The New World Religion?

jimbling

Right, decided to post something because it's been on my mind. It stemmed from the Atheist Utopia thread, as well as a few others, and some conversations with friends recently.

I'm not sure I'll be able to get my point across, but I just don't think the human race, on average, is intelligent/educated/prosperous enough to handle life without a higher meaning. A huge proportion of the population of earth are poor, hungry, deprived, abused etc etc....
Even those that are prosperous don't like the idea that once you die you die. A lot of my friends are agnostic I guess, they don't follow any religion, but want to believe in some form of higher meaning.

So, although I am an Atheist, I still understand that to have a successful world society you would most likely need a religion/spiritual belief system. This started me thinking about what I would put in place if I truly had the power to do so.

Personally, I really like the Karma idea. Buddhist style.
What you did in your previous life effects you in this life. What you do in this life effects you in the next life.
This also serves the usual religious reasons i.e. manipulate and control a population. :eek:
The exact structure of such a religion would have to be fleshed out.

So, all you atheists out there..... go fourth and create your own religion? :pac: :pac:



Please make the following assumptions:
1) Removing current religious structures is a possibility. Slate wiped clean.
2) This new world religion would truly be taken on board worldwide. Maintaining it is a different matter
3) You do NOT have to believe in this religion. It is merely a method of keeping the masses happy to some extent.
4) I am open to the religion been Atheism, but I would like to hear your thoughts on how it would be managed.
5) Obviously, I am using the term religion pretty loosely.

toiletduck

The New World Religion?

Awh, I was expecting a Book of Revelation/End of Time style post.

*disappointed*

Simon.d

I've brought this up before, but I personally like the idea of a universe that continually repeats, via an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches.. Meaning we'll all be living this very life infinitely into the future, and have already lived it from birth to death an infinite amount of times already.. i.e. every life is eternal..

But the best thing about this theory is that it's among the forerunners of the different cosmological theories out there..... i.e. it's scientifically sound... so far!

Have a read...

Goduznt Xzst

This thread assumes that you will be somehow able to wipe the slate clean and rid the world of religion without also sorting out the worlds problems with helping the worlds poor, hungry, deprived, abused.

As long as their is the arrogance of man and apathy towards the suffering of others there will be religion there to make them feel special and feel that by doing nothing they are somehow making the world a better place.

jimbling

toiletduck wrote: »

Awh, I was expecting a Book of Revelation/End of Time style post.

*disappointed*

lol... sorry to disappoint

jimbling

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

This thread assumes that you will be somehow able to wipe the slate clean and rid the world of religion without also sorting out the worlds problems with helping the worlds poor, hungry, deprived, abused.

As long as their is the arrogance of man and apathy towards the suffering of others there will be religion there to make them feel special and feel that by doing nothing they are somehow making the world a better place.

hmmm, not sure what the point of the response is. That's exactly what I was getting at. My point been.... if we could choose/design the religion to best suit all our needs... what would it be?

CerebralCortex

jimbling wrote: »

hmmm, not sure what the point of the response is. That's exactly what I was getting at. My point been.... if we could choose/design the religion to best suit all our needs... what would it be?

religion>/dev/null

Goduznt Xzst

jimbling wrote: »

hmmm, not sure what the point of the response is. That's exactly what I was getting at. My point been.... if we could choose/design the religion to best suit all our needs... what would it be?

My point is that you are putting the cart before the horse. We will not be able to rid the world of religion and clean the slate until we rid the world of its cause.

IMO, the process of ridding the world of Religion will cure alot of the maladies you are proposing be bandaged with a new world religion. IMO, there would be no need for a new world religion because the want for it would already of been removed.

pH

jimbling wrote: »

Personally, I really like the Karma idea. Buddhist style.
What you did in your previous life effects you in this life. What you do in this life effects you in the next life.[/SIZE]

As Glen Hoddle discovered, karma has its downside (maybe he did something in a previous life?).

People have a warm fuzzy view of karma, (in the same way that the death of a loved one always equals heaven with no worrying that they're now burning in hell), people only want to see the upside of karma (the positives if you like), but if you believe in it you also have to accept that the person with the terrible debilitating disease is somehow paying for what they have done previously, in essence - they deserve it.

It's a nasty philosophy, which allows you to free your conscience of other peoples' suffering, and even more importantly it's rubbish, it doesn't happen, there's no cosmic payback going on, good things happen to people, bad things happen to people and there's no reason to believe that there's a mysterious force at work balancing it all out. If we want justice and fairness we need laws and systems to enforce it, karma wouldn't be nice - even if it was true.

edanto

I just don't think what you're suggesting is possible - even if those assumptions hold up.

One reason being that religions seem to define themselves by their differences; for example it's a critical part of the Catholic identity that "I'm not Protestant", even though for all intents and purposes there is no difference between the two. (to those inflamed by that statement, please ignore the urge to correct me)
So because of that apparent need to separate oneself from other similar people through religion, I think any one religion that was instantly adopted worldwide as per your assumption would fracture into sects, much like Christianity.

Your other important point/assumption about religion being the opiate of the masses and the new overlords not having to believe in every aspect of it, well I imagine that other religions have a head-start of several thousand years on you there. It is pretty funny that you're an atheist but think that a karma style religion is more suitable for widespread consumption. Aren't we part of the masses?! Did I miss a memo?

Any successful world view to replace the theistic religions will have to embrace the uncertainty that we are sure exists and acknowledge the things that we don't know about. Let's just call it Idontknow-ism to differentiate it from Agnostism. It happens to be my worldview, but it doesn't really lend itself to social control as it takes its morals from basic humanism (Do unto others...) and answers the tricky metaphysical questions with "I don't know."

As simple as this worldview is, I doubt it will do well in the future as it is missing several important elements of historically successful religions. Specifically there should be
(A) one or several animals that are not eaten
(B) important feast days scheduled to conflict with important dates in the previous belief system
(C) a regular get-together led by someone in a flamboyant costume who pontificates about what you should and shouldn't do
and most importantly (D) very specific answers about what happens to you after you die.

Without these ingredients, I predict a quick death for Idontknow-ism.

Next!!

jimbling

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

My point is that you are putting the cart before the horse. We will not be able to rid the world of religion and clean the slate until we rid the world of its cause.

IMO, the process of ridding the world of Religion will cure alot of the maladies you are proposing be bandaged with a new world religion. IMO, there would be no need for a new world religion because the want for it would already of been removed.

Okay, you really don't seem to be getting the point of the thread. This was supposed to be a theoretical, philosophical conversation..... not a task in a literal sense.

Your second paragraph is just nuts. Do you honestly believe that religion is the root of all evil?

jimbling

pH wrote: »

As Glen Hoddle discovered, karma has its downside (maybe he did something in a previous life?).

People have a warm fuzzy view of karma, (in the same way that the death of a loved one always equals heaven with no worrying that they're now burning in hell), people only want to see the upside of karma (the positives if you like), but if you believe in it you also have to accept that the person with the terrible debilitating disease is somehow paying for what they have done previously, in essence - they deserve it.

It's a nasty philosophy, which allows you to free your conscience of other peoples' suffering, and even more importantly it's rubbish, it doesn't happen, there's no cosmic payback going on, good things happen to people, bad things happen to people and there's no reason to believe that there's a mysterious force at work balancing it all out. If we want justice and fairness we need laws and systems to enforce it, karma wouldn't be nice - even if it was true.

fair points... thanks.
As you know... I don't believe it either. It just seemed like a nice idea to allow the people there crutch without having too many fractions and wars over it. It also allows for a completely secular government... which obviously is a must. I'm interested in other ideas.

But we're not just talking about justice and fairness. We're talking about the human need for more meaning in your life.
I also have yet to see a society were laws and systems succeeded in producing justice and fairness. But thats a whole other debate.

jimbling

edanto wrote: »

I just don't think what you're suggesting is possible - even if those assumptions hold up.

One reason being that religions seem to define themselves by their differences; for example it's a critical part of the Catholic identity that "I'm not Protestant", even though for all intents and purposes there is no difference between the two. (to those inflamed by that statement, please ignore the urge to correct me)
So because of that apparent need to separate oneself from other similar people through religion, I think any one religion that was instantly adopted worldwide as per your assumption would fracture into sects, much like Christianity.

Yes, this is what I was interested in. Does anyone think it possible to create, even in the imagination, a world that could follow one solid belief system (if we were starting fresh). I take it your answer is no. And most likely you are correct. Just wanted to hear the ideas of what people might try.

edanto wrote: »

Your other important point/assumption about religion being the opiate of the masses and the new overlords not having to believe in every aspect of it, well I imagine that other religions have a head-start of several thousand years on you there. It is pretty funny that you're an atheist but think that a karma style religion is more suitable for widespread consumption. Aren't we part of the masses?! Did I miss a memo?

Again, karma was just a thought. I wasn't really thinking about any one religion. I want to create a new one
Btw, as mentioned... this is stemming from a other threads and conversations. We made an assumption that we could rid the world of current religious structures and start fresh. From there we figured out that really, we couldn't create the atheist utopia, that people would soon start the religious cycle once more. My questions was that if we had the power to put a belief system in place that would gratify the people who need it but have the least negative impact on our society... what would it be?

edanto wrote: »

Any successful world view to replace the theistic religions will have to embrace the uncertainty that we are sure exists and acknowledge the things that we don't know about. Let's just call it Idontknow-ism to differentiate it from Agnostism. It happens to be my worldview, but it doesn't really lend itself to social control as it takes its morals from basic humanism (Do unto others...) and answers the tricky metaphysical questions with "I don't know."

As simple as this worldview is, I doubt it will do well in the future as it is missing several important elements of historically successful religions. Specifically there should be
(A) one or several animals that are not eaten
(B) important feast days scheduled to conflict with important dates in the previous belief system
(C) a regular get-together led by someone in a flamboyant costume who pontificates about what you should and shouldn't do
and most importantly (D) very specific answers about what happens to you after you die.

Without these ingredients, I predict a quick death for Idontknow-ism.

Next!!

lol, you're most probably right. Thanks for the responses.

Goduznt Xzst

jimbling wrote: »

Okay, you really don't seem to be getting the point of the thread. This was supposed to be a theoretical, philosophical conversation..... not a task in a literal sense.

Your second paragraph is just nuts. Do you honestly believe that religion is the root of all evil?

I do get the point of this thread I just don't think you've thought through your question enough. Most Atheists would be against any form of organized indoctrination, regardless of how happy it makes the masses. Heck, why have a religion at all, why not just make all humans addicted to some drug at birth that only the government can provide. That would be a lot simpler than creating a delusional belief and would be very easily controlled.

In regards to your second question. No religion isn't the root of all evil, apathy is and religion breeds it. Also it mistakenly makes people believe they are helping when they are not, when they could be using their cognizance to actively help people rather than passively genuflecting in Churches and lighting candles for the dying children around the world.

Think about how different the world would be if you replaced half the churches/places of worship with hospitals and the other half with schools and shelters for the poor and instead of priests and nuns you had teachers and doctors. That's personally a world I'd like to live in.

jimbling

ya, take your point... and perhaps I hadn't thought it through fully.


But you are misrepresenting my description of what I was looking for. I'm not talking about an organized doctrine, or churches blah blah blah. It's more of a spirituality really.

But yes, you're right. Most atheists would frown on that the same as any other religion. And fair enough.

But I have yet to be convinced by anyone, and I've read a few books, that a completely religious free environment is that possible. Secularist government is all well and good, but I just don't see humanity happy without they're crutch.
It's not just about apathy... people just don't want to believe they're life has no higher meaning/purpose. We live to live, we die to die. Our lives are nothing but an interaction with a number of other lives. not what people want to believe. I was just trying to see if there was a happy medium somehow.
From the initial responses, it doesn't look like there is. Atheists don't want to live a lie, they don't want others to live a lie. Religious want to live a lie, they don't want others to not live their lie

Dades

I don't think there's any real supernatural form of belief system that doesn't have negative downside.

For a start, promoting an afterlife cheapens our current existence. You need a door policy for an afterlife, which involves the threat of what happens to those who don't meet the requirements. There has to be 'encouragement' to act in a certain way to get in.

For every carrot you offer, there has to be a stick.

Rev Hellfire

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Think about how different the world would be if you replaced half the churches/places of worship with hospitals and the other half with schools and shelters for the poor and instead of priests and nuns you had teachers and doctors. That's personally a world I'd like to live in.

People only do things when it benefits them, in that sense religion serves a purpose in that it provides both the carrot and the stick to encourage good deeds. Place people solely in the here and now, then I suspect you'll find apathety will increase. imho etc etc.

jimbling

Dades wrote: »

I don't think there's any real supernatural form of belief system that doesn't have negative downside.

For a start, promoting an afterlife cheapens our current existence. You need a door policy for an afterlife, which involves the threat of what happens to those who don't meet the requirements. There has to be 'encouragement' to act in a certain way to get in.

For every carrot you offer, there has to be a stick.

lol, well put.

That is why karma sprung to mind first.. i.e. live a good life this time, get rewarded in the life next. Live a bad life this time, get punished in the next.
Put as pointed out, this has negative effects also.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

People only do things when it benefits them, in that sense religion serves a purpose in that it provides both the carrot and the stick to encourage good deeds. Place people solely in the here and now, then I suspect you'll find apathety will increase. imho etc etc.

Certainly that is a danger.... although how the world could get much worse I don't know. It's damn disgusting what people do to each other.

You would like to think we could put in place a society where the systems and rules took care of it, but we seem to be having difficulty. :rolleyes:

Goduznt Xzst

jimbling wrote: »

But I have yet to be convinced by anyone, and I've read a few books, that a completely religious free environment is that possible. Secularist government is all well and good, but I just don't see humanity happy without they're crutch.

Are you happy without your Crutch? I'm happy without mine. I'd like to believe that all humans are capable of getting to this point and that I'm not special in this regard.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

People only do things when it benefits them, in that sense religion serves a purpose in that it provides both the carrot and the stick to encourage good deeds. Place people solely in the here and now, then I suspect you'll find apathety will increase. imho etc etc.

Not true. Humans have a great ability to be altruistic. When we see wars and disasters around the world a lot of people react and want to help, but their indoctrination makes them believe that helping equates to praying and hoping that their God will sort it out. Also, for some they see these wars and disasters as God punishing this world for its sins so they sit back and do nothing because they believe this is all part of Gods greater plan. Without God this urge to help would be channeled into more constructive outlets.

I think if humans where acutely aware of the fragility of their own lives they'd be more inclined to empathetically help others who have their lives and liberties threatened.

Rev Hellfire

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Not true. Humans have a great ability to be altruistic. When we see wars and disasters around the world a lot of people react and want to help, but their indoctrination makes them believe that helping equates to praying and hoping that their God will sort it out. Also, for some they see these wars and disasters as God punishing this world for its sins so they sit back and do nothing because they believe this is all part of Gods greater plan. Without God this urge to help would be channeled into more constructive outlets.

While some of that is true, its worth keeping in mind all of the major religions have the requirement to do charitable works and too help others, and lets face it if they can't get people to do it with the eternal damnation sticks they wave around, getting people to do it because its the 'right thing to do' seems like a up hill struggle. Then again perhaps I've just a jaded view of people at this stage and hope to be proven wrong in the long run.

jimbling

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Are you happy without your Crutch? I'm happy without mine. I'd like to believe that all humans are capable of getting to this point and that I'm not special in this regard.

Yes, I'm happy without my crutch. But a lot of that has to do with my environment, my education and my lifes experiences.
Who's to say if I grew up in a different environment, a different life that I would find that I do in fact the need a crutch.
There is a very strong reason that atheism is strongest in healthy, educated self-sufficient societies, and why religion is strongest in the poorer and less educated socities (with the exception of the great and wonderful USA :rolleyes:)

Goduznt Xzst

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

While some of that is true, its worth keeping in mind all of the major religions have the requirement to do charitable works and too help others, and lets face it if they can't get people to do it with the eternal damnation sticks they wave around, getting people to do it because its the 'right thing to do' seems like a up hill struggle. Then again perhaps I've just a jaded view of people at this stage and hope to be proven wrong in the long run.

Well there is always that flip side of the coin. I just take confidence from mans ability, when unthethered, to work towards the betterment of our species. Religion is not the only problem with mankind and I think a lot of our other issues would need to be resolved before we are even close to letting go of it.

jimbling wrote: »

Yes, I'm happy without my crutch. But a lot of that has to do with my environment, my education and my lifes experiences.

Why can't every human grow up this way?

I guess what you are trying to get at by your initial post is that there will have to be some conformity amongst the species on what we view as right and wrong. Also, you feel there will have to be some form of opiate to keep the proletariat happy and in check. This line of thinking is very dangerous as you are already differentiating humans into different class groups and trying to keep them there. Rather then giving them the institutions to better their lot in life if they so choose you are looking at putting in place a belief system which will try to keep them down and happy in their lower class existence.

jimbling

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Why can't every human grow up this way?

I guess what you are trying to get at by your initial post is that there will have to be some conformity amongst the species on what we view as right and wrong. Also, you feel there will have to be some form of opiate to keep the proletariat happy and in check. This line of thinking is very dangerous as you are already differentiating humans into different class groups and trying to keep them there. Rather then giving them the institutions to better their lot in life if they so choose you are looking at putting in place a belief system which will try to keep them down and happy in their lower class existence.

Because it is completely and utterly unrealistic. I know I'm taking the massive step of eradicating religious structures...... but it's my game

Seriously though..... I had a pretty good life. I had all the opportunities in the world. A loving family, great friends. Very little hardship or death surrounded me. Are trying to say that that is possible for every human on earth..... you've lost the plot mate :pac: :pac:

Humans are in different class groups though, that can't be avoided. I said nothing about keeping them there. I said nothing about not striving to deliver the institutions you talk of. I said nothing about the installation of this belief system in order to stop progress.


Your really like to twist things don't you. :rolleyes:

AnotherYou

Occams razor famously states that we must not multiply entities beyond necessity. Thus, the simplest answer is offen the correct one.

Does this eliminate god? No, but we can all quite easily agree that we should believe in him just to justify ourselves. I think thats our job as individuals.

Expanding on this. Schrodingers Cat, A famous theoretical experiment in which the theory of "super position" is reinforced.

Whats this mean? It means that its quite possible we percieve ourselves into existance. The measurement problem means that atoms only exist when someone measures or sees them.

We are god, Our consciousness is one. We are all one, never forget that religion is trying to exploit that emotion. We all want to feel connected and we think getting together in a big church will help that us to feel at home.

people need to think more about who they are. less about why they are.

religion is bollocks and it just divides us.

AnotherYou

I'll keep an eye on the page I'm wondering what you'll all make of this
but I'll explain my religion.


Its the religion of Mr Thomas Paine.



"My country is the world, And my religion is to do good."

Zillah

Secular Humanism. There I just saved the human species that was easy.



Realistically, if it does happen I'd be suprised if it took any less than another three or four hundred years. To make the human population be content secular humanists people need to be educated, affluent and comfortable. That will take a lot of work.

nyarlothothep

There will always be some form of poverty, unless we reach post physical/omega status, in which case the groundwork to eliminate poverty would be completed.

I had thought though today, is there a pattern in nature where there is always a central system/source, as in most animals have a brain, solar systems have a star etc. I guess thats imposing a subjective judgement on reality so it was a bit of silly walk down the path to conjecturing that there is some Aristotelian omnipotent being thinking future existence into being.

Meh, put it this way, I would love it if there was an afterlife, I don't really care for higher meaning too much, just indefinate life fixed in whatever decade one chooses. And probably the enhancement of life through integration with computers and cybernetics. So I support transhumanism to an extent and the forwarding of human prosperity.