A New Religion

[Doug Shaver]

it is the core of every religion.

I have belonged to a few varieties of Christianity. It wasn't the core of any of them.

[firstfloor]

I have belonged to a few varieties of Christianity. It wasn't the core of any of them.

But there is probably a core idea at the heart of any religion like, say, the idea of hidden agency. The rest is accretion, spalling, more accretion, all man made but not deliberate in design.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But there is probably a core idea at the heart of any religion like, say, the idea of hidden agency. The rest is accretion, spalling, more accretion, all man made but not deliberate in design.

Again, the idea of hidden agency is not at the core of my religion, and I am quite aware of a number of other religions from which this notion is similarly absent.

Your whole inspiration for this post, FF, seems to have been made in error. You are looking for a philosophical thread common through the fabric of all religions. Unfortunately, the one which you chose is not actually common to all religions.

[firstfloor]

Again, the idea of hidden agency is not at the core of my religion, and I am quite aware of a number of other religions from which this notion is similarly absent.

Your whole inspiration for this post, FF, seems to have been made in error. You are looking for a philosophical thread common through the fabric of all religions. Unfortunately, the one which you chose is not actually common to all religions.

Would you care to suggest a better one?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Would you care to suggest a better one?

I am honestly not aware of any philosophical thread which is common through the fabric of all religions. Nor do I see any real purpose in seeking one out. Even if such a commonality existed, that would not imply that all that which is not common is therefore extraneous.

[mikewhitney]

I think you are claiming knowledge you do not have. It seems to me that religions are a response to human desires and human existential questions. Religions are not made by God but by men. The God is hidden behind all that stuff that religions do. This religion is more truthful because it does not compromise by making claims on God's behalf about anything no matter how insignificant.

You might be wrong. I can't be. Why? Because I refuse to say anything that I might be wrong about.

You've done a great job in contradicting yourself. So you are wrong about something. You have asserted that religion is made by men. And " It seems to me that religions are a response to human desires and human existential questions." As such, you may be wrongly attributing Christianity to your model of religion. You are "claiming knowledge you do no have."

[Doug Shaver]

But there is probably a core idea at the heart of any religion

Lexicographers, philosophers, and others who need to define religion have failed to reach a consensus on how to do it. This suggests that they have failed to find a core idea at the heart of all religions. It is possible that you have succeeded, but you haven't shown me a reason to think you have.

[firstfloor]

Lexicographers, philosophers, and others who need to define religion have failed to reach a consensus on how to do it. This suggests that they have failed to find a core idea at the heart of all religions. It is possible that you have succeeded, but you haven't shown me a reason to think you have.

Perhaps a better word would have been seed. We can imagine a seed with accretion about it that completely obscures the original idea. It is possible to peel backwards to identify that seed by asking why this or that and avoiding circularity.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Perhaps a better word would have been seed. We can imagine a seed with accretion about it that completely obscures the original idea. It is possible to peel backwards to identify that seed by asking why this or that and avoiding circularity.

Changing the word doesn't help if you're still asserting the same erroneous claim. Your OP does not represent a common core about which all religions formed, nor a central seed around which all religious tradition accreted. Your entire focus in this thread seems, at best, misguided.

[Doug Shaver]

Perhaps a better word would have been seed. We can imagine a seed with accretion about it that completely obscures the original idea.

We can imagine anything. And, once in a while, our imaginations provide good ideas. But we never know how good they are until until we test them.

[siam]

Doctrine:
Definition of God
1. God is expressed in the words and deeds of human beings.

If I may, I would rephrase it as--- worship/piety = right intentions that lead to right actions.
if so, then an important component is missing---"Right belief" (which may or may not have "God")
In order for this philosophy to be of benefit to humanity (both in terms of physical survival as well as spiritual progress) Right belief (paradigm/world-view) is necessary.
...the formula would then be --- Right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of (God's) creation = worship/piety.

Belief(paradigm) is a set of presumptions (meta-narrative) that a group gives assent to and from which flow other principles and values.

Belief systems may be various, but there is an element that can identify if a particular system leans towards benefit or not. It is an element that promotes the right degree of altruism. Human nature needs two characteristics to survive one is self-interest and the other is altruism---but both in extreme lead to destruction. There is not much need for any belief system to promote self-interest as human beings instinctively follow it for self-preservation. So, the element that successful and beneficial belief systems promotes is balanced altruism. This is the concept of Unity/Oneness. In Islam this element is expressed as Tawheed (Unity/One God). Other philosophies use other terms/concepts to express this element which makes up "Right" belief.

A balanced mix of competition and co-operation inter/intra group is best for human progress. A paradigm that encourages such an environment while also preventing/minimizing harm is one that can successfully promote benefit for all humanity.

here is one perspective:-

https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_wri...mism#t-1081627

[shunyadragon]

If I may, I would rephrase it as--- worship/piety = right intentions that lead to right actions.
if so, then an important component is missing---"Right belief" (which may or may not have "God")
In order for this philosophy to be of benefit to humanity (both in terms of physical survival as well as spiritual progress) Right belief (paradigm/world-view) is necessary.
...the formula would then be --- Right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of (God's) creation = worship/piety.

Belief(paradigm) is a set of presumptions (meta-narrative) that a group gives assent to and from which flow other principles and values.

Belief systems may be various, but there is an element that can identify if a particular system leans towards benefit or not. It is an element that promotes the right degree of altruism. Human nature needs two characteristics to survive one is self-interest and the other is altruism---but both in extreme lead to destruction. There is not much need for any belief system to promote self-interest as human beings instinctively follow it for self-preservation. So, the element that successful and beneficial belief systems promotes is balanced altruism. This is the concept of Unity/Oneness. In Islam this element is expressed as Tawheed (Unity/One God). Other philosophies use other terms/concepts to express this element which makes up "Right" belief.

A balanced mix of competition and co-operation inter/intra group is best for human progress. A paradigm that encourages such an environment while also preventing/minimizing harm is one that can successfully promote benefit for all humanity.

here is one perspective:-

https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_wri...mism#t-1081627

The reality of what you propose above better represents the Baha'i Faith, including the ted talk cited.

Islam is too inconsistent as it is expressed in the modern world to provide guidance for today's changing world.

[siam]

The reality of what you propose above better represents the Baha'i Faith, including the ted talk cited.

Islam is too inconsistent as it is expressed in the modern world to provide guidance for today's changing world.

Its not about labels---its about the characteristics of systems/philosophies that have the potential for benefit or the potential for harm. Belief systems that promote fragmentation/divisions instead of Unity have the potential to cause discord and therefore to harm. Diversity itself is essential for human survival and progress---Physically we need a diverse gene pool and spiritually we need diverse ways of understanding reality in order to remain dynamic and adaptable. But fragmentation/division caused by Tribalism (superior/inferior) has the potential to lead to zero-sum outcomes---the idea that "we" are entitled but "they" are not because we are superior to them. The Muslim Philosopher Al Gazali called this the "Iblisi Logic" and it comes from a story in the Quran about Iblis who refused to bow to Adam (pbuh) on the pretext that he was a superior creation. The reason why Iblisi logic has the potential to lead to harm is simple---its because it is unbalanced towards prioritizing self-interest. This leads to self-destruction because at the end of the line in terms of degrees of self-interest is individual self-interest and the laws of nature are simply not favorable to lone survival. So, in zero-sum, even if we win--we actually lose. Humans can only flourish in co-operative groups.

[shunyadragon]

Its not about labels---its about the characteristics of systems/philosophies that have the potential for benefit or the potential for harm. Belief systems that promote fragmentation/divisions instead of Unity have the potential to cause discord and therefore to harm.

We are not talking about labels. We are talking about the facts about the state of affairs ot today's world. At present the ancient religions and their fractured divisions like, Judaism, Christianity and Islam not only have the potential for harm, but do cause harm and violence in today's world.

Diversity itself is essential for human survival and progress---Physically we need a diverse gene pool and spiritually we need diverse ways of understanding reality in order to remain dynamic and adaptable. But fragmentation/division caused by Tribalism (superior/inferior) has the potential to lead to zero-sum outcomes---the idea that "we" are entitled but "they" are not because we are superior to them. The Muslim Philosopher Al Gazali called this the "Iblisi Logic" and it comes from a story in the Quran about Iblis who refused to bow to Adam (pbuh) on the pretext that he was a superior creation. The reason why Iblisi logic has the potential to lead to harm is simple---its because it is unbalanced towards prioritizing self-interest. This leads to self-destruction because at the end of the line in terms of degrees of self-interest is individual self-interest and the laws of nature are simply not favorable to lone survival. So, in zero-sum, even if we win--we actually lose. Humans can only flourish in co-operative groups.

All well and good, but very naive, considered the fractured, adversarial nature of ancient religions they do not offer the guidance necessary for humans to flourish in co-operative groups between those that believe differently, and we loose.

[Rushing Jaws]

You’re reading far too much into it. You need to strip away all your preconceptions about God and get back to the pure essence of the idea of God and then let it free. God is unconstrained so long as you pay no attention to ‘Him’. This is the true meaning of communion with God.

So - atheism is theism ?