Educated modern humans have a problem: we retain religious instincts, but many of us are no longer capable of believing in religion.

This is the problem German philosopher Nietzsche pointed out in the late 1800's. For the modern mind, "God was dead"; but he didn't say it triumphantly, but with trepidation. What would happen to communities - to human life - as individuals grew more and more incapable of believing in the old myths and gods? As Yeats would say a few decades later, anarchy could be loosed upon the world. Religion, for all its problems, seems to have been crucial to human existence, over eons. What would replace it?

Some might say science, but that's doubtful. Science is a method for discovering physical laws. It cannot answer life's most pressing questions: how should I live? What happens after we die? Is there any real point to my existence? Did someone or something create the universe, and everything in it? And if so, why? What are we even doing here? At least, science has not answered them yet; and it is doubtful it ever will.

Another answer might be, New Age or occult philosophies. But for many people, these are too amorphous, too unorganized, too haphazard, to take seriously. There is little that is invigorating or inspiring there, nothing that would provoke most people to heroic action, even on a small sphere. Yoga and platitudes are just not enough for most people. Somewhere, deep inside of ourselves, most of us yearn for the raw meat of clear, communal religion. We want it to captivate us, enthrall us, motivate us, inspire us with awe, fill our lives with purpose and direction, joy and determination, and even sacrifice and labour. In a word, we want what it seems impossible now to find.

Catholicism is unbelievable. Evangelical Protestantism is unbelievable. Mormonism is unbelievable. Scientology and Jehovah's Witnessism are a joke. Universalist Unitarianism is a blank. Judaism and Islam...not going to happen (not even Jews believe in Judaism anymore). Buddhism has some wonderful wisdom teachings..but again, it's just not enough.

It seems like what we need is a set of basic, but "transcendent", propositions about existence which are (A) believable, (B) emotionally/spiritually captivating and inspiring, and (C) adequate to building a strong faith community upon, along with a system of individual and communal rituals, customs, traditions, etc., linked to, and helping further, the community's beliefs and goals.

What could those believable, "transcendent" propositions be? It's hard to say. No one knows if any intelligent force created the world, or if so, why; or whether there is some eternal part of us which lives on after we die; or whether there is some final reckoning for each of us. We can only ever guess, even though, by nature, we so desperately want to know.

But maybe that inherently impenetrable mystery is itself the starting point and ending point. Maybe *acceptance* of that mystery is the key, rather than futile attempts to explode it. After all, those futile attempts have given us thousands of false prophets, thousands of false mediums and gurus, all of whom claim to have "penetrated the veil" to some degree or other, and allowed them to pass off their own fancies as absolute cosmic truths.

But a statement like, "the truth is, we have no idea why we are here, or where we are going, or what happens after we die. That is our starting point"....*that* I can believe in. And perhaps, in a way, it is "transcendent", in that the proposition itself is that The Big Answers forever transcend our ability to comprehend, if they even exist.

And if that is an adequate starting point, the next question is: what would come next?

(To be continued).

Comments of course are welcome!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2014 02:02PM by Tal Bachman.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>...what would come next?

Art comes next, for me anyway. I have a generalized faith in Matthew Arnold's attempt to confront Nietzsche's trepidation.

Art has yet and many never do all of this, though:

"It seems like what we need is a set of basic, but "transcendent", propositions about existence which are (A) believable, (B) emotionally/spiritually captivating and inspiring, and (C) adequate to building a strong faith community upon, along with a system of individual and communal rituals, customs, traditions, etc., linked to, and helping further, the community's beliefs and goals."

But it can and does do a lot of this in pockets, musical, visual and literary pockets.

We abide in pockets, waiting for something to arrive (and if it be that slouching, rough beast, well then, so it goes...)

Human

A new and believable religion would need to confront the problems of ego and narcissism. Not false beliefs, but false and exaggerated identities.

Imagine the harm that's done by thinking the truth is to be found within yourself, or by some gift you have that never deceives you. What a recipe that is for narcissism and spurious exceptionalism.

There is no more need for religion and no more need for people to prove they are "good" or be redeemed from "sin."

The human condtion info at the webpage below says humans are the only animal with both genetic instinct and nerve based learning systems in each head. This "human condition" creates ego centric people that do bad things to one another, so they need religion. Now that we understand the problem, we do not need religion anymore..

Try this: http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-book2-summary-of-the-explanation-of-the-human-condition/

Sam Harris, in The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, makes a convincing argument that science indeed has a seat at the table when it comes to determining how we ought to behave to optimize happiness and well being.

We know much about the human brain, and world events to already agree on right and wrong answers to many of the questions of what constitutes the good life. Moral relativism is wrong.

Religion has claimed ethics and morality as its territory though it has an abysmal record of supporting its theses, and an even more tragic record when it comes to application of principles of love and mercy.

There is no Muslim physics, or Catholic algebra. There ought to be no Christian or Muslim morality.

Data indicates that the least religious countries are better off than the most religious ones. "Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands -- which are the most atheistic societies on earth -- consistently rate better than religious nations on mesausres like life expectancy, infant mortality, crimel literacy, GDP, child welfare, economic equality, economic competitiveness, gender equality, health care, investments in education, rates of university enrollment, internet access, environmental protection, lack of corruption, politicial stability and charity to poorer nations, etc." (Page 146)

It's time to replace genetically predisposed superstition to give way to a more rational approach to morality and ethics. Those magical beliefs offered some protection against danger in the past. But we have already recognized that a variety of genetically entrenched human traits (e.g., out-group aggression, infidelity, superstition, etc.) that, were adaptive at some point in our past, may be less than optimal today. Time to realize that many of the biologically selected traits may yet prove our undoing. (paraphrase from page 148).

Some thoughts that I hope add to the discussion.

Thank you Tal. I always enjoy your thought provoking messages.

kenc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> We know much about the human brain, and world
> events to already agree on right and wrong answers
> to many of the questions of what constitutes the
> good life.

My goodness, kenc. I have a mountain of issues with S. Harris, but he would never agree with that!

We know much about the human brain? Really? Consider (grabbed at random):

***Needless to say, the science of mapping the human connectome is currently in its infancy. There are an estimated 100 billion neurons in the human brain, and as for the connections between them? Sheesh. There may be as many as 100 trillion synapses, or spaces where these neurons exchange information. So far, only one connectome has been mapped, and that was for a much simpler organism—the microscopic roundworm, or nematode. "It took them 10 years just to get the nematode," says Ouellette, "and the nematode only has 302 neurons."***

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-jennifer-ouellette-science-of-self

As for your easy slide from Is to Ought, be careful. Please. If your claim were even remotely true we'd all be living the good life as we speak (since, as you claim, we all already agree).

Human

Human. Thank you for your comments. Perhaps you do not know Harris as well as you think you do. Not only would Harris agree with the statement you take issue with, he said it. I merely lifted the material from his book.

A long list a of things we do not yet know about the human brain and cognition,is not contrary to the statement that we know much about the human brain. Especially, since we can compare what we now know to what we used to know. I know you are going to call on me to list "what we know" from brain research, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed you won't make me. Oh well, I might as well start. :)

Neuroscience and psychology are helping us understand ourselves at the level of the brain. Brain studies provide a rich addition to our knowledge about human cognition. Brain maps are helping us understand what areas of the brain work together to enable us to function at all levels. Why can't we add morality to an undeveloped branch of science and study it in the lab and experimental conditions?

Can you tell me more about my slide from Is to Ought? I was going to respond and try to add something to the discussion, but I do know what what you meant. Can you help me understand what you meant?

Hi kenc.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "much".

I'm avoiding important work and so can't get into Hume and Is and Ought very well at this moment. But here's this, which is better than what I would write anyway:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.ca/2010/04/about-sam-harris-claim-that-science-can.html

Hume's Is/Ought problem is very famous. A simple google search will yield more and much better than I can type at the moment.

In essence, when someone starts telling me what I ought to do based on how he thinks the world (or the brain) really is I grow skeptical, to say the least; especially when that he once tried to justify torture (even though he continually tries to deny it).

> Data indicates that the least religious countries
> are better off than the most religious ones.
> "Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the
> Netherlands -- which are the most atheistic
> societies on earth -- consistently rate better
> than religious nations on mesausres like life
> expectancy, infant mortality, crimel literacy,
> GDP, child welfare, economic equality, economic
> competitiveness, gender equality, health care,
> investments in education, rates of university
> enrollment, internet access, environmental protection,
> lack of corruption, political stability, charity to
> poorer nations, etc.

These are the most socialist countries in Western Europe. However in Eastern Europe & Asia, the regimes of Soviet Russia & Communist China eliminated the traditional religions but weren't able to establish any of these societal benefits. To attribute these to atheism or even rationalism contradicts the historical evidence, the political philosophies & comparatively small & homogeneous populations of these countries.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one knows if
> any intelligent force created the world, or if so,
> why;

We do, however, have a pretty coherent explanation for how the universe, the world and life came to be. No intelligent force is required for this explanation.

The explanation does not answer all questions humans can ask, but to propose an intelligent force only makes the problem worse: how did the intelligent force originate?

Logic dictates, therefore, that the idea of an intelligent force be rejected. This is not optional. You cannot "keep an open mind" about it. If you do, you will still have all the pending questions to answer plus a whole set of new ones (which, to make matters even worse, are often thought to be a priori unanswerable).

This is why rational people consider religion a delusion: it runs contrary to logic and reason and contributes nothing toward solving life's deepest mysteries.

I'd be curious to hear some posters relate their
experiences in encountering something even remotely
resembling a "believable religion."

Certainly their must be some human communities which
serve at least a few of the needs and hopes of their
members, without demanding too much acceptance of
things unbelievable.

Fraternal societies? Charitable organizations? Activist
groups? Meditation centers? Volunteer associations?

What sort of organized communities would somebody turn to
for acceptance, support, friendship, purpose, assistance,
etc., and NOT have to profess much that was UNBELIEVABLE?

UD

Indeed. What does believable religion even mean? What are its attributes?

Void K. Packer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indeed. What does believable religion even mean?
> What are its attributes?


I suppose that the first thing most folks picture in
their minds, when the word "religion" is mentioned, are
fanciful images of gods, demons, heavens, hells, and
gullible, superstitious dupes in a membership led
around by the nose, through the manipulation of cynical,
hypocritical priests.

If we can set those first impressions aside, perhaps there
is something to be said for "religion" as a human activity
or phenomenon -- something that might be salvaged and
coupled with "believability," in order to address Tal's idea.

A few years ago I had the happy experience of visiting my
family's ancestral home in England, and of spending a little
time researching the old parish church there -- with six
generations of my ancestors' bones still in the churchyard.

In trying to fathom what that congregation meant to nearly
200 years' continual presence of those ancestors, I did not
come away with a mental picture of Church of England dogma,
nor of hundreds of communicants holding unbelievable views
of life and death --- rather than that, I pictured a viable
sustaining community, spanning many generations -- giving
a much needed social cohesion and shared experience.

In my mind's eye I saw engagements (they used to post the
"banns" on the church door), weddings, births, christenings,
passages into adulthood, singing, picnics, shared grief,
funerals, preparations for community defense during the
WWII "blitz," and any number of other mental images that
had very little to do with belief, disbelief, or unbelief.

I can't forget that memory -- it somehow seems important.

UD

Those important life events are part of any religion, and in a sense make any religion believable.

It's interesting to think of what the Catholic sacraments or Mormon ordinances would look like without any divine being or supernatural powers being invoked. Probably a cross between a softball game, a family dinner, and the evening news.

Also, Tal, I've read most of what you posted at a certain hushed and forbidden website, which I easily found with Google searches in 2007...

I recall you writing something to the effect that almost anyone could, even now, create a coherent system from the various Mormon beliefs, but that the Brethren don't even try. I'd be interested to see if anyone could do that, if only to show how incomplete Mormonism would be even if it were internally consistent. That could be helpful in developing a metareligion, a theory of what a believable religion would look like. Even in the absence of such a religion, the theory would be helpful in constructing one.

I'm a Buddhist, a Nichiren Buddhist, and I find it quite believable.

MCR, could you recommend the best English translation of the Lotus Sutra?

Thank you.

Perhaps I'm missing the God gene, but what does atheism have to do with anarchy? Take away the religion and humans are still humans. We still desire safety and sociality, and most modern governments aren't based on religion anyway.

There is plenty to captivate, enthrall, motivate, and inspire without religion. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be living under a rock. There are infinite possibilities for purpose in life when the individual gets to determine on their own what that purpose is. I find it hard to believe that so many people would desire the captivity of having their entire purpose in life dictated by a supreme being.

Take away religion and you have society exactly as it is today, but with more tolerance and fewer falsehoods. It might take a generation or two to get over the withdrawals of the widespread drug that is religion, but once people are allowed to simply be human, the world will be a much better place.

"Secular humanism requires more thought, more self-awareness, and more personal responsibility than any religion I've known. Knowing you can't blame God or the devil makes you truly responsible for yourself and your place in the community. It elevates your ethics and standards to a new level. It allows you to be human, but makes you responsible for your humanity. That's not easy, but it is fulfilling. Not because of imaginary rewards or safety from imaginary fears. But from the satisfaction of living life with your eyes open ... from seeing the good, the bad and the accidental with eyes free of illusion ... and taking part in it all as a true participant, rather than hoping only for the end of the road. It's a beautiful life we can live, if only we choose to live it."
-Joel Bowers



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2014 03:32PM by kimball.

kimball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> Take away religion and you have society exactly as
> it is today, but with more tolerance and fewer
> falsehoods.
...

That may indeed be true -- if we limit "religion" to
a rather narrow definition.

But, getting back to practicalities -- I wonder who would
step in and keep the local soup kitchen going, if the
United Methodist church closed its doors next week?

Probably some organization would come in a take up the
slack -- and continue that congregation's twenty-year
tradition and mission of feeding and helping the homeless.

But, I wonder WHO it would be? Who would take the place
of the current "unbelievable" religion?

Probably not the local skinhead skateboarders, nor the
Chamber of Commerce, nor the County government officials.

Figure out which organized groups are most likely to try
and lend a helping hand, and perhaps you'll identify the
logical societal replacement for theistic religion (or
even atheistic religion, if we decide to also eliminate
the Buddhists, Taoists, Unitarians, etc.)

UD

The government would do it. Secular liberals would already like to see more social programs like that at all levels, but their ultra-religious counterparts keep trying to downsize and keep charity in the hands of the religions. And without the tax exemptions and money that people dump into religions, the government should have more money for it as well.

Last I checked the Red Cross wasn't religiously affiliated.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2014 04:06PM by kimball.

kimball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The government would do it. The secular liberals
> would already like to see that more social
> programs like that, but their ultra-religious
> counterparts keep trying to downsize and keep it
> in the hands of the religions. And without the
> tax exemptions and religious spending, the
> government should have more money for it as well.
>
> Last I checked the Red Cross wasn't religiously
> affiliated.

I'm trying to think of an instance where the "government"
actually performed such a replacement.

Perhaps in the 1930s Soviet Union or in the 1950s
North Korea -- but, in both of those cases, the
replacement thus offered became just as unbelievable
as the teachings of the Orthodox Church or Confucianism.

It seems that your suggestion would also have to entail
some method of keeping the "government" itself from
slipping into the propagation of unbelievable stuff.

Besides which, I'm 100% positive that our local city
and county officials would absolutely reject such an
idea, its expense, responsibility, liability, etc.

Maybe the answer would be to have a fully volunteer
government, forced to live up to serving obvious human
needs -- I've seen something like that in some remote
Asian villages.

UD

You seem to be assuming that government would try to main indoctrination along with funding soup kitchens.

The same people would run the charitable centers, as they would be the same good charitable people who were running them before. They would merely be funded by the government as opposed to by churches. The political landscape would be quite a bit different than it is today without the existence of churches, and politicians even at a local level who turned up their nose towards the poor and needy would quickly be voted out of office, because everybody would know they have nowhere else to turn.

Nothing unbelievable would be indoctrinated into people on condition of their receiving the charity because that has already been ruled out by the primary premise behind our little thought experiment. Is it easier to believe that all religions will suddenly cease to exist than to believe that many people would be willing to help others without religious or pseudo-religious indoctrination?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2014 04:24PM by kimball.

kimball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You seem to be assuming that government would try
> to main indoctrination along with funding soup
> kitchens.
>
> The same people would run the charitable centers,
> as they would be the same good charitable people
> who were running them before. They would merely
> be funded by the government as opposed to by
> churches. The political landscape would be quite
> a bit different than it is today without the
> existence of churches, and politicians even at a
> local level who turned up their nose towards the
> poor and needy would quickly be voted out of
> office, because everybody would know they have
> nowhere else to turn.
>
> Nothing unbelievable would be indoctrinated into
> people on condition of their receiving the charity
> because that has already been ruled out by the
> primary premise behind our little thought
> experiment. Is it easier to believe that all
> religions will suddenly cease to exist than to
> believe that many people would be willing to help
> others without religious or pseudo-religious
> indoctrination?

Perhaps in some localities a government take-over would
work. I doubt it would work where I live.

More likely, in the absence of the Christian mission, the
local Food Bank, or Habitat for Humanity, or some other
volunteer organization would step in, to re-constitute
the discontinued religious-based services for the homeless.

Of course getting rid of the Christian outreach services
would also close down the three thrift stores operating
here -- all of which run on volunteer efforts and charity
funds collected outside of the government agencies.

Maybe in a Socialist country the government would find
a way of running these non-profit second-hand stores --
but not here.

If anything, the city, county and state governments would
be likely to cut any such services within their power --
(or else face a tax-payers' revolt, as when public school
funding increases were attempted through property tax raises).

UD

"Believable"is subjective. All religions preach "crazy" "unbelievable" things. But proof is required to get someone to accept faith. The question then becomes, which religion offers solid proof.

Religion shouldn't be chosen or accepted because it works for you. Religion should be chosen because it's true. Find the truth, then you will find religion.

The Lotus Sutra translated by Burnot Watson, Colunbia University Press

MCR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Lotus Sutra translated by Burnot Watson,
> Colunbia University Press

Thank you.

I had just downloaded one translated from the Chinese of Kumārajiva by Tsugunari Kubo and Akira Yuyama

Why again must we answer all questions? I would love to know what it feels like to be dead, but not near enough to find out.

Dang Tal, you writing a book? You could be a philosopher.

I agree with your conclusion; that in order to move forward, we must accept that we do not have the answers, and that that starting point is the gateway to getting closer to the Big Answers.

As for your question -- what next? That's a good one. For myself, I'm content to stop there. I wasted 36 years of my life chasing the Mormonism lie, so I'm burned out. I don't need the Big Answer any more, or perhaps my Big Answer is simply to get out of life what I can while the getting is good.

Some might find that a depressing philosophy, but I don't find it depressing. It allows me to leave the mystical world behind and get busy with the business of living. It works for me, but maybe it's not for everyone. So if someone else does have the time and energy to find the Big Answers, please, go for it. I'll read your book after you find them. :)

Tal, thank you for the thought provoking post. I was raised a Catholic and have been a mormon for 43 years. I've seen the damage that religion does to people. I want nothing to do with organized religion again in my life, though I'm stuck being a sacrement only NOM right now for the sake of family, thanks to the brainwashing of this cult on my family these 43 years.
I have not decided if there is a God, but this is what I've come to. I think if there were a God, he would love "all" his or her children and would want them to all have the same gifts to get through this life and he or she would want all of them to find happiness. This is why I kind of like the philosophy that says we are all God and God is in everyone. But here is the core of my idea. I think we all have what we need. Religion tries to take that away and say we need some one else to tell us what is moral and what is right. I think we all have a natural attraction and need for Love, Truth and Beauty. And that those are our inner guides and when we are lacking those, we are in a conflicted and unhappy state. And I think we all have a set of tools to help us determine our own values, and those are our own Compassion, Common Sense and Conscience. And I think it is life'circumstances and our up bringing that screw those up for some of us.
So what I'm saying is, we should celebrate the fact that we have what we need inside each of us and trust our own inner voice. We are not naturally an enemy to God or anyone else. We are good stuff. We are so much more than the damned church wants us to realize. It is such a threat to religion that man may find his own voice and begin to trust it and think for himself. This is the reason that people in the Nordic countries lead the world in happiness and taking care of each other. They have pretty much abandoned religion and found the good in themselves. So that's my rant. Thanks to anyone who made it through it.

I'm not sure what's being discussed yet. Taking a step back, what is religion defined as here? Then we can worry about whether it's believable or not. So far I've read religion being somehow connected with:
kin identifier
tribe identifier
social service provider
connection to the numinous
most wicked oppressor known to man
and some kind of nebulous bible is all metaphor and conflicts not a whit with demonstrable knowledge (science).

Some think of TED.com as an expression of a new humanistic religion--spreading and discussing ideas about how to decrease suffering and increase well-being for humanity in our lifetime and for future generations. Although TED is biased towards the interests of powerful industries it also gives attention to simple ideas that are helpful to everyday people.

Who couldn't get behind that? If an idea is really good it will spread because it works and everybody is benefited.

That's basically what I consider my religion to be. Instead of an afterlife I care about the lives of future generations. Instead of doctrine I care about sharing knowledge of our best ideas free to anyone.

The emerging modern humanistic religion doesn't need to have answers to the big questions, just ideas that speak for themselves in the ability to practically increase the richness and quality of life for people from all walks of life.

Imagine if neighborhoods and communities began holding regular gatherings just to present, share and discuss their treasured ideas, wisdom, and art with each other in TED like format but with a little more informal feel. People coming together to listen and appreciate each others viewpoints on whatever is important to them. I think that sounds kind of cool.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2014 05:18PM by NoMoBlues.