If you could reinvent religion what would it look like?

Cosmology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iaJo7cxybc

As for moral teachings i’d borrow from pastafarianism.

One and only one commandment: Love one another.

I would focus on moral connectedness and the value of living discourse and stress that there are many ways to understand and believe in God. To love one another is indeed the single most important commandment. I would also introduce rituals, but point out that they are invented by humans and not by God. Rituals have symbolic value and their main purpose is the strengthening of social bonds.

It would look like a Salvador Dali painting. Very surreal with plenty of room for ambiguity and interpretation. Just like most of the religions in today’s world.

Zero dogma, all compassion, acceptence, gratitude and love.

It will be like an all-you-can-eat buffet. Take whatever you want. Nobody is flighting with nobody. Everybody leaves happy.

Why should a religion of the future have anything to do with God or gods, given how troublesome and detrimental such beliefs have been in the past?

Can a religion be a religion, if there is no god in it?

It wouldn’t exist.

Religions are snapshots of human morality and other ideas at the time they are “invented.”

Morality is constantly evolving (look at how views on slavery, race, and homosexuality have changed in the last 200, 100, and 50 years), but the entire point of a religion is to preserve its snapshot as much as possible.

Religions obviously do evolve as well… but slowly, and often in direct contradiction to their central premises. A religion that evolves to the same extent that morality and science evolves wouldn’t be a religion at all. It would just be science and secular humanism.

You can ask me what I think the best set of morals are, but I would never advocate codifying them in a “religion.”

I hope people understand that since religion is beyond humans, to go and reinvent a religion based on what you, as a human, would think religion should be like is kinda impossible isn’t it? It would probably resemble a code of laws more than a religion.

P.S. Is there going to be something about the evelyn the multi-breasted deity later on in this thread?

All great answers, and @tb1570 , @augustlan , @ckinyc you have described Evelynism.

@Bluefreedom instead of a Salvador Dali painting, Evelynism is more like a Rene` Magritte painting.

@Saturated_Brain well of course there is, I do spend time on Fluther, ya know?!

I’d make ten new commandments, updated for this millennium.
1) Treat others with respect
2) Diversify your portfolio
3) Ignore all Ponzi Schemes
4) Insulate your home
5) Don’t buy more than you need
6) Always use virus and spyware protection
7) Check the veracity of emails before you forward.
8) Stay in shape
9) Carry some form of health insurance
10) Contribute to your retirement plan

That’s it. No hocus pocus, no higher powers, no overseers.

Oh, the prejudices come out! If doesn’t have a god, it can’t be a religion. If it is based on what you as a human thinks or needs, it isn’t a religion. If it evolves and keeps up with the times, contains science, is secular, or promotes humanism, it can’t be a religion. Its got to have “commandments,” laws, compulsion. Why?

There would be a lot of CheebDragon worship, some drug use, and tons of fun.

(Mandatory pet squirrels, bongs, skittles, and video games will be required)

@Zuma, I wouldn’t call those “prejudices.” I’d call them “semantic concerns.”

Not everything can be called a religion as the word is understood in the English language.

@Qingu – How do you see the role of rituals in your “science and secular humanism-based” framework promoting your best set of morals?

@Zuma From wikipedia:

“A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth.”

When I said based on what we think/need, I meant that by reconstructing the rules and boundaries of religion, we’re essentially placing limits on a supernatural and superhuman being, somewhat of a paradox. Unless you disagree?

@augustlan- You’ve maybe heard of Buddhism?

@mattbrowne, I’m sort of ambivalent about ritual. Have you read Neal Stephenson’s Anathem? It’s a speculative fiction book about groups of philosophers who live in sealed-off monastaries to ponder the mysteries of the universe; but they are completely secular. However, their world is suffused with ritual (much like the world of universities have rituals like graduation ceremonies). It was a bizarre but sort of appealing world.

I think ritual can be useful when it draws attention to, and codifies, an important moment or event, or a pattern of behavior. Ritual can help us concentrate and remember. I think rituals are harmful when they incorporate blatant falsehoods.

@Saturated_Brain There is nothing in the wikipedia definition that requires that there be a supernatural anything, a “higher power,” God, gods, or ultimate truth.

@Qingu No, your “semantic concerns” are essentially a cultural prejudice that the word “religion” has a set meaning, and that anything we call “religion” in the future should be bound more, rather than less by what it has meant in the past. This rather denies the possibility of re-imagining religion so that it meets human needs.

Consider Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. Gods are no more important than squirrels in either religion. One is loaded with rules and precepts, the other has none.

Isn’t anything harmful when it incorporates blatant falsehoods?

I’d make it look more like a big keg party.

@Zuma, if adhering to a definition of religion is “cultural prejudice” then every use of language is a cultural prejudice.

I accept that the word religion has evolved in meaning (it used to just mean “Christianity,” as in “we need to get these Injuns some religion), but I guess you can say I’m a semantic conservative. Why call something a religion when it doesn’t resemble everything else that’s called a religion?

In fact, doing so just seems like marketing to me—like you’re trying to dress up this thing that ordinarily wouldn’t appeal to religious people by slapping the term “religion” onto it.

I have thought about doing this…good tax breaks.

How about dispensing with God, doctrine, cosmology and ritual entirely and basing this new religion uniquely on experience? I’d have to give this considerable thought as to the details, but I’m imagining a regime of experiences that the followers of this path would expose themselves to. No one would tell them what conclusions to draw from these experiences, either before or after. All that would be required would be that the regime be completed to the fullest extent possible. The only instruction would be that they pay the fullest possible attention to what they’re experiencing and to their own inner responses.

Some possible candidates for the regime of experiences, off the top of my head:

—Attend at least one funeral or wake each week for 6 months. View the body. Observe the family.

—Volunteer with a hospice or nursing home for a few hours each week for a year.

—Strike up a conversation with someone you dislike or are uncomfortable with (for whatever reason) at least three times a week. Make the conversation last at least 5 minutes, or until the other person takes their leave. Do more listening than talking, and never offer criticism. This should probably be an ongoing requirement.

—Volunteer with an animal shelter a few hours a week for 6 months.

—Pick up litter in a public place for a half hour each week for a month.

—Take some cleaning supplies into a large public facility (train station, stadium, mall…), pick a bathroom, and clean all the toilet seats in that bathroom, even waiting until the stalls are empty to get them all. Do this 3 seperate times.

—Spend an entire night out on the street. Don’t go into any place where you have to spend money.

—Go 48 hours without eating. Drink only water. Do this once a year.

—Give $5 to people you don’t know once a week for 2 months. Just hand it to them without saying anything or looking in their eyes. Then turn and walk away without looking back.

—Once a month for a year, give something you care about to someone else. It can be something of little intrinsic value, but make it something that you’re reluctant to part with. Never ask about it again.

(I’ll stop there, though I’m sure I’ll think of tons more after I post this)

Then I think I’d add a capstone experience after all of the other experiences have been completed. The follower would have to take a week-long solitary and silent (no reading, music, tv) retreat to reflect on the totality of these experiences.

I’m ambivalent about the social cohesion of this new religion. In a way, it almost seems better that the followers not see themselves as members of some particular group. There should definitely be no outer sign that they follow this path. Nor should one influence the experiences of another by relating their take on the experiences. Nor should anyone tell any other where they are in the chain of experiences.

There would be no promise of any reward other than the discoveries that come from the experiences themselves.

@Harp Brilliant!

@Harp All sorts of mitzvahs in your religion. Very nice what you wrote-GA.

I think I would have the Golden Rule as the sole commandment the more I think about it. I think Religion many times was created as a governing tool. It helped society build order. Now we have governments separate from Religion in modern society, or that is what I prefer, so religion is less necessary.

@Qingu “Why call something a religion when it doesn’t resemble everything else that’s called a religion?”

Because it wouldn’t be a re-imagining of religion if you did. It allows you to define religion in terms of the failed ideas of the past. It allows you to dismiss religion as a bad idea from the outset, without even considering the possibility that religion could serve some constructive purpose.

@cheebdragon
@loser We kind of already had that with paganism (not that there’s anything wrong with that), any particular reason for bringing that back now? Why stop with keggers, why not full on orgies?

@JLeslie But what if government lost it’s moral compass and turned on it’s people? Without religion as a separate institution, how would people set their government right?

@Zuma I believe people have a moral compass. What are you saying, that if a government goes bad, that the gov’t will care what a particular religion has to say about it? I don’t get your question really.

@Zuma, but some things really are a bad idea from the outset. Some entire modes of thinking, even.

It would look just like it is. Eventually.

Always a constant.

@Harp Great ideas and ones that would make the world a better place.
There might not be enough hours in the day to do it all when you are working and have a family. Maybe there can be some dispensation for those contributing to society in other ways including volunteer firemen, for example.
How about: Do something for someone else and expect nothing in return.

I still think virus protection should be required. One should do everything possible to not infect others.

@JLeslie If you recall, the abolitionist and the civil rights movements (among others) were organized through church groups. What if there were no religions, no churches and everybody was on their own trying to face down corrupt power? Their individual moral compasses up against soldiers with guns.

@Qingu Yes, like reasoning from one’s prejudices.

@Zuma, this isn’t a “reasoning” debate, this is a “semantic” debate. We are only disagreeing about what X should be called, not the content or worth of X.

I wouldn’t have religion. Must I replace it with anything? I’d replace it with life, more of it.

@worriedguy I’m seeing it as something that one would work through over several years, as circumstance permit. The total time commitment would probably not be any more than most religious folks spend with church, and some of the experiences would fit in quite nicely with the workday.

I think most of the experiences would have to be quite specific. Given too much leaway, people naturally sidestep the hard stuff and console themselves by putting something more palatable in its place. Some of the experiences would have to be ones that rub our noses in the muck of life, and few would happily go there. It would also be very important that the experiences not be things that could make one feel like a hero.

@Qingu You were just talking about “whole modes of thought” being a bad idea from the outset. I was agreeing with you. But somehow I get the idea that you consider religion, however it is conceived, a bad idea. And religion as it is preconceived worst of all.

@Harp Perhaps they could be drawn out of a hat, or something like that. By the way, did you just think this up just now, or have you been thinking about this for a while?

@Zuma, I consider religion, as I use the word, to be a bad idea.

But if you want to define religion as including secular philosophies and Zen Buddhism, then I would disagree with your definition but not consider that definition of religion a bad idea at the outset.

@Zuma Even now they go through the churches to get the word out or preach a way of life. After Hurricane Katrina there was, and still is an effort to address mental health needs (I worked for one of the people organizing such thing), and one avenue was to work closely with the churches to provide information on where help was available. Also, the clergy had a pulse on the people in the community. Another example, I just saw a show where a woman is working with churches in the black community to help with marital discord, and to keep families together. So, I take your point that churches can be a useful tools. But we go to those places for these things because they exist, but so much of what these churches preach is detrimental, so I could argue against it also. I don’t go to church, I am a good person, my family works hard to support ourselves, I have been married for 16 years, all of this as an atheist barely knowing about the religion I was born into, and never going to worship in any way. It seems I can rely on the media and internet and word of mouth for information on what help I can get if I need it. The ideals and the way I live have more to do with the constitution of the US, my own moral compass, and doing to others as I would want done unto me.

@Harp Now I see why you have so many lurve points. Do you sit on a mountian top. :-)
I like the idea of any activity that contributes to society as a whole. It needs make the world a better place in a tangible way. Building a house – good; cleaning an area – good; helping a person – good; Flogging oneself – bad; flogging others – even worse.

@Zuma Actually, an angel just handed it to me, engraved on two chocolate tablets. I can’t show them to you because he made me eat ‘em after reading ‘em.

The angel Valrhoni?

That was a stretch.

excellent

If we come to the point where we can reconceive religion we can come to a point where we no longer need it. I prefer option #2

@Harp Now that I’ve had a chance to think about your idea a bit more, it strikes me as something that would very likely die out, if it ever got started in the first place, without some sort of sustaining rationale. It is a kind of humbling, hair shirt sort of religious experience that may seem an important corrective to our materialistic me-first sort of world, but it would very definitely be an acquired taste with not much of a way to acquire it.

It seems to me that without some sort of communal regulation to keep such an experience in focus, it could easily degenerate into a kind of shallow, self-serving feel-good philanthropy, with an unspoken “here you go, my good man” giving on one side; or, on the other, a kind of athletic self-abnegating masochism of the sort practiced by the mystic Spanish saints, who might be inclined find a kind of religious ecstasy in touching other people’s shit with their fingers. Both seem to flourish when people are left entirely on their own.

(Everyone:) Also, isn’t the whole point of religion to bind people together? To provide people with a sense of moral connectedness and purpose, and a basis for relating to one another? Isn’t religion a kind of safety net to keep people from feeling alone and adrift in the universe?

I suppose everyone could go it alone, in the sense that @tinyfaery seems to advocate, but wouldn’t that be like living in a low-tax society without any social programs or agencies to protect our well-being and our rights?

What about healing the world? Is each of us following our own individual moral compasses any match for the organized interests that exploit and pollute, torture and imprison? How much of a defense does any one of us have against the relentless onslaught of mass marketing; it’s scientific strip-mining of the human psyche in order to infantilize us, fill us with false needs, fears, and hatreds?

What about the alienation from self that is currently fostered in the name of religion? Should we just look at it and shrug? Is what currently passes for religion what religion is really all about, or is theism a dying religion? Must church be a weekly reminder that there is something more boring than work? Or could it be something much more vital than that?

@AstroChuck and others I don’t see Buddhism, etc. as religions. More of a philosophy or a way of life.

@Zuma Why is it necessary that any group that exists to support people, offer a sense of community, or defend against the “relentless onslaught of mass marketing” be referred to as a religion? What about Secular Humanism? Or just a plain old group of people connected by the internet… like, say, Fluther?

I would eliminate the concept of God from religion, which I find absurd.

Any attempt to reinvent religion into anything relevant and meaningful, is doomed for failure unless also granted the ability to remove the inherent corruptness in government, its laws and prejudices, eliminate groups and the group mentality perpetuated by religion and nationalism, and remove all external influences, such as the mass marketing you mention, which perpetuate greed and bias and continually reinvent our “needs” all of which further insulate us from a humanistic approach by stripping us of uncorrupt reasoning, understanding, compassion and empathy. I think you would need to strip everything down to the essentials and reinvent entire socioeconomic systems. And how do you miraculously remove the prejudices already ingrained in individuals? Brainwashing? It’s a very good question, with no easy answer.

@Zuma …“it strikes me as something that would very likely die out, if it ever got started in the first place, without some sort of sustaining rationale…it would very definitely be an acquired taste with not much of a way to acquire it.”

I’d be inclined to think the same were it not for my long experience with Zen. While actual Zen practice has never had a big following in the States (or anywhere, really), it certainly has had longevity and steady growth, despite a certain “hair shirt” quality (long hours of sitting in uncomfortable positions), nothing in the way of self-affirmation (to the contrary), and all without a sustaining rationale.

What I’ve seen happen over the years is that a large segment of the multitudes of “spiritual shoppers” will check out Zen practice at some point, either trying it on their own using a book as a guide or visiting a temple somewhere. Something like 95% of these will quickly abandon it because a) they see that it’s not a quick ticket to bliss, b) it actually makes them face feelings (physical and emotional) and states of mind they’re not comfortable with, c) it takes discipline and persistence, and d) no one ever explains what it accomplishes or even what the goal is.

Still, 5-ish% will recognize in it something that resonates with them. They’ll be willing to put in the time, disregard the discomfort, and throw themselves open to the experience without expectations, and those few will become fiercely dedicated. People who aren’t willing to do this aren’t less worthy; Zen just probably isn’t the path for them at that time.

But as for this new religion, I agree that some loose social touchstone might be useful. It’s kind of like dieting: when you’re doing something that requires sustained discipline, it can help to see that others are not giving up. But i don’t think the idea should be one of creating a bond between the members of this group; I would expect that the bonding and sense of connectedness would come to be with the world at large rather than with the other followers.

I’m with @Harp. I’d use something that I call “spiritual technology” that provides people with experiences that allow them to feel their connectedness with each other. In my case, I’d use dance and music, and I’d try to think of other techniques for helping people who don’t feel comfortable with dance and music to achieve these states of awareness.

I think the ideas of shared experience designed to increase empathy and compassion would be very important. I would also dispense with any dogma. People would talk about their lives, but would be trained to do with openness and without judgment. We would share experience; share experience; and share it some more. Much as we do on fluther. These things are very healing and helpful.

The key, I believe, is a shared ritual. One that changes from day to day, to meet the needs of the people who happen to be sharing the ritual at the time. Nothing would be written in stone. Everything is upgradeable to become more responsive to current conditions. The only center would be that there is a ritual that happens at least once a week. And the whole purpose of the ritual is to bring people together in such a way that they get out of their minds and thus can feel how they connect with everyone else and everything else.

I’m really lucky. I have this in my life.

@Zuma So just to make things clear, would you put ways of life (like Buddhism/Taosim) and/or a sense of spirituality under the umbrella of religion?

Great discussion so far, and the underlying current of dismissive contempt is barely noticeable. }:^)>

@augustlan I don’t see a crisp clear line between religion and “a way of life.” Islam, for example, is both a religion and very much an all-encompassing “way of life” because there is very little in the way of secular society in Muslim countries. Religion tends to permeate all aspects of life. It was that way with Christianity, until we instituted a separation between Church and State and built and secular society with a secular “way of life.”

Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto and Confucianism are all very much religions. They have priests, they have temples, they have doctrine, they have ritual and rigmarole; they just don’t place the same emphasis on worship and gods as the Abrahamic religions do. In some of the more out of the way places, where tradition is strong and secular institutions are weak, they can become an all-encompassing way of life.

“Why is it necessary that any group that exists to support people, offer a sense of community, or defend against the “relentless onslaught of mass marketing” be referred to as a religion?”

I agree with you; it isn’t necessary. Just because something provides you with a sense of community and moral support doesn’t make it a religion. Groups like Fluther provide many socially isolated individuals (like myself) an opportunity to have a semblance of human connection and moral support—but it is just that, a semblance. Despite what Fluther tells you about, how “you’re our favorite,” and “you are welcome to crash on our couch” real social support is people who will drive you to the doctor when you’re too sick to drive yourself, or who will bail you out of jail without thinking less of you.

Secular humanism is the default ethos of our secular society. Secular society is founded on the consensus that human beings can and should improve the human condition, notably through good faith, reason and the free exchange of ideas. The humanist consensus is what allows us to come together to institute things like the minimum wage, public education, or universal health care. But, as current events constantly remind us, the humanist consensus is by no means a given. It is under constant and ferocious attack from a decidedly authoritarian ethos rooted in religion. And it has lost considerable ground over the past 25 years.

Were is not for the humanism of mainstream Christians—who view Jesus as a break from the violent and vengeful God of the Old Testament in favor of a loving and forgiving God, both humanism and secularism would have been swept away long ago. Perhaps we don’t need a new religion at all. Perhaps what we need is a clarification of the struggle for Humanism within Christianity. While Secular Humanism can give us a more equitable society through such things as the minimum wage and universal health care, these are not sufficient to create a sense of community and moral connectedness.

@Saturated_Brain See above.

@whatthefluther “Any attempt to reinvent religion into anything relevant and meaningful, is doomed for failure unless also granted the ability to remove the inherent corruptness in government, its laws and prejudices…”

It’s difficult to imagine a more corrupt, wealth-obsessed and power-obsessed government than the Roman Empire, and yet the early Christians sequestered themselves away in relatively egalitarian, almost Utopian communities for their day, awaiting what they thought would be the imminent return of Christ. Since then, Religion has provided the impetus for many political reform movements, from the abolition of slavery, to the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, to civil rights, women’s rights, prison reform, and so on. Even the Reformation was an attempt to use religion to reform religion.

A society in which there are no religious institutions is probably just as bad as a society in which there are no secular institutions. It would seem to me that the more institutions you have in society, the less monolithic it is, and the easier it is to organize reform movements.

@Zuma I understand what you are saying, but I still think we could have real, physical groups to support one another in real, tangible ways without calling it a religion.

I’m all for starting a cult…Who’s with me?

@Harp Isn’t Zen centered on a monastic tradition? That, it seems to me, would supply the necessary social control to keep the tradition from drifting off into various forms of corruption. I always thought that the point of Zen was mastery of Zen, clearing the mind, being centered, without ego, and fully awake in the moment. Zen, as I recall, was supported by the Japanese nobility, who integrated it into everything from flower arranging, to the tea ceremony to swordfighting.

@daloon I’m afraid that when I hear things like “spiritual technology” I think of Christian Science and Scientology, and a kind of weird creepy cult of technique.

I agree that talking is a powerful healer. In South Africa, Rwanda, and Liberia they had various kinds of Truth Commissions where people would come to talk about the injustices they did or had done to them. The Quakers have a thing they call the Quaker Dialogue, which takes place in a group of between 8 and 20. Everyone meditates until the designated leader feels moved to ask a question of the group. Then everyone meditates some more until someone feels moved to speak. It then goes to the next person on the left or right, who says what’s on his or her mind, and so on until everyone has said everything on their mind. There is no cross-talk, interrupting, or addressing people directly; everyone just speaks their mind in turn. Its a very powerful antidote to alienation. I think it would go well with the breaking of bread.

I like the idea of music and dance, but whenever you have to organize something like that on a weekly basis, it tends to fall to someone. Sooner or later, that organizer gets ambitious and your little church grows into a cathedral with a hierarchy over time. The trick would be to keep it fresh without it turning into a cult.

@augustlan I agree, don’t call things that are not religion “religion.” But the question is, what would you call a religion? Calling something a religion has certain advantages. It confers a sense of legitimacy on it that it otherwise wouldn’t have; and it also stakes out a set of beliefs and practices in a way that demands respect from others. You don’t have to call gay marriage “marriage” either, but it doesn’t make gay people who wish the full legitimacy that marriage confers any happier.

@cheebdragon Will there be cake?

@cheebdragon Will there be pancakes?

@cheebdragon

cake or death

lots of pancakes, and waffles with ice cream on top, really fancy cakes and giant cupcakes!.....the possibilities are endless! But there will not be any kind of self mutilation or suicides…I’m not a fan of pain.

Sigh.. I don’t like religious discussions..

Actually, on a related note, isn’t it possible that if we were to create a religion of our own, in a few centuries or so its dogma could very well be twisted to serve a political purpose?

@Saturated_Brain That’s the challenge, isn’t it. Personally, I like Taoism. Very minimalist as far as dogma goes, yet it orients you within the universe and with your fellow man. Its even compatible with science, or can be with minor workarounds.

@Qingu – Thanks for the reading tip. Well, most social scientists think that rituals are very important. No doubt that certain uses of rituals can be detrimental. But people won’t change their behavior without them. If you want to make your new science-based morality framework successful you need to reach people’s hearts as well.

@Harp – Could we create countries without constitutions using your experience framework? I’m certain a few of the right-wing Republicans would be willing to endorse Obama’s health plan after trying your regime of experiences.

@Zuma – If people feel a spiritual void, what would you offer them? Secular humanism? Books written by Einstein, Deutsch and Tegmark? Yoga? I think some people who reject religion turn to ufology, parapsychology, occultism and conspiracy theories because they feel the need for spirituality. They also have a need for rituals. Why not offer them a religion devoid of any bad elements?

@augustlan @zuma I think you can have groups that help each other and are there for each other…think about fraternities and other non-religious fellowships. Seems you can have an honor code without the fantasy of religion.

@Zuma It is always interesting to me that Christians (I don’t know if you are Christian) bring up the “Were is not for the humanism of mainstream Christians—who view Jesus as a break from the violent and vengeful God of the Old Testament in favor of a loving and forgiving God,” it seems to me in the modern day more Christians, including Catholics, are more punishing and believe more in the vengefullness of God than any Jew I know. The irony is always mystifying to me.

You go on, “both humanism and secularism would have been swept away long ago. Perhaps we don’t need a new religion at all. Perhaps what we need is a clarification of the struggle for Humanism within Christianity. While Secular Humanism can give us a more equitable society through such things as the minimum wage and universal health care, these are not sufficient to create a sense of community and moral connectedness.” So this made me think, maybe people need to identify with a group, feel a line with their ancestory, and part of that is religion. It has to do with identity. There seems to be a reluctance to do this in America among Christians, to acknowledge/admit they are secular or atheists and still participate and feel identified with their religion. I think some Catholics do it, and I think European Christians have an easier time doing it, and I think Reformed Jews in both Israel and America do it. American Christianity has made it all or none—this is too extreme. I don’t know if we have to invent knew religions, maybe we just have to allow for people to be able to identify themselves as the religion that has been in their family for hundreds of years, but not have to buy into all of the stuff that does not apply to society today, or that ignores scientific developement.

Zuma – You are right on.

@Zuma So the challenge is to create a religion which, while lacking the major flaws of organised religion (ie the potential of having its dogma manipulated), is compatible enough for most people, good enough for them to incorporate it into their daily lives and of enough benefit for them to even consider taking it up rather than “support groups”.

That’s very interesting (and challenging) theoretically speaking, and you’ve inspired me to read up on Taoism, but maybe when I have more time..

“compatible enough for most people, good enough for them to incorporate it into their daily lives”

We can do that now. Some do, once you take the boogie man out of the equation.

But, the boogie man is what holds “religion” together.

@mattbrowne
@JLeslie
@augustlan

I think you have to ask yourself how people come to think they are in a spiritual void before you can offer them something to fill it.

As I was saying earlier, we have two Christian traditions in this country, the Humanistic Ecumenical Christianity of the mainstream liberal denominations, and the Born-Again Christian Fundamentalist tradition of evangelicals and Pentecostalists. The once-born Humanist Christians have reconciled themselves (after 2,000 years) that Jesus is probably not going to return any time soon; so they have set about making the world a better place.

Accordingly, they have developed an intellectual skill set that allows them to analyze their problems in systemic terms. One of the reasons people feel a spiritual void is because the family is no longer economically self-sufficient; people have to offer their labor for wages, which means they have to move to where the jobs are; leaving behind communities, traditions and family members and relationships that give meaning and continuity to their lives. In addition, they are bombarded with all kinds of advertising which seem to promise personal happiness through the accumulation of things, but which only seem to make them feel more hollow. Even religion tends to be slickly packaged and sold to them a commodity.

Born-Again Christians, on the other hand see human nature as fundamentally sinful and depraved. They don’t see the world as worth saving, and so they aren’t interested in things like rationality or systemic analyses. They see their spiritual void as stemming from evil, temptation and sin. So, their skill set is limited to finding people to blame, casting them out, and otherwise scapegoating them in an apocalyptic struggle between Good and Evil. Instead of looking at systemic economic causes for things like the decline of the family, they blame it on divorce, abortion, gays, drugs and individual “sin.” And, since it is a struggle between Good and Evil, they don’t mind using violence or playing dirty because the ends justify the means.

One of the things that makes the twice-born so virulent is their belief that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. So when they read Jesus they substitute the voice of the wrathful, vengeful, violent God of the Old Testament, which pretty much destroys any sense of people voluntarily loving their neighbors out of the goodness of their heart, or any sense of connectedness to their fellow man. They dredge up Leviticus and use it as an excuse to persecute homosexuals, and to subordinate women. Unfortunately, all this violence and coercion only increases the void in their hearts, because love can not be commanded.

In order to restore a sense of human scale to the Jesus narrative, I have proposed a more remote and majestic God who is also non-violent. In A Case for Deism I propose a lawful God who does not coerce, play favorites, or command genocide, and who is in harmony with the Cosmos; and I try to tie it together with what I think will likely be enduring features in current thinking in physics and biology.

I also propose an eco-friendly morality that posits that evolution is fundamentally a moral enterprise, and that we can have a durable morality grounded in survival, good faith, and human dignity. I propose that we can do better than the Golden Rule. Rather than treating people as we wish to be treated, we should treat them as though they were our beloved—that is, better than we would treat ourselves.

I think that ending the hegemony of theism and it’s magical and irrational supernaturalism, will go a long way toward strengthening the humanist threads of the Abrahamic tradition.

@Zuma So, there are Christians who are not born again? Christians who don’t like the evangelical view of the world. Why don’t they get out there and talk about themselves, and try to reason with the twice born as you call them? These super religious God FEARING, everyone is basically evil Christians are ruining it for everyone else. I have the same complaints with the good Moslems, get out into the media and condemn the radical Moslems, talk about yourselves, Try to give a path to young Moslems to follow that is not so radical. I don’t care what religion it is, a fanatic is a fanatic. It seems the most extreme people in their beliefs are the loudest.

Also to go back to the point about religion being able to “set the government right” I think were your words The examples you made, and I made as well, as getting the word out and getting organized through churches is interesting when you notice that it is the churches of the minorities, of the least fortunate in a society that rely on “church” and need the organization of church. It is more an observation of the inadequacy shown so far that we have been unable to treat all men as equals. People can organize anywhere, it does not have to be done in a church in reality.

@cheebdragon I’ve already started a cult, and despite the many naysayers, it seems to working well. You know, since life is about choices, your results may vary. Pancakes, of course. Everything you want and nothing you don’t want. What’s not to like?

@Zuma Monasticism has played a spotty role in Zen. Mahayana Buddhism, the offshoot that Zen belongs to, actually deemphasized monasticism and formally recognized that lay practice is just as valid as monkhood. For quite some time now, Zen monasteries in Japan have been used as places where priests go for a couple of years of intense training, kind of a boot camp to prove the mettle of priests before giving them a temple. But that practice has more to do with the Japanese than with Zen itself, which has always seen the world at large as its true theater of operation. Here in the West, monasticism never really took root, and even most priests hold jobs and participate in secular life.

Buddhism has a principle of community, called “Sangha”, which originally meant the community of ordained monks and nuns. The Sangha was easily identifiable as anyone with a shaved head and robe. Mahayana Buddhism opened this concept up to include anyone, lay or ordained, who followed the practice, and went even further to say that in its deepest sense Sangha, the community, includes all beings without distinction. That’s the kind of openness that I’d want to see in a new religion, which is why I’d want no outward signs of membership or any hint of “specialness” in belonging to this group. That sense of specialness, after all, has been one of the most corrupting features of religion.

“I always thought that the point of Zen was mastery of Zen, clearing the mind, being centered, without ego, and fully awake in the moment”

In the strictest sense, no. These are all ideas and, in the end, ideas become impediments in Zen practice. This is why theoretical explanations about practice are used sparingly, if at all. Instead one is given a practice, something to do, on the principle that the understanding comes with the doing, not with ideas about the doing.

When you tell someone why you want them to do something and what you want them to get out of it, you may have given them some motivation for getting started, true. But if
the intent is for them to engage in a process of discovery, then there’s a good chance you’ve poisoned the well. They will be constantly measuring their experience against the expectations you have set for them, when the truth is in the experience, not in the expectations. We see this in Zen constantly; it is perhaps our biggest difficulty. Far better to launch into the experience with as few ideas and expectations as possible.

But then, what is the motivation, the hook? I’m not sure I have an answer for that one. Maybe you simply tell them “If you’re one of those people who’s nagged by the suspicion that ‘who you think you are’ may just be a sham, then this voyage of discovery may help clarify this for you. It will be effective only to the extent that you throw yourself into these experiences whole-heartedly, and pay careful attention both to what you see and to your inner response.

“There will be times when you want to quit, and times when you never want to stop. Both of these feelings, like all feelings, will pass. Just note them, and move on. Just do, without any expectations. See what you discover, but don’t cling to those discoveries; let them slip from your grasp when the time comes.

“Don’t let anyone tell you what you should find. Place your trust entirely in your own experience”.

My guess is that this would be enough to get some people going without introducing too many ideas. The follow-through is hard to predict.

@Zuma The trick would be to keep it fresh without it turning into a cult.

That is absolutely key! Without the opportunity to constantly change, a religion falls prey to the iron law of oligarchy. The rituals must contain and retain an ad hoc nature, even as they repeat on a regular basis (which is what makes them rituals). It’s tricky, but I’ve experienced it. Leaders of such groups have an attitude that they are not leaders, but merely caretakers.

I would base it loosely on the same ethics and values from the TV show Seinfeld. Of course, not everyone would agree, but then not everyone agrees with Islam either.

@Zuma – I got to print this and get back to you. I think you would enjoy the book “The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right” by Michael Lerner who is a modern liberal rabbi in the US.

From Publishers Weekly: Named one of Utne’s 100 American Visionaries, Rabbi Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, delivers an ambitious proposal called a “Spiritual Covenant with America.” Before detailing his plan, he provides an extensive survey of American history and ideology, rife with examples of dominant and controlling attributes favored by those on the right (the “right hand of God”) who believe in a frightening world replete with evil and ruled by an avenging God. This contrasts with what he considers the loving, kind and generous tendencies of those at the “left hand of God,” who instead believe in a compassionate and merciful deity. These delineations occur on both sides of the political aisle—and not solely within one religion. Rabbi Lerner addresses both the “intolerant and militaristic” tactics of the political right and the “visionless… often spiritually empty” tenets of the political left with an even hand. His vision of a country devoid of poverty, homelessness, unemployment and uninsured citizens comes with an actual blueprint, in which Americans rededicate themselves to traditional values of love, kindness, respect and responsibility. Unfortunately, the rays of hope delivered in this impassioned proposal are buried in an often rambling and repetitive dialogue that may alienate those most likely to respond.

@mattbrowne Good show my friend. Well done!

@mattbrowne Thank you, I’ll check it out.

@mattbrowne “visionless… often spiritually empty” tenets of the political left”

I think that especially the visionless aspect of the quote from Lerner has an distinct element of truth to it.

In regards to this issue (and while we’re on the topic of book recommendations) I highly recommend Austin Dacey’s book, “The Secular Conscience: Why belief belongs in public life”. He deals specifically with the issue of how secularists seem to have lost their way over recent decades, what an open conscience entails and how it forms the basis of societal morality, and much more (fun for the whole family).

There have been enough anti-theism books to go around, and it’s nice to see someone shift gears and offer a vision of what a constructive secular future would be based on.

In this regard he gets support from atheists like Sam Harris and Catholic Priests like Richard John Neuhaus.

@Critter38 – Thanks for the tip. I read the description. A like-minded author indeed. I’m also in favor of standing up for reason and science, the separation of religion and state, freedom of belief, personal autonomy, equality, toleration, and self-criticism. And I see theocratic Islam as a new form of totalitarianism and the religious right in the US as a first step towards a new form of totalitarianism.

@Zuma “I think of Christian Science and Scientology, and a kind of weird creepy cult of technique”
I don’t know if any of you are familiar with the economist Ludwig Von Mises, but he referred to Christian Science as a religion after his own thinking. I’ve found it to be a priori, and very well reasoned once the framework and concepts are understood. It’s pretty odd to consider it a cult, however. There are no rituals to speak of.

@drewwhitney Welcome to Fluther.

I’m not familiar with Von Mises. But, what makes a cult a cult is not its rituals. Scientology has no rituals per se. It is the group’s retreat from the (real) world in order to create a world apart in which they can practice their beliefs and principles in their purest form, free from the distractions, observation, criticism, and interference of the world outside. Quite often cults practice a kind of mind-control that encourages the group’s members to voluntarily avoid the “sinful” or “polluting” influences of the outside world.

For me, I also agree that cults are groups that want to isolate you from the outside world. To some extent all religions are kind of “brain washing” you, but I use that term loosely. One of my close friend was raised Jehovah and was not allowed to go to college. You have to spread His word. She had earned a scholarship, but her parents would not let her go. When I spend time with her I feel like I am looking at someone who was meant to be on a different path. The men she dates, the life she lives, things seem out of whack. She no longer is a Jehovah really, although sometimes she goes to church on holidays, but if they knew how she really thinks they would ostracize her. Her religion stifled her, I would go as far to say that it tried to oppress her, but in the end her own personality and mind won out, but at a time that was late to change things. I don’t know a lot about Christian Science, but I am under the impression that they like to keep their people ignorant and sheltered also. They treat the bible as though each word is directly from God. I find that ignorant to begin with.

While what you’re saying makes sense about Cults, and it definitely clarifies quite a bit, I don’t think that it necessarily applies to what I’ve seen in Christian Science. The distinction I believe you’re making, is the distinction between the philosophies of Plato and Socrates. Plato believed in another world or a ‘spiritual’ reality (see the alagory of the Cave), while Socrates believed that only the senses could be trusted, and in a sense, what you see is what you get. There are many religions that try to mix the two, but many do not. A large part of the Hindu belief, for example, is learning tools to control one’s own mind to reach a higher level of consciousness. An experienced Yogi once said, “The human mind is like a caged monkey constantly being stung by bees.” A yogi is expected to tell the body what to feel, not the other way around. I would put Christian Science in this category. It is also my understanding that while the Bible is a big part of that religion, it is not all taken literally unlike many fundamental Christian religions.

And thanks for the welcome, Zuma!