Designing a New Religion

[TealLeaf]

If I told ya, I'd hafta kill ya.

Well then by all means tell me and then kill me. I'm not afraid of death.

Any rule should have a full, logical explanation behind it that clearly explains the need for the rule, and the benefit of following it. Otherwise, individual hang-ups will likely be projected onto others who do not have that particular hang-up.

Projecting cultural hang-ups onto others can be problematic. Hence, the need for clear and logical explanations for the reasons behind the rules. Without that clear reasoning, people can become unreasonable when it comes to imposing rules.

While I generally agree with you that the reasons for religious laws should be explained as much as possible I don't think that it is always prudent or possible. Take for instance my suggestion that a belief in God instills a sense of stability in people who might otherwise tend to panic or become depressed during times of trouble and uncertainty.

It's kind of like telling a patient that they are getting a placebo. If you tell them that it is a placebo you loose the placebo effect.

The same argument that goes for explaining the need for God also goes for any description of the Universe as being perfect or benevolent.

On another note Seattle Gal I am not sure that I would use the term hang-up to describe people's beliefs. What you call hang-ups other people might call principles.

Have you been eating from that tree in the middle of the garden?

I'm not one hundred percent sure that I know what you're referring to. I have some ideas but lest I get the wrong one could you give me some more detail?

Well, your point is well taken, though a bit of a slippery slope. I was kinda going for a sunum bonum kind of thing here.
The point being that it is still pretty low on the moral development scale to be motivated by a reward/punishment model.

Sunum bonum? You'll have to forgive me I don't speak latin.

If not by positive and negative reinforcement what is a more evolved way to be motivated?

I had no intention to ... proselytize [in ] your thread!

No offense Art but I don't believe you.

I'd make it available in wii, psp, and whatever other electronic format in game form....

I like the idea. Though I think it might be better to put it in comic book ... I mean graphic novel form first.

 

[seattlegal]

Well then by all means tell me and then kill me. I'm not afraid of death.



While I generally agree with you that the reasons for religious laws should be explained as much as possible I don't think that it is always prudent or possible. Take for instance my suggestion that a belief in God instills a sense of stability in people who might otherwise tend to panic or become depressed during times of trouble and uncertainty.

It's kind of like telling a patient that they are getting a placebo. If you tell them that it is a placebo you loose the placebo effect.

Do you also lose the nocebo effects, as well? Some people are terrified of an angry God. Whether a person manifests a placebo effect or a nocebo effect would be dependent upon their attitude and expectations, no?

The same argument that goes for explaining the need for God also goes for any description of the Universe as being perfect or benevolent.

...and here comes the kicker to tie this all together:

Have you been eating from that tree in the middle of the garden?

I'm not one hundred percent sure that I know what you're referring to. I have some ideas but lest I get the wrong one could you give me some more detail?

That would be the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Is the universe perfect and benevolent? How do we know, and upon what do we base our assumptions? Can we really, ultimately know? Is our range of perception sufficient enough to ensure certainty?

On another note Seattle Gal I am not sure that I would use the term hang-up to describe people's beliefs. What you call hang-ups other people might call principles.

I guess that the proper label would be determined by the fruit that the hang-up/principle in question would bring to bear. (Nothing like some empirical evidence to confound and/or settle matters.)

Sunum bonum? You'll have to forgive me I don't speak latin.

"The Highest Good." (It's actually Summum Bonum.)
See this thread:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/ethics-vs-morals-8806.html

 

[Paladin]

Thanks SG sumtims my spill ckkr duznt wurk

 

[Nick_A]

Considering that all major religions predict the end of an era and the coming of a new prophet and further considering that we are fast approaching the ultimate carrying capacity of the Earth it seems reasonable to me that a major new religion or philosophy could very well be on the horizon.

If you were charged by God, the Universe, the people, the Illuminati or who/whatever to design a new religion for the whole Earth and all of mankind taking into account modern scientific knowledge and comparative religious study what would your new religion look like?

Would your religion have one God, many Gods or no God at all?

And what about rituals and institutions? Would there baptism, monastic communities, etc.? Should there be priests or religious professionals?

And what about things like marriage? Same sex marriage? Polygamy? Monogamy?

Should there be any religious articles such as rosaries, the Mormon's undergarments, the Sikh's combs and daggers?

Any dietary restrictions?

I have some ideas myself that draws from Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism and Sikhism among others but I get fuzzy when it comes to how to draw lines around God and the Universe.

Establishing the new religion will require the leadership of a dedicated charismatic man who knows good from evil and be capable of eliminating evil from society. The new religion will have a leader with the character of King George capable of dealing with the traitors in the name of the "good."

"I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

Hmmmm.....Perhaps on second thought I should stick with the ancient traditions.

 

[TealLeaf]

Do you also lose the nocebo effects, as well? Some people are terrified of an angry God. Whether a person manifests a placebo effect or a nocebo effect would be dependent upon their attitude and expectations, no?

I hear what you are saying. For some reason I find a perfect and benevolent Universe much less threatening than a God also. (That being said it is not a problem for me because I fear no man or potentate. )

Like I said though I am fuzzy on just where to draw the line around God or the Universe.

I have read that the Sikh religion's God is sufficiently fuzzy to be simultaneously a monotheistic creator God as well as something that is synonymous with the entirety of the Universe. Of course I have also read that the Sikhs are polytheists that while they believe in and worship one Supreme God also believe that other lesser Gods exist so I am not sure what to believe. I'd love to read their book "The Guru Granth Sahib" to see what they actually have to say and how they say it but it seems impossible to find a hard copy of the thing. (I hate reading things online.)

Establishing the new religion will require the leadership of a dedicated charismatic man who knows good from evil and be capable of eliminating evil from society.

I disagree. I think that if someone writes a decent enough book it is possible for it to make it as a religion even if it is authored anonymously. In fact in this day and age of skepticism I would expect that an anonymously authored religion would be received better by many people because its author would clearly not be doing it for fame, money or power.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

It helps to have a martyred founder. Also, the essential scriptures should be in some manner "channeled" from a non terrestrial source to eliminate the limitations inherent in having extant, and thus examinable sources.

Chris

 

[TealLeaf]

It helps to have a martyred founder. Also, the essential scriptures should be in some manner "channeled" from a non terrestrial source to eliminate the limitations inherent in having extant, and thus examinable sources.

That's the beauty of the Internet. One can author something and remain completely anonymous thus eliminating any need for hokey "channeling".

 

[seattlegal]

I hear what you are saying. For some reason I find a perfect and benevolent Universe much less threatening than a God also. (That being said it is not a problem for me because I fear no man or potentate. )

I dunno. A 'perfect and benevolent' universe sounds a bit rigid and non-adaptive to me. An 'optimized,' interactive universe sounds much more friendly to me.

Like I said though I am fuzzy on just where to draw the line around God or the Universe.

An interactive universe produces a similar fuzzy effect. Young's double-slit experiment seems to suggest that it is an interactive universe.

I have read that the Sikh religion's God is sufficiently fuzzy to be simultaneously a monotheistic creator God as well as something that is synonymous with the entirety of the Universe. Of course I have also read that the Sikhs are polytheists that while they believe in and worship one Supreme God also believe that other lesser Gods exist so I am not sure what to believe. I'd love to read their book "The Guru Granth Sahib" to see what they actually have to say and how they say it but it seems impossible to find a hard copy of the thing. (I hate reading things online.)

You can order one online here. (Although it's a bit pricey at $109.00 for the regular edition, $225.00 for the regular edition with translation, and $290.00 for the "deluxe" edition with translation.)

 

[Nick_A]

TL

I disagree. I think that if someone writes a decent enough book it is possible for it to make it as a religion even if it is authored anonymously. In fact in this day and age of skepticism I would expect that an anonymously authored religion would be received better by many people because its author would clearly not be doing it for fame, money or power.

Well if there are enough appearances on Oprah, Dr. Phil, and other similar shows, perhaps some will buy into it. Now imagine you are watching one of these shows, what would you have to hear that is new to inspire you to buy the book and become a follower of this new religion?

 

[TealLeaf]

Well if there are enough appearances on Oprah, Dr. Phil, and other similar shows, perhaps some will buy into it.

Nah, the thing to do would be to author the book anonymously online. Going on Oprah or Dr. Phil would defeat the whole anonymous/not-being-motivated-by-fame aspect.

Now imagine you are watching one of these shows, what would you have to hear that is new to inspire you to buy the book and become a follower of this new religion?

If someone could figure out a way to deal with major problems like environmental degradation and over population I'd be willing to give it a listen.

I dunno. A 'perfect and benevolent' universe sounds a bit rigid and non-adaptive to me. An 'optimized,' interactive universe sounds much more friendly to me.

Optimized? Optimized for what?

You can order one online here. (Although it's a bit pricey at $109.00 for the regular edition, $225.00 for the regular edition with translation, and $290.00 for the "deluxe" edition with translation.)

Thanks for finding this. I'm not sure that I want to spend that much just to investigate a religion. Perhaps I'll print out one of the versions.

 

[seattlegal]

Optimized? Optimized for what?

I dunno. I guess I just like how the idea of "optimized" implies intelligent design.

Thanks for finding this. I'm not sure that I want to spend that much just to investigate a religion. Perhaps I'll print out one of the versions.

Be sure to have a couple of reams of paper and enough printer cartridges to get you through 1430 pages! (Does your printer have sufficient memory to handle the task?)

 

[Paladin]

I dunno. I guess I just like how the idea of "optimized" implies intelligent design.

Ummm... doesn't that take us back to whole God thingy again SG?

 

[Dream]

I think that if someone writes a decent enough book it is possible for it to make it as a religion even if it is authored anonymously. In fact in this day and age of skepticism I would expect that an anonymously authored religion would be received better by many people because its author would clearly not be doing it for fame, money or power.

Nice to meet you, TealLeaf. Its true that it could not be for fame, money, or power; but it takes a headcase to design a new religion for everyone. People who do that sort of thing are called 'Cult leaders', and they are terrible control freaks. I include Lenin & Stalin among them, the Kool-aid killers, the flippin' nutso Waco Texas guy, and many more. They are all nuts, and its striking how many of them wind up with mass suicidal tendencies. They are fruitcakes. They are a mind wasted. Just browse through your history. Sane people cannot design religions. They can only research them. It doesn't matter if its anonymous.

 

[TealLeaf]

Ummm... doesn't that take us back to whole God thingy again SG?

I was going to say the same thing.

Its true that it could not be for fame, money, or power; but it takes a headcase to design a new religion for everyone. People who do that sort of thing are called 'Cult leaders', and they are terrible control freaks. I include Lenin & Stalin among them, the Kool-aid killers, the flippin' nutso Waco Texas guy, and many more. They are all nuts, and its striking how many of them wind up with mass suicidal tendencies. They are fruitcakes. They are a mind wasted. Just browse through your history. Sane people cannot design religions. They can only research them. It doesn't matter if its anonymous.

LOL

So Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, not to mention the founding fathers of the United States, were all control freaks, fruitcakes and wasted minds?

LOL

 

[Nightowl]

ok I havnt read all of this buttttt.... Why in the world do we need a new religoin rofl

 

[seattlegal]

I dunno. I guess I just like how the idea of "optimized" implies intelligent design.

Ummm... doesn't that take us back to whole God thingy again SG?

For me, it does. I like to think that I can adapt to and interact with my environment. I can see other creatures doing so, and suspect that creatures have been adapting to and interacting with their envirnments long before I came along. (But, again, that is just my observations. My idea of an intelligently designed, interactive universe is my way of adapting my mind to fit into my environment. Since individuals adapt in their own unique way, individual viewpoints will vary.)

I dunno. A 'perfect and benevolent' universe sounds a bit rigid and non-adaptive to me. An 'optimized,' interactive universe sounds much more friendly to me.

Perhaps an "optimized universe" would be analogous to "paradise." (Are we there, yet?)

An interactive universe produces a similar fuzzy effect. Young's double-slit experiment seems to suggest that it is an interactive universe.

Can anyone refute my hypothesis that it is, indeed, an interactive universe? I'd like to hear them. It might help me to adapt to the universe better, making my interface with the universe more optimized.

 

[TealLeaf]

ok I havnt read all of this buttttt.... Why in the world do we need a new religoin?

As I pointed out before: "major problems like environmental degradation and over population".

Besides many if not most major religions are at least a bit archaic in relation to modern science.

Can anyone refute my hypothesis that it is, indeed, an interactive universe? I'd like to hear them.

Not really but I don't see what is so spiritual about calling the Universe interactive. It's a bit like saying that there is cause and effect in the Universe. Its just a simple fact of life or rather a simple fact of existence.

The Universe can still be interactive as well as have a God or as well as be perfect and benevolent. Interaction within the Universe doesn't express the positiveness that people generally look for or need in a religion.

 

[bananabrain]

as far as i know, the most successfully designed modern religion, designed to take advantage of all the successful evolutionary features of religion, would be $cientology, i believe. the other option is to design something which is a bit like golf, but with better clothes.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Dream]

My idea of an intelligently designed, interactive universe is my way of adapting my mind to fit into my environment. Since individuals adapt in their own unique way, individual viewpoints will vary.)

So either the universe taught you to view it as being intelligently designed and interactive, or you honestly came to have that point of view through your own experiences. You didn't found a religion, and you don't tell everyone else what to think or not to think.

What method would you use to explain the universe to kid(s)? You would probably want some way to guide them without blinding them. Desire them to thrive and be happy and not wish to put blinders on them -- unless you think they need blinders to succeed? No! If only there were some tool they could inherit from you to keep them from blindness....

So Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, not to mention the founding fathers of the United States, were all control freaks, fruitcakes and wasted minds?

When I say 'Founding a religion' I'm talking about making people mentally dependent upon you. Consider that failure to release control of children as they age is harmful to those children -- not beneficial. Its good if you are available to help, to answer questions honestly, and to discuss. It is unhealthy to assert your influence too much, to direct through misinformation, or to undermine their plans. Let them make their mistakes. The main idea is that whatever you do to your children should make them more capable adults, not more dependent upon your advice. 'Founding a religion' seems to me the opposite. If it doesn't make people needy or dependent, then it has escaped being called 'Religion' in my book.

 

[seattlegal]

So either the universe taught you to view it as being intelligently designed and interactive, or you honestly came to have that point of view through your own experiences. You didn't found a religion, and you don't tell everyone else what to think or not to think.

I encourage thinking.
Being aware of how you think without hampering your ability to think is a real trick.

What method would you use to explain the universe to kid(s)? You would probably want some way to guide them without blinding them. Desire them to thrive and be happy and not wish to put blinders on them -- unless you think they need blinders to succeed? No! If only there were some tool they could inherit from you to keep them from blindness....

Being aware without becoming incapacitated is a miraculous thing, yet children have no problem with this. I think showing appreciation for this is one way to discourage blindness.