Help me design a New Best Religion!

[small axe]

Some folks accept that their OWN religion is the best ideology or faith or truth or dogma or process or tool with which to advance human knowledge, understanding and morality (whatever those things mean to them)

Other folks accept that NO RELIGION is the best way to advance human knowledge, understanding, and morality (whatever those mean to them)

But what if we were to combine our thinking and constuct a "best" religion (say, the religion held by some future utopian society, in a real future world of some speculative, Science Fiction or Fantasy story)

What tenets or practices might that "religion" have, do you/we think?

Now, I'll admit to my own cultural assumption that a commonly-shared held RELIGION could be the superior foundation to a harmonious society, simply because religion alone (imo) can unite humans in a common, selfless cooperation ... free of bickering about "Why should we do YOUR thing, instead of MINE? We're all EQUAL! You're no 'better' than I, to be telling us what we should do!" etc

Everyone might agree that GOD is or gods are morally "better" and thus have a greater claim to define the "common good" than ANY HUMAN institution ... and thus obeyance to the divine is easier (and "better") than obeying mortal (possibly selfish, certainly limited mortal) dictates.

So ... what would such a "best religion" need to look like, to work?

I join many in suggesting that it would need to show Tolerance and Respect to every human ... yet I wonder where the limits to that would have to be drawn?

Does YOUR "best religion" allow for war (or threats of force or violence), ever, in defense of innocents or to protect the environment?

Is anything a "Sin" ??? Does anyone get to DEFINE moral behaviour for anyone else ... or do we leave it to the Divine to speak to each human's moral conscience?

In MY perfect religion, SCIENCE would be mostly unlimited because Science is the devout and moral exploration of Divine Creation and man's relationship to the Divine.

But YOUR perfect religion ... is Man allowed to study building atomic bombs? Is there any Science that Religion (and remember, this is your UTOPIAN Religion) simply has to say "this is dark and evil knowledge ... we will not explore this further" (Obviously, BAD religion has done this in the past ... but can our BEST religion ever do it?)

Maybe this is a hopeless (or just tedious) task, maybe no one will care to explore the maze of possibilities.

I wonder though, if some who REJECT ALL current religion aren't just annoyed by the bad or fallen-short religions we see around us (perhaps) ... or the good religions we have but which are BETRAYED by the selfishness and bigotry of mortal Man?

Is there a "best religion" possible (even if a construct, even designed as a psychological or spiritual tool) that would help enlighten and unify MANKIND ???

Tolerance, but how much? Because if we've designed a PERFECT religion (irony allowed there) then how much do we tolerate differences from it?

Peacefulness, but when do we set aside Peace to ethically defend the Oppressed from the Oppressor?

The CHALLENGES might be the same as with a "divine" version of "secular" HUMANISM, right?

Imagine if GOD(s) appears and says:
"You are ALL morally accountable, and you ALL are morally accountable to use your HUMAN REASON or SPIRITUAL CONSCIENCE to live together as you see fit to create the world. But you'll reap what you sow."

So ...

1) We'll know God(s) EXISTS!

2) And we'll all be held accountable for our moral choices! (whether via Last Judgement or Karmic Payback or ... whatever)

What kind of religion or world do YOU/we build ? And by WHAT GUIDELINES ?

Do you think it's VALID for folks to simply say "I don't want there to BE a "one best religion" to spread ... I'll just do what's best for ME and others can work it out for themselves? Because I see that as allowing for the oppression and intolerance of others ... in which case we'd be answerable for doing nothing while others suffered (but maybe that will be part of your idea, okay)

Ideas? Suggestions?

It's interesting to me because it DEMANDS human accountability and moral choice ... which a godless worldview might not. But can a society that doesn't demand accountability or moral choice FUNCTION or survive?

Anyway ... it seemed an interesting question for a comparative religion thread. Maybe someone else will be interested.

I like it when I see footage of many Muslims of all shapes and personalities all get together and do their communal worship, that's a nice scene. I think it'd be nice if folks worshipped in the direction of ... I dunno ... the center of the galaxy. :) We can't worship facing the center of the universe or there'd be sectarian dispute over where to place that. I guess we could decide that the center is within each of us ... but maybe there's too many folks ALREADY who act like THEY'RE the center of the universe!

[Ruv Draba]

It's a really deep question you've asked, Axe, full of hidden parts and I doubt that there'll be anything like a single answer.

So much of this question depends on what we think 'good' looks like, what we think 'truth' means, what we think life is for. Do any two people entirely agree on those things in the first place?

I can't personally think of something a religion could do for me that I can't do some other way. I'm not clear that a religion could ever do it better than I could using secular means -- but that's just a personal perspective.

But by the same token, most of my devout friends would probably say that their faith couldn't be better for them. They'd perhaps worry more about how to be better for their faith.

I don't personally think that any religion could possibly be universal. People seem too diverse to me. But a lot of my religious friends feel that their own faith could work for anyone -- if people are willing to change enough to make it work. But my counter-argument is that a lot of the changes I see people make to get a religion to work, are not changes I would demand of any other person.

Wish I could be more helpful, but all an atheist can really do is point out what's wrong with the religions we have. Because what atheists normally see as right about religion ends up being stuff you can do secularly anyway.

We did have another thread about what would make a good, modern holy-book (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150146)-- how it could be structured, how it would need to be managed, how it could be made robust against changing human knowledge, how it could stay useful and relevant without damaging its own credibility. You might be interested in reading that. (Please ignore the title though -- Bartholomew was just making a joke).

[small axe]

It may fall victim to any one of several defects, I know: my vagueness in framing the query, the complexity of issues and details demanded, as you've said the mere diversity of folks.

I can offer one illustration of how one might hold one tenet sincerely but "prefer" another though, I suppose: the concept of KARMA appeals to me more than straight personal JUDGEMENT, for example. Creation seems to be happily created to work according to certain cosmic principles: Gravity can indeed be seen as a mere "law of Nature" for instance without the Universe needing God to keep the planets swirling or the stars burning without constant Divine Personal attention. :) I could understand someone aesthetically "perferring" souls' evolution towards enlightenment being more cosmic process than individual Divine Judgement.

Thus, I could see how Karma might appeal more to a democratic-minded, science-oriented believer (in their embrace of a "best religion") than the Divine Monarch's Judgement model that might have appealed to human psychology of ancient non-democratic eras.

(That assumes of course that both Gravity and Karma are indeed "impersonal" ... I suppose an omniscient, omnipotent God could set the atoms in motion so that everything in the universe is ultimately intimately PERSONAL, in ways we cannot yet grasp)

But anyway ... it may be a Too Big Question fated to go unanswered here (what ... no one wants to write a bhagavad-gita length treatise to answer a internet query, huh?!;) )

It's all good. It occurred to me so I posed it. Sometimes asking a question is half the adventure!

[Ruv Draba]

To me, anything to do with karma, afterlife or postmortal destiny are irrelevant to secular affairs. Good, if it's worth doing, is worth doing without expectation of postmortal reward. Bad, if it should be avoided, should be avoided without expectation of postmortal punishment.

As for the good or bad we might experience, I don't think it requires metaphysical justification or intercession. I feel that the important thing is to manage it secularly -- work toward whatever good we can manage; avoid or deal with whatever bad we might anticipate.

As for the Origin of Everything (whatever that might mean), I don't believe that it needs a metaphysical story. Whatever secular story we can arrive at would seem to suffice.

Other religious benefits like art, fellowship, rituals, a sense of purpose and belonging, moral reflection, humility, awe, reverence at the world... all those things exist in secular life and to my mind they can be improved as much as we like through secular effort. I think religion does some of those quite well, but it doesn't justify all that investment in what to me seems pointless metaphysical fantasy.

That's why I can't conceive even an imaginary religion that I'd personally embrace, and certainly not one I'd demand that others embrace.

On the other hand, there have been religious rites that I've enjoyed from a secular perspective, religious stories I've enjoyed from a literary perspective, and some religious thought I've appreciated from a secular moral perspective.

[knight_tour]

To me the only thing that really matters is honesty when it comes to questions regarding our (or the "universe's") origins. The only honest thing we can actually say about these is that we don't know, at least until science manages to answer some questions. So, boring as it may seem, I still posit that agnosticism is the proper state of mind for all humanity as regards religion.

[stephenf]

I personally believe all religions are man made.People will aways try to fashion religion to suit them selves.Because we all have a different outlooks ,Beliefs and priorities, all religions will have it own set of believers and nonbelievers.Humanity will never move on until it realises all religions are fictitious delusions.

[small axe]

Well, okay, but the thread can be seen as to be about what sort of "religion" you think would be the most effective or humanly-fulfilling ... even if we're considering human PSYCHOLOGY ... EMOTIONAL FULFILLMENT ... or CULTURAL or SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT.

Some folks SEE "religion" as a social construct, already.

My premise is (and some needn't agree, but you might explain why not or what's better): "religion" is the best possible tool for cultural and social cohesion and motivation.

Any HUMAN-originated program can be met with the resistance of "Why should we listen to YOUR agenda, when we're all humans and so you have no binding authority over OUR views and decisions?"

A "religion" can simply offer (since it's from a superhuman SUPERIOR source, a smarter-than-us, more-moral-than-us source) that we should ALL CO-OPERATE and OBEY.

I'm not asking YOUR religious beliefs.
I'm asking what beliefs you'd suggest would be best for a "religion" to offer as guide to its followers.

It's fine to say SCIENCE and REASON should guide everyone ... except Science only offers fact, not reason to obey the facts when facts are 'inconvenient' to human emotion or desire.

Can science tell us that a 'selfish' act is necessarily morally 'wrong' ??? (Not if it promotes some competitive advantage in a darwinian struggle to survive, imo.)

Some folks see "religion" as something best eradicated, I know.

I'm just saying, since "religion" seems to be a basic human occupation ... what would be the best sort of religion for the species to have? (And again, I'm admittedly assuming that it must be SHARED as a common touchstone to be effective on a worldwide scale)

It may be true (in theory) that Scientists would agree on FACTS.

But most humans would still look to their Religion to help them understand what to DO with those Facts.

Any secular "answer" can be challenged with a "why do that?"

In the past, "religion" offered the firmest answer: "Because our God(s) or religion COMMANDS US to."

Outside of religion, what provides a firm answer?
Democracy doesn't really, since 49% of the world's population might disagree.
Reason should, until thinking people reason and arrive at different answers ...

Absent 'religion" ... what else is there?
So I'm wondering ... how can we make religion work the best way it can?

(Recognizing it has had bad results often in the past ... but holds the promise to serve to do great things in an ideal form)

[Ruv Draba]

Axe, you seem to be asking the question from the premise that religion is useful because it's religious.

You might find a few people who accept the premise, but I think you'll get two groups who don't: people who think that religion is useful because it's true, and people who think that the useful bits of religion are not the religious parts.

Ask an atheist like me how to improve a religion and I'll tell you something like 'take the magic and guesswork out, and make the religion accountable to people'. Which would make it a philosophy or Way.

Ask a devout theist how to improve their religion and they may tell you 'We don't improve my faith; my faith improves us'.

I feel for you here, but it's hard to see how you can get what you're looking for. :)

[Don Allen]

Actually, a great question with an uncomplicated answer. A religion that believes in God without all the bullshit Pagan style rituals and hypocritical claims of Godliness that accompany the edicts of existing religions.

[AMCrenshaw]

The perfect religion is the unnecessary one.




AMC

[small axe]

Axe, you seem to be asking the question from the premise that religion is useful because it's religious.


Well, perhaps from the premise that if someone wanted to unite people to a common cause (and part of my question then might be: "Towards what cause, do you think?"), free from the problem of everyone having a separate (and perhaps divisive) selfish interest and motivation ... what's more EFFECTIVE than a "religion" ???

Difficult Question posed: WHY should a jobless, struggling American worker donate $$$ to help kids in Haiti, instead of his own kids?

I know the "religious" answers (at least the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist ones) ... more importantly, I know the WHY those religions would give. I know the AUTHORITY answering the "why?"

What's the answer, absent "religion" ? And the real issue is then the "Why?" given, absent "religion" ???

Does anyone want to give a "Darwinian" answer ??? (I assume not)
Does anyone want to explain the AUTHORITY behind their humanist ethical answer ???

I don't mean to argue here the validity of my question being about "religion" ... But I could ask: What ELSE does anyone got that disqualifies my question and assumption that "religion" is in fact the most effective cultural/human motivator? :)

AMCrenshaw adds:
The perfect religion is the unnecessary one.


Well, sure: the best medicine is the unnecessary one, too. :) But I'm talking about the real world and its needs and problems. If MANKIND is in turmoil or conflict ... how could "religion" address that best?

Or ... since that's the direction it's taking ... how do you address it, if not by religion?

Because you don't achieve solutions by waving a magic wand and erasing religion from people ... do you?

I mean, it would relieve human conflict if we all spoke ONE LANGUAGE. But who succeeds in convincing everyone to do THAT?

REASON might not work as well as ... "religion" there, too.

Ruv says:
but it's hard to see how you can get what you're looking for.

Yeah, that's a risk. I mean, the topic of the thread is framed according to "religion" after all. I agree with Ruv that that means some won't care to play, that's okay.

[knight_tour]

Well, perhaps from the premise that if someone wanted to unite people to a common cause ...

I DO want to unite people in a common cause, which is why I push agnosticism. I believe the cause should be to focus on this life here and now and not worry about make-believe hopes. The lack of religion does not mean that we cannot have wonderful lives; in my opinion we would actually have more reason to improve life on earth if so many were not focused on some mythical 'afterlife' instead of on this life right here and now.

[zornhau]

Well, if we're designing a perfect religion, let's have...

We are all responsible for the predictable results of our actions, rather than just the intent.
Other than that, let's have Roman/Greek-style polytheism. This has to be the healthiest of all religious systems:

Diversity of voices supports Darwinian selection of memes, and thus social evolution over time.
Less chance of holy wars.

[ColoradoGuy]

I DO want to unite people in a common cause, which is why I push agnosticism. I believe the cause should be to focus on this life here and now and not worry about make-believe hopes. The lack of religion does not mean that we cannot have wonderful lives; in my opinion we would actually have more reason to improve life on earth if so many were not focused on some mythical 'afterlife' instead of on this life right here and now.
Some religions (mine, for example) actually do focus on just what you say -- improving life on earth without particular reference to a future heavenly reward for doing so. It is a central tenet of Quakerism.

The OP asks if some system of religious dogma (using that word in in its original, neutral sense) can be designed and planned. That, to me as a Quaker, is the opposite of what religiosity is. We find it by looking within. So I don't find it to be a particularly interesting question.

If you want to read about a designer religion, read Cat's Cradle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Cradle) by Kurt Vonnegut. It's tongue-in-cheek, of course (and very funny), but Bokononism is quite logical in its relationship between means and ends.

[Ruv Draba]

Well, perhaps from the premise that if someone wanted to unite people to a common cause (and part of my question then might be: "Towards what cause, do you think?"), free from the problem of everyone having a separate (and perhaps divisive) selfish interest and motivation ... what's more EFFECTIVE than a "religion" ???
Compassion.

What's the answer, absent "religion" ?
Compassion.

But I could ask: What ELSE does anyone got that disqualifies my question and assumption that "religion" is in fact the most effective cultural/human motivator? :)
Compassion, and common secular truth.

Or ... since that's the direction it's taking ... how do you address it, if not by religion?
Compassion and a joint, nonpartisan quest for common secular truth.

Because you don't achieve solutions by waving a magic wand and erasing religion from people ... do you?I prefer education.

And compassion.

REASON might not work as well as ... "religion" there, too.

Or compassion without any dogma at all.

Yeah, that's a risk. I mean, the topic of the thread is framed according to "religion" after all. I agree with Ruv that that means some won't care to play, that's okay.I don't mind playing, because I think what you're asking is actually about...

compassion.

I agree with CG in the main, except I think that outside is just as important as inside (the difference for me being that the Inside is Tricksy while the Outside is Honest), and we describe what's going on a bit differently.

[zornhau]

Wait a moment - did somebody say there was a magic wand for removing religion like that episode in Stargate?

[StephanieFox]

Actually, a great question with an uncomplicated answer. A religion that believes in God without all the bullshit Pagan style rituals and hypocritical claims of Godliness that accompany the edicts of existing religions.

The 'Pagan style rituals' are the best part. You don't need belief or even a literal god to have them.

(cue drummers...lower the lights...light the bonfire...begin the singing....)

[Lhun]

Been done:
Religimon
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8758/religimon.jpg (http://img411.imageshack.us/i/religimon.jpg/)

(Cookie for whoever can identify it)

[stephenf]

The world's first mimetically engineered all purpose pop God

[Bartholomew]

You keep yours and I'll keep mine. We'll call it the temple of unity. :-)

[Rufus Coppertop]

Good, if it's worth doing, is worth doing without expectation of postmortal reward. Bad, if it should be avoided, should be avoided without expectation of postmortal punishment.

:hooray: