, so far, it has not happened to us.
According to Freud in the Future of an Illusion, religion serves to allay human fears of death. Whereas death used to be confronted head-on, the contemporary religion Consumerism has our thoughts and fears of death masked. Capitalism has overtaken the parts of the human heart and mind that provide comfort as if the accumulation of goods ensures that we will someday make use of them. "Others, not me, will have to die this year; I have a new coat and scarf that need wearing this winter." OK, we don't consciously think this way but it is telling that after the Western world's reality check of 9/11, the leaders of the free world - Bush n' Blair - were encouraging us to continue shopping, traveling on airplanes, going to baseball games etc... to be distracted and to get back to normal.
Is it human nature for us to delude ourselves into such beliefs, whether the belief is that we won't die or that heaven is waiting despite the lack of evidence of such an astounding claim? Is there a mechanism that keeps us from facing reality, be it Death or Global Warming? It would seem so.
