Forward-Facing Science vs. Backward-Facing Religion

[lunaverse]

I've started reading End of Faith by Sam Harris.

Early on, he talks about how religion looks at a fixed Word of God (the Bible, the Koran, etc) that was written in the past. Since that book is not subject to modification, neither are the core ideas of that religion. Science instead tends to accept that not all is known, and therefore looks to the future.

It reminded me of something I had heard about Egyptian culture. Egypt had the culture which changed the least over the longest amount of time. This fact is attributed to the Egyptian belief that the best had already happened. They looked back to a mythological Golden Age, which they believed was perfection. Their cultural goal was to emulate that past, and therefore, their culture hardly changed over thousands of years.

Because of this idea, I've often looked at cultures in terms of backward-facing, or forward-facing. (Or some which view time as cyclic.)

I hadn't thought to disect our own culture in terms of forward and backward-facing parts.

So we have science and technology, which sees the Truth as a series of future discoveries, and therefore it changes rapidly. And we have Religion, which sees Truth as something that has already been given. It can be re-interpreted, possibly added-to, even re-translated... but the core elements cannot be actively changed.

(That is not to say that science doesn't sometimes get stuck in the past, btw. What it means is science is less prone to become stuck in the past, than a belief system in which Truth has already been given, thousands of years ago.)

If you think of religion in terms of a group of ideas which cover our understanding of spirituality and human interactions, how would religion be different if we had a meme of forward-facing religion?

In other words, if we thought of Religious Truth as something to be discovered, something to learn more about as time goes on, instead of looking to the past, how would world religions be different?

In some ways, we have these elements in philosophy and psychology, but these are separate bodies of learning, and even these take less spirituality into account. I'm curious about a religion (organized) that actively seeks to redefine itself, to improve itself.

Luna

[helemon]

This is exactly why I think science needs to make itself more accessible to the masses. People will continue to consume junk food philosophy so long as it is offered for "free." Science is hard. Science requires years of training. Science doesn't always provide warm and fuzzy answers to lifes mysteries. Science can be scary, ie. the atom bomb. Religion has a very low entrance requirements and provides warm fuzzy answers. Its hard for science to compete against such cognitive junk food.

[lunaverse]

This is exactly why I think science needs to make itself more accessible to the masses. People will continue to consume junk food philosophy so long as it is offered for "free." Science is hard. Science requires years of training. Science doesn't always provide warm and fuzzy answers to lifes mysteries. Science can be scary, ie. the atom bomb. Religion has a very low entrance requirements and provides warm fuzzy answers. Its hard for science to compete against such cognitive junk food.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Look at how popular learning channels are on cable. Not as popular as sports stations mind you, but Discovery now offers 4-5 versions of itself, History at least 3, and a couple of Animal Planets and a few PBSes. Then there's TLC, the NASA channel, and some others. I consider this to be science/learning in a dumbed-down, understandable format. They even have a Discovery for Kids. People are paying for this stuff.

I don't think the problem is accessibility. In fact, as we've seen, many people juggle being legitimate scientists with PhD's AND being religious. Harris himself refers to (and attacks) tolerant religious moderates as being part of the problem, as they balance between worlds, opening one half of their mind, and shutting the other.

So what I'm looking for is the idea of a religion (or what a such a religion might look like) if it had no unalterable holy book, if the intent and goal (moralist drive, if you will) is to discover new things about your spirit, the spiritual side of the universe, the mind, ethics -- just as now we fearlessly study for biology and physics without fear of offending some Holy Writ.

In other words, when you walk into Church, instead of hearing about what God has said in the past, you hear excited sermons about what God just might say in the future... where old ideas are refined, or even disproven, or fall out of favor. Where these are considered good, progressive, part of the whole Point.

Where instead of concentrating on unquestionables, there is a focus on personal development, what works for each individual, what can be shown.

I think there may already be pockets of these kinds of religions (Unitarianism?) but what if the majority of religious were forward-facing? How would that impact culture? What concepts would we come up with? Would it be possible for society to become spiritually advanced with such a meme?

Luna

[helemon]

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Look at how popular learning channels are on cable. Not as popular as sports stations mind you, but Discovery now offers 4-5 versions of itself, History at least 3, and a couple of Animal Planets and a few PBSes. Then there's TLC, the NASA channel, and some others. I consider this to be science/learning in a dumbed-down, understandable format. They even have a Discovery for Kids. People are paying for this stuff.

Yes but have you seen any Nielsen ratings on how much people watch those channels over the bible channels or the sports channels or the gossip and food channels? Are people "paying" for the science stuff or are they just getting it as a package deal or as a way to make themselves feel better about the amount of TV they let their kids watch. Also, I have been very frustrated with some of the psudeo science crap and religious programming posing as science that get aired on some of those channels. Apart from the NASA channel they are not above sensationalist programming.

I don't think the problem is accessibility. In fact, as we've seen, many people juggle being legitimate scientists with PhD's AND being religious. Harris himself refers to (and attacks) tolerant religious moderates as being part of the problem, as they balance between worlds, opening one half of their mind, and shutting the other.

Excellent point.

So what I'm looking for is the idea of a religion (or what a such a religion might look like) if it had no unalterable holy book, if the intent and goal (moralist drive, if you will) is to discover new things about your spirit, the spiritual side of the universe, the mind, ethics -- just as now we fearlessly study for biology and physics without fear of offending some Holy Writ.

But there you are falling into the "spiritual" trap. How do you empirically separate biological emotions and individual feelings and desires from something beyond a materialist interpretation? Why doesn't science fit your bill? It has no unalterable holy book. It's intent is to "discover new things" about consciousness as well as the physical world. Why can't a study of biology and physics fit into that model?

In other words, when you walk into Church, instead of hearing about what God has said in the past, you hear excited sermons about what God just might say in the future... where old ideas are refined, or even disproven, or fall out of favor. Where these are considered good, progressive, part of the whole Point.

Why are you bringing God into this again? Why not focus on empowering the living to discover truths rather than guessing about what someones imaginary friend might say. Unless Truth is your god and the words you seek are laws explaining the workings of the universe.

Where instead of concentrating on unquestionables, there is a focus on personal development, what works for each individual, what can be shown.

I think there may already be pockets of these kinds of religions (Unitarianism?) but what if the majority of religious were forward-facing? How would that impact culture? What concepts would we come up with? Would it be possible for society to become spiritually advanced with such a meme?

Luna
I am not sure if Unitarianism if forward facing or simply have a broader more inclusive view of what they are looking at in the past. I think you are still getting hung up on the "spirituality" meme that it is important for people to believe that they live on after they are dead. Unless by spirituality you mean a greater awareness of and appreciation for how we are all connected with each other and work toward building an environment that is mentaly and physically a healthier world in which to live.

[helemon]

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Look at how popular learning channels are on cable. Not as popular as sports stations mind you, but Discovery now offers 4-5 versions of itself, History at least 3, and a couple of Animal Planets and a few PBSes. Then there's TLC, the NASA channel, and some others. I consider this to be science/learning in a dumbed-down, understandable format. They even have a Discovery for Kids. People are paying for this stuff.


Do you have a sense that science is winning over religion with the younger generations? Is all that educational television from Mr. Wizard to Sesame Street to the Discovery Channel actually teaching kids to think more scientifically and critically about their world? Is the current religious fervor due more to the fact that the demographic with the most power right now are uber religious?

[Born Free]

I appreciate that Spong takes this assumption of some Golden Past head on. He points out that all the records suggest that man in evolving into a more civilised being.

This leads up to the limited value of looking back. Look to the right parts of the OT, and we have modelled genocide - surely just what we need more of. It might even have been 'best practice' at the time, but served to fuel the mentality that existed around Brigham Young's time (over 2000 years later), and that made the MMM perfectly OK.

Personally I believe that most of the appeal of some Golden Ideal Past is a psychological trick, where we long for the state of unconsciousness that predated awareness of our separateness that existed in our early mortal existence, before we discovered that our mother was separate from us, and not there to address our every whim and beckoning.

This keeps us looking to elders in an unhealthy way. Elders have lived a lot of life, and we have much to glean from them, but when we assume that their wisdom should not be in creative tension with new wisdom, we make a grave error. This is why Mormonism is led by a boys club of crotchety old farts, in several cases, supposedly God's voice on earth, while people were busy covering that they were in serious mental decline. They have ascended to the top of a heap of dung, through being great dung heap climbers, which is in marked contrast with being leaders.

Hence they have nothing new to offer on genderism, or racism, or sexism. Like old records they regurgitate the bleatings of the past, devoid of the fresh air of any new input.

That said, I believe that we likewise risk another set of problems if we hold to the notion that science and technological progress will solve all our problems. Amoral science carries its own set of risks. Science-driven exclusively by commercial imperatives, carries huge risks, many of which confront us today.

'Scientists' who sell their independence for a mess of pottage are a threat to our existence. But ignorance of science, and the imperatives it works on are a threat, IMO. As a civilisation, we take for granted the many benefits science, engineering and medicine have afforded us and do so at our own peril.

A classic, and everyday example is the abuse of antibiotics. Our generation has grown up with them, and largely taken for granted that they have always and will always be there to save us. This is not the case, and the time is rapidly approaching when they cannot help us because we have developed resistance, but I still comes across people who are unaware that they MUST always complete a course of antibiotics, or seriously risk creating AB-resistant bugs in their own bodies. Sadly even doctors have contributed to this problem through failing to stress to patients the importance of completing courses of drugs, and not putting a half pack away when you feel a little better, and using them some time in the future.

Daryl

[helemon]

That said, I believe that we likewise risk another set of problems if we hold to the notion that science and technological progress will solve all our problems. Amoral science carries its own set of risks. Science-driven exclusively by commercial imperatives, carries huge risks, many of which confront us today.



I agree with this completely. Which is why I think more people need to be better educated about these topics so that a real social discussion can take place on how we as a society want to use science to transform who we are and what we will become and to debate how science is being used. Also the more minds working on a problem the better able we will be to predict how our actions today are likely to impact our tomorrows. That is where true prophecy lies.

[puff]

I've started reading End of Faith by Sam Harris.

Early on, he talks about how religion looks at a fixed Word of God (the Bible, the Koran, etc) that was written in the past. Since that book is not subject to modification, neither are the core ideas of that religion. Science instead tends to accept that not all is known, and therefore looks to the future.

It reminded me of something I had heard about Egyptian culture. Egypt had the culture which changed the least over the longest amount of time. This fact is attributed to the Egyptian belief that the best had already happened. They looked back to a mythological Golden Age, which they believed was perfection. Their cultural goal was to emulate that past, and therefore, their culture hardly changed over thousands of years.

Because of this idea, I've often looked at cultures in terms of backward-facing, or forward-facing. (Or some which view time as cyclic.)

I hadn't thought to disect our own culture in terms of forward and backward-facing parts.

So we have science and technology, which sees the Truth as a series of future discoveries, and therefore it changes rapidly. And we have Religion, which sees Truth as something that has already been given. It can be re-interpreted, possibly added-to, even re-translated... but the core elements cannot be actively changed.

(That is not to say that science doesn't sometimes get stuck in the past, btw. What it means is science is less prone to become stuck in the past, than a belief system in which Truth has already been given, thousands of years ago.)

If you think of religion in terms of a group of ideas which cover our understanding of spirituality and human interactions, how would religion be different if we had a meme of forward-facing religion?

In other words, if we thought of Religious Truth as something to be discovered, something to learn more about as time goes on, instead of looking to the past, how would world religions be different?

In some ways, we have these elements in philosophy and psychology, but these are separate bodies of learning, and even these take less spirituality into account. I'm curious about a religion (organized) that actively seeks to redefine itself, to improve itself.

Lunai was wondering what cultural age the egyptians were looking back to as not much evidence appears of previous cultures , however i believe one does exist

[helemon]

i was wondering what cultural age the egyptians were looking back to as not much evidence appears of previous cultures , however i believe one does exist

The age when Abraham came and taught them all the secrets of the universe and mathematics! :D

[peter_mary]

So what I'm looking for is the idea of a religion (or what a such a religion might look like) if it had no unalterable holy book, if the intent and goal (moralist drive, if you will) is to discover new things about your spirit, the spiritual side of the universe, the mind, ethics -- just as now we fearlessly study for biology and physics without fear of offending some Holy Writ.

In other words, when you walk into Church, instead of hearing about what God has said in the past, you hear excited sermons about what God just might say in the future... where old ideas are refined, or even disproven, or fall out of favor. Where these are considered good, progressive, part of the whole Point.

Where instead of concentrating on unquestionables, there is a focus on personal development, what works for each individual, what can be shown.

Luna
I wonder if the very nature of conventional religion (versus spiritualism) precludes this kind of thinking? Here's what I'm thinking. (Brace yourself...I'm going to be making stuff up here for a few minutes.)

I believe that the origin of "god" is rooted in the existential angst that sprung out of self-awareness. In other words, once our brains figured out how to be self-aware, and to project forward in time our own existence AND our own demise, it (our brain) became terrified at the recognition that it was going to die, and there was not a thing it could do about it.

But it was aware that some people live longer, provided nothing bad happens to them. And unfortunately, those bad things that can happen (cave bears eating you, saber-toothed cats eating you, starving to death so the hyenas eat you, that sort of thing) are SO not within the span of control of the individual.

Yet there were elements in nature that seemed to be more powerful than the traditional enemies of people, i.e. the sun, the moon, the seasons, the rivers, the mountains, and to a lesser degree, animals that were more powerful--bears, dragons, great cats. All of these seemed to weild control over the human experience. Once it was recognized that these elements were more "powerful," the next step was the realization that we could benefit from that power if we could appease that power. Feed it. Honor it. Do all the right things that would make it smile upon us and keep us "safer" than we were before we sought its blessings.

But the sun has limits. So does the moon. We could kill the bear and the lion. Something had to be MORE powerful--ULTIMATELY powerful--than the natural elements. Something had to have MADE the natural elements, and therefore ruled them. If we could appease THAT power, the ground-state of ALL power, then we'd REALLY be safe. And if not safe in this life, then ULTIMATE safety awaited us in the life to come.

In other words, I believe there was a natural progression to the ground-state of all being "God" (which the Taoists call "the Tao" and Buddhists think of as the universe). But the problem now for religion is that once we arrived at this ground-state being, it is natural to assume timelessness and unchanging. In other words, an ultimate truth, with ultimate meaning, and ultimate understanding, unchanging, beyond interpretation.

Religion springs up in an effort to be the ONE that understands God the best, and can therefore appease Him the best. God is, I believe, first and foremost the product of a long evolution of thinking that assumes that His future is identical to his past...the problem is simply a matter of human understanding.

And that's why it is, I believe, forever "backward looking." Arriving at God in the first place was a backward looking process. By looking forward, and seeking the kinds of things you are talking about, presumes that God is NOT ultimate, NOT the ground-state of all being, but rather unfolding--like the universe itself as described in complexity theory (oops! There's that science/math thingy sneaking in as SOON as we start looking forward!)

I don't believe that religion can be both monotheistic and forward-looking. I believe they are mutually exclusive. I DO believe, however, that a spiritual orientation can easily be forward oriented, because it doesn't necessarily presume the existence of a ground-state God. Rather it can seek harmonious union with the ever-changing, unfolding universe, and seeking meaning and purpose in that union. But throw God in the mix, and you quickly retreat to backward looking orientation again.

Or so it seems to me... Like I said, I'm just making stuff up here...:rolleyes:

[lunaverse]

Yes but have you seen any Nielsen ratings on how much people watch those channels over the bible channels or the sports channels or the gossip and food channels? Are people "paying" for the science stuff or are they just getting it as a package deal or as a way to make themselves feel better about the amount of TV they let their kids watch. Also, I have been very frustrated with some of the psudeo science crap and religious programming posing as science that get aired on some of those channels. Apart from the NASA channel they are not above sensationalist programming.

If no one is watching, then those companies who pay for commercials there would stop paying.

And sensationally-presented science is still science. Who cares if Billy Bob learns about plate techtonics from a stuffy, boring old book of which he only understands 90%, or if he gets that 10% of basics from a show with a lot of humor or cool pictures of volcanoes and maybe some end-of-the-world scientific-predictions?

My point is that secularism isn't so dead as you make it out. Give me 10 random adults from America, and I'll show you 10 people who know more about how the Universe works than all the top minds from the 1300's.

But there you are falling into the "spiritual" trap. How do you empirically separate biological emotions and individual feelings and desires from something beyond a materialist interpretation? Why doesn't science fit your bill? It has no unalterable holy book. It's intent is to "discover new things" about consciousness as well as the physical world. Why can't a study of biology and physics fit into that model?

You would think you'd read enough of my posts to know I'm not limiting "spirituality" to the Christian Classical Sense. Or even the Eastern Classical Sense. My personal view is that it might be anything... there could be real spirits, or I might just be describing a human sense of aliveness. I know for sure the latter exists, and the rest I' m skeptically agnostic about.

So in the broadest sense, spirituality is the subject of human expression, that which is difficult to describe... Whether it is "real" in an objective sense or not.

And so in this frame, this is what the conceptual forward-facing religion would explore -- whatever the findings -- be it discovering "real" spirits, or discovering it's all psychological.

It would be much different from biology and physics because these things only study the objects, not how they affect us. We can try to be non-chalant and pretend none of this universe has meaning, but as humans, we will always try to find meaning in it. And that is not something science is capable of expressing well. So I have hormones that make me feel things -- but what does that MEAN?

Even atheists have found a purpose, as many of us have expressed here. Those purposes still fall under the category of meaning and spirituality... even if that purpose is very fact-based.

That's why science is inaccessible to many where religion is accessible -- many people don't care how it all works, they just want to know what it means. A forward-facing religion would encourage people to answer that question on their own, hopefully with open-minded standards. The message would be to actively search for meaning that actually does mean something -- and meaning that fits in with what we really know about the Universe.

Why are you bringing God into this again? Why not focus on empowering the living to discover truths rather than guessing about what someones imaginary friend might say. Unless Truth is your god and the words you seek are laws explaining the workings of the universe.

I am far from being a theist. Again, you should know that of me by now. If I say "God" I mean it in the loosest, broadest sense possible. Sometimes it seems as if you are so anti-theism that you can't even find a middle-ground for discussion where you can suspend some of your emotions long enough to explore. :) At any rate, you do seem to be emotionally activated by the mere mention of God in this forum, or so I've seen in the past several threads I've discussed these things with you.

I am not sure if Unitarianism if forward facing or simply have a broader more inclusive view of what they are looking at in the past.

I've been to a few meetings, and they seem focused on figuring out Truth (on a personal level) whatever it is. Very non-dogmatic. Even those who talk of the Bible or Koran, they seem to bring out meaning only in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one.

I think you are still getting hung up on the "spirituality" meme that it is important for people to believe that they live on after they are dead. Unless by spirituality you mean a greater awareness of and appreciation for how we are all connected with each other and work toward building an environment that is mentaly and physically a healthier world in which to live.

I think you are hung up on the anti-spirituality meme. :) Of course I mean spirituality in the broadest sense. Even if all it is are a bunch of neurons firing off at one another, nearly everyone has experienced something weird, other-worldly, euphoric, hyper-aware, or something. I tend to believe it's neurons firing, purely biological, but the phenomenon still exist, and people are going to look for some kind of meaning in that. I find meaning in that I can enjoy life striving to follow my bliss. Others may find proof of their dogmatic God. Whatever.

See, the thing is, someone out there is always going to be trying to explain these. Secularists tend to brush it aside, ignore it, get angry, dismiss an individual's experience. J. Random Religion is going to offer them an answer that tries to fit.

So who are they going to choose? The grumpy atheist who tells them they are crazy? Or the group that validates them in exchange for money?

Wouldn't you rather they found some kind of validation from a more honest source? i.e., No, you're not crazy, this happens, no one knows what it means, but we're all searching, maybe it's biology, but as humans we need meaning anyway, so here's what I think, and here's what he thinks, what do you think?

Dismissing the weird and unusual doesn't make it go away. It only alienates people. No wonder fundamentalism is on the rise, perhaps atheists should take a look at how non-personable we tend to be.

Luna

[lunaverse]

Do you have a sense that science is winning over religion with the younger generations? Is all that educational television from Mr. Wizard to Sesame Street to the Discovery Channel actually teaching kids to think more scientifically and critically about their world? Is the current religious fervor due more to the fact that the demographic with the most power right now are uber religious?

Hm, I don't have enough data to form an opinion on this. Probably the rise in fundamentalism is a knee-jerk reaction to growing secularism. During my lifetime, there seems to be a penduulum between Conservative and Liberal politics, so it may be the same with Secular vs. Religion.

And to be honest, I don't think Public Schools do a great job of teaching kids to be critical thinkers. I think more often than not, they teach kids to memorize lines and regurgitate them on command. Very little in our society encourages kids to think for themselves. Then they can grow up to be easily-swayed voters who never question their political party or half of their elected leaders. (And the only questions they DO ask are those they're told to ask of the opponent's party.)

Luna

[lunaverse]

i was wondering what cultural age the egyptians were looking back to as not much evidence appears of previous cultures , however i believe one does exist

There's an author you might enjoy, Graham Hancock. :) Check out one of his books or documentaries. Interesting possibilities.

Luna

[lunaverse]

By looking forward, and seeking the kinds of things you are talking about, presumes that God is NOT ultimate, NOT the ground-state of all being, but rather unfolding--like the universe itself as described in complexity theory (oops! There's that science/math thingy sneaking in as SOON as we start looking forward!)

I don't believe that religion can be both monotheistic and forward-looking. I believe they are mutually exclusive. I DO believe, however, that a spiritual orientation can easily be forward oriented, because it doesn't necessarily presume the existence of a ground-state God. Rather it can seek harmonious union with the ever-changing, unfolding universe, and seeking meaning and purpose in that union. But throw God in the mix, and you quickly retreat to backward looking orientation again.


Hm, ok so maybe religion isn't the right word (but it is, because I wanted to explore the idea of something that already exists being changed, i.e. a paradigm shift). It wouldn't necessarily have to include God. Nor would it forsake science. In fact, any forward-facing religion would have to include science. And philosophy. And psychology. Especially psychology.

On might consider the field of psychology to be this forward-facing religion, but that's not inclusive enough (and in the past has focused too much on disorders, though that's changing). That's another problem that makes science inaccessible to regular people -- it's too specialized -- this would be generalized, holistic, nexial.

It would embrace the fields of neurology, medicine, anthropology, social science, evolution, complexity theory, psychology... but be a holistic, meaningful view of all of these -- not just the how's, but the speculative why's, and the how can I use this in my life. How can I use what I know about evolution and philosophy to enhance myself and my family? What values and ethics fit best into what we now know about the world?

It would probably be more of an individual-driven religion, more about personal discoveries and sharing. It would be less hierarchical. Any writings would be constantly changing... People would write papers and poems and songs and essays, and contribute them, and writings from 30 years past will probably fade into memory. There would probably be a lot of support groups. Personal meditation would probably be encouraged, as would exploration and experiencing of nature.

Instead of saying, "Do this and you will be a good person", more discussions would take place on what ethics really are, and standards would be frequently questioned.

If there really are supernatural events and existances, they would eventually be discovered... and if not, then the search would always continue.

Any views of God would be fairly agnostic, but there would constantly be hypothesis thrown around. God/gods would begin to take new shapes. Many would merely use the concept of God as a metaphor. The idea of God/gods would change with each generation -- which wouldn't be seen as blasphemy, but the ultimate form of respect and progress.

Fictional stories would be seen as just that -- fables to express that which is difficult to express. And new myths would be created intentionally. The parables wouldn't be created to hide secrets, but to more easily convey emotional topics.

Luna

[peter_mary]

Hm, ok so maybe religion isn't the right word (but it is, because I wanted to explore the idea of something that already exists being changed, i.e. a paradigm shift). It wouldn't necessarily have to include God. Nor would it forsake science. In fact, any forward-facing religion would have to include science. And philosophy. And psychology. Especially psychology.

On might consider the field of psychology to be this forward-facing religion, but that's not inclusive enough (and in the past has focused too much on disorders, though that's changing). That's another problem that makes science inaccessible to regular people -- it's too specialized -- this would be generalized, holistic, nexial.

It would embrace the fields of neurology, medicine, anthropology, social science, evolution, complexity theory, psychology... but be a holistic, meaningful view of all of these -- not just the how's, but the speculative why's, and the how can I use this in my life. How can I use what I know about evolution and philosophy to enhance myself and my family? What values and ethics fit best into what we now know about the world?

It would probably be more of an individual-driven religion, more about personal discoveries and sharing. It would be less hierarchical. Any writings would be constantly changing... People would write papers and poems and songs and essays, and contribute them, and writings from 30 years past will probably fade into memory. There would probably be a lot of support groups. Personal meditation would probably be encouraged, as would exploration and experiencing of nature.

Instead of saying, "Do this and you will be a good person", more discussions would take place on what ethics really are, and standards would be frequently questioned.

If there really are supernatural events and existances, they would eventually be discovered... and if not, then the search would always continue.

Any views of God would be fairly agnostic, but there would constantly be hypothesis thrown around. God/gods would begin to take new shapes. Many would merely use the concept of God as a metaphor. The idea of God/gods would change with each generation -- which wouldn't be seen as blasphemy, but the ultimate form of respect and progress.

Fictional stories would be seen as just that -- fables to express that which is difficult to express. And new myths would be created intentionally. The parables wouldn't be created to hide secrets, but to more easily convey emotional topics.

Luna
Luna, I would join this church...unless I have to pay tithing...:D

What you're describing would be a beautiful creation indeed, provided it really could stear clear of ever creating an orthodoxy. The freedom to explore the meaning of the universe, in all it's complex "messiness" through the mind, the sciences (both the hard and the soft), and the arts, and liberally shared with others who are exploring in the best way they know how could be a remarkable model for personal growth.

I wonder how many "religions" get started with this kind of thing in mind and morph into something much less appealing?

[helemon]

Once it was recognized that these elements were more "powerful," the next step was the realization that we could benefit from that power if we could appease that power. Feed it. Honor it. Do all the right things that would make it smile upon us and keep us "safer" than we were before we sought its blessings.

But the sun has limits. So does the moon. We could kill the bear and the lion. Something had to be MORE powerful--ULTIMATELY powerful--than the natural elements. Something had to have MADE the natural elements, and therefore ruled them. If we could appease THAT power, the ground-state of ALL power, then we'd REALLY be safe. And if not safe in this life, then ULTIMATE safety awaited us in the life to come.

What about social interactions with parents, siblings, elders, clan leaders also teachings humans about how to appeal to power in order to obtain protection? Is this why so many religions see God as a father figure? Also how many of us can still hear the words of our parents echoing in our heads in certain situations. Could early humans have thought that this was in fact their dearly departed parent speaking to them?

In other words, an ultimate truth, with ultimate meaning, and ultimate understanding, unchanging, beyond interpretation.

The ultimate reality may very well be unchanging and beyond understanding. The trouble is humans confuse their understanding or guesses at the ultimate reality with the actual thing.



And that's why it is, I believe, forever "backward looking." Arriving at God in the first place was a backward looking process. By looking forward, and seeking the kinds of things you are talking about, presumes that God is NOT ultimate, NOT the ground-state of all being, but rather unfolding--like the universe itself as described in complexity theory (oops! There's that science/math thingy sneaking in as SOON as we start looking forward!)


But it is impossible to look forward without the light of the past. It is also impossible to improve the future without examining the shadows of the past. Looking back is not bad. If you only look forward you will be constantly reinventing knowledge. There is nothing wrong with looking to the past or looking to the future. The problems arise when people stop looking and think or are told everything has already been figured out or that the future is already set in stone.

[helemon]

If no one is watching, then those companies who pay for commercials there would stop paying.

And sensationally-presented science is still science. Who cares if Billy Bob learns about plate techtonics from a stuffy, boring old book of which he only understands 90%, or if he gets that 10% of basics from a show with a lot of humor or cool pictures of volcanoes and maybe some end-of-the-world scientific-predictions?

My problem is not with dynamic visualizations of natural phenomena. My issue is when they do specials that are clearly slanted in favor of the bible or have shows that talk about topics that you would expect to see in a tabloid. My problem with Billy Bob is he begins to think some of these crackpot ideas are legitimate science.


My point is that secularism isn't so dead as you make it out.

I didn't say it was dead. I said it was hard for legitimate research to compete against junkfood information that is cheap and always available. Science makes it's knowledge somewhat difficult to obtain and can come with expensive price tags for journals subscriptions.

Give me 10 random adults from America, and I'll show you 10 people who know more about how the Universe works than all the top minds from the 1300's.

I don't know, have you watched Jay walking lately? :D I am always amazed as how old some of our mathmatical formulas are and how advanced ancient mans knowledge was of the movement of the stars.

It would be much different from biology and physics because these things only study the objects, not how they affect us.

Huh? :confused: Biology and physics aren't used to study how the world affects us? What about SAD? What about research on UV rays? What about research on neural networks? The hard sciences do more than just study discrete objects. They also look at how thing interact and use that knowledge to make predictions about how human life could be impacted.


We can try to be non-chalant and pretend none of this universe has meaning, but as humans, we will always try to find meaning in it. And that is not something science is capable of expressing well. So I have hormones that make me feel things -- but what does that MEAN?

Why do we have to project meaning or purpose onto the universe? Why must it have meaning in order for us to find meaning in our own lives? I think the evolutionary psychologists have some pretty good ideas about some of those things but as a semi-rationals being it will always be up to us whether to act on those emotions and impulses.

That's why science is inaccessible to many where religion is accessible -- many people don't care how it all works, they just want to know what it means. A forward-facing religion would encourage people to answer that question on their own, hopefully with open-minded standards. The message would be to actively search for meaning that actually does mean something -- and meaning that fits in with what we really know about the Universe.
How can you know what it means if you don't know how it works? How can people find meaning without examining what has been said on the topic in the past? How can anyone develop an understanding about "what we really know" if all speculation and models are equally valid regardless of foundational evidence?

I am far from being a theist. Again, you should know that of me by now. If I say "God" I mean it in the loosest, broadest sense possible. Sometimes it seems as if you are so anti-theism that you can't even find a middle-ground for discussion where you can suspend some of your emotions long enough to explore. At any rate, you do seem to be emotionally activated by the mere mention of God in this forum, or so I've seen in the past several threads I've discussed these things with you.

I think you are projecting here. My challenging you on the God issue was to force you to clarify what you meant by that term. I did not see value in falling into the God trap again in order to free people from the dogma of religion. I wasn't making the connection between your advocating for free exploration of reality while at the same time ascribing to some all powerful diety concept. The term carries a lot of baggage.

I've been to a few meetings, and they seem focused on figuring out Truth (on a personal level) whatever it is. Very non-dogmatic. Even those who talk of the Bible or Koran, they seem to bring out meaning only in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one.

Are they looking backward when they talk of the Bible or Koran?

I find meaning in that I can enjoy life striving to follow my bliss. Others may find proof of their dogmatic God. Whatever.

That's great for you, but what value is there in your forwarding facing religion for belief in dogmatism? Isn't that what it is opposed to?

So who are they going to choose? The grumpy atheist who tells them they are crazy? Or the group that validates them in exchange for money?

Who says atheists are grumpy? :mad: ;)
I think what makes atheists grumpy is that they are the ones who are told they are crazy and discriminated against for not believing someone elses fairy tales. I think what most athiests want is not to destroy meaning but for people to come to the table and rationally discuss what is known about the universe and then based on that create meaning and purpose, rather than handing over control over the meaning of life to closed minded dogmatism that was created based on ideas that are thousands of years old.

Wouldn't you rather they found some kind of validation from a more honest source? i.e., No, you're not crazy, this happens, no one knows what it means, but we're all searching, maybe it's biology, but as humans we need meaning anyway, so here's what I think, and here's what he thinks, what do you think?

Dismissing the weird and unusual doesn't make it go away. It only alienates people. No wonder fundamentalism is on the rise, perhaps atheists should take a look at how non-personable we tend to be.

Luna
If people are going to participate in the type of forward looking interactions you describe then they will need to expect their views to be challenged and be prepared to defend and explore them with people who look at things differently.

[puff]

There's an author you might enjoy, Graham Hancock. :) Check out one of his books or documentaries. Interesting possibilities.

Lunayes i have a book by graham and i have read it over a few times , i believe his on the right track but this ancient civilisation he believes still has not been found but theres lots of evidence that it is there
genesis has lots of freaky comments in it which seem to come from a higher source , such as getting the evolutionary sequence in correct order , realizing that life began as one sex , understanding that oceans once covered the earth in some primitive time , i believe that the writer of genesis had acces to some remnants of an ancient world where these things were understood ,
the hindu vedas talk of men in flying machines and nuclear exslosiions , somewhere in asia is found evidence of nuclear fission on the earths surface ,
it would not surprise me if at some time in the future things were found in the earths crust which throw a spanner in the works as far as the earths history is concerned , but will scientists except it or will they react as religious people do , refusding to budge from a pre concieved idea , i like the idea of a forward looking belief system , if you could make it work i believe a lot of powerfully rich people would soon back it , sprituality derived thru science , now thats a great idea .
by the way you got my height right but evrything else was wrong , i have reddish blonde hair an have been around a bit longer than 35 years , i wish that were true but alas its not , i might have a look at the unitarians if you recomend it

[peter_mary]

But it is impossible to look forward without the light of the past. It is also impossible to improve the future without examining the shadows of the past. Looking back is not bad. If you only look forward you will be constantly reinventing knowledge. There is nothing wrong with looking to the past or looking to the future. The problems arise when people stop looking and think or are told everything has already been figured out or that the future is already set in stone.
I think the distinction here is the difference between allowing the past to illuminate the future, versus simply staring blankly into the past and assuming that all that we need to know has already been written. I think, if I understand Luna, that she's speaking about a future illuminated by the past, but unfolding in new directions as we explore the future...

[helemon]

but will scientists except it or will they react as religious people do , refusding to budge from a pre concieved idea

Scientists can also be very stubborn about giving up pet theories. The main difference is that if enough data piles up to discount the theory then it is discarded, at least by the majority of the researchers. Religion changes as well but only by people in the congregation choosing to reject it by leaving, thus forcing would be priests and shamans to come up with a belief system that more closely aligns with the attitudes of the people. Religion only has what power we give to it.

[lunaverse]

I don't know, have you watched Jay walking lately? :D I am always amazed as how old some of our mathmatical formulas are and how advanced ancient mans knowledge was of the movement of the stars.

Yes, I thought of those kinds of man on the street interviews when I wrote that. I'm not too sure of how selective they are when they pick those? Do they show a random sampling, or the ones with the most entertainment value?

Huh? :confused: Biology and physics aren't used to study how the world affects us? What about SAD? What about research on UV rays? What about research on neural networks? The hard sciences do more than just study discrete objects. They also look at how thing interact and use that knowledge to make predictions about how human life could be impacted.

But what if a person with SAD or some painful disease sincerely asks, "Why is this happening to me?" or "How will I find strength to overcome this?" or "Where will I find emotional support?" Science does not attempt to answer this in any helpful ways. Psychology will try to answer it partly, philosophy will try to answer another part.

Why do we have to project meaning or purpose onto the universe? Why must it have meaning in order for us to find meaning in our own lives? I think the evolutionary psychologists have some pretty good ideas about some of those things but as a semi-rationals being it will always be up to us whether to act on those emotions and impulses.

I'm not sure we're talking about different things here. I didn't mean to imply we should project that meaning to the universe. I believe you have found meaning without "God", and Jeff has, and you have, and Daryl has. Yet other than forums like these, where do we share that meaning with others? That's what I'm talking about in a forward-facing religion... a place dedicated to sharing these meanings with others.

How can you know what it means if you don't know how it works? How can people find meaning without examining what has been said on the topic in the past? How can anyone develop an understanding about "what we really know" if all speculation and models are equally valid regardless of foundational evidence?

I'm not saying we ignore science. I'm saying this is something that would run parallel with science, borrow from science, be compatible with it. Science tells us how, we figure out why, or what it means to humans, or how it can help us beyond providing for our material needs. And just as science is forward-facing and yet builds on the past, so this religion would be forward-facing, yet would necessarily have to use what we have learned in the past, picking and choosing to weed out reality from fictions or useless myths from helpful metaphors).

My challenging you on the God issue was to force you to clarify what you meant by that term.

Ok. Well my point in this thread is to try to set asside the baggage of these terms, and redefine them, to shift the paradigm and imagine how these things would be different if one major meme were to be changed. How would a forward-facing religion think of God? Would it end up throwing out the concept of God all together? Would it think of God as a metaphor? Would it actively search for the being of God through spiritual and/or technological means?

So rather that sit here and define what I mean by God, I'm asking for some speculative ideas on how ideas of God would be different if the meme of Fixing the Truth in the Past were changed. I was hoping to get some of your ideas before I tainted the waters with my own. :) But that didn't really work.

Are they looking backward when they talk of the Bible or Koran?

Good question. Since they don't hold these books as being Unquestionable Truth, and instead a repository of Some Truths, in many ways they are merely using them as reference material. So in some ways, they really are just reinterpreting the past, but in others, they're treating them as no more important than Nordic myths, etc. That is, when they even make reference to the Bible, the Koran, or mythology at all... they seem to play a very minor role.

For 12 year olds, they focus the year's Sunday School Lessons on how to build your own spiritual path. Very non-dogmatic. I think it's sort of a comparitive religions class with information on how to decide for yourself what is helpful to you. But I haven't attended, I'm too old.

That's great for you, but what value is there in your forwarding facing religion for belief in dogmatism? Isn't that what it is opposed to?

I would imagine it would have few dogmas. Of course the value of seeking truth itself would be a dogma, a deeply-rooted meme, if you will. But that dogma itself would affect the outcome beliefs very strongly, just as "The Bible is unquestionable true" affects the outcome of Christian beliefs.

I just offered those viewpoints as contrasing (opposite ends of the spectrum) current views of God/spirituality.

I think what makes atheists grumpy is that they are the ones who are told they are crazy and discriminated against for not believing someone elses fairy tales. I think what most athiests want is not to destroy meaning but for people to come to the table and rationally discuss what is known about the universe and then based on that create meaning and purpose, rather than handing over control over the meaning of life to closed minded dogmatism that was created based on ideas that are thousands of years old.

If people are going to participate in the type of forward looking interactions you describe then they will need to expect their views to be challenged and be prepared to defend and explore them with people who look at things differently.

Yes, but how are we going about challenging them? And I'm not so much talking about the people who have already decided the truth, found their religion... I'm talking about people who have an experience, and then ask why. It is the experience itself that is mocked by atheists, not the conclusions drawn. If I came to this board, or a humanist's website board, and said "I had a Near Death Experience last night, and it's really shaken me up, I don't know what to make of it!" Will I be laughed at? Dismissed? Told it was only a halucination and I should make nothing of it? If I get that reaction, no matter how sincerely truth-seeking I am, I will feel hated and shamed, and have a bad view of humanists and aethists, and when I post on WeBelieveCrazyShit.com, they will welcome me, and tell me it was God, and I'll feel loved, and join their Church and give them my money.

The same things can be said, but with a accepting, respectful, non-shaming, and helpful attitude. You can tell me in a validating way that NDEs are probably chemical halucinations but that may have personal meaning, and then we can talk about the interesting things that halucination revealed about myself and my own mind, and if I learned anything from it, and have a discussion instead of an argument, where everyone takes something interesting away from the encounter. Then I'm likely to stick around, instead of fleeing to the religion.

Actually, I read a little more in Sam Harris's book last night, and he's saying a few things along the same lines, i.e. that experiences happen to people that we describe as mystical, and that it's important to recognize, validate, and even seek those experiences. I'm not sure he goes as far as I do in criticizing the atheist crowd for their dismissive attitudes, but...

It seems to be secularists do the opposite of Love Bombing, (Hate Bombing?), which drives people towards those who are more than happy to let fly with the acceptance -- in exchange for unhealthy myths and money.

Luna

[lunaverse]

it would not surprise me if at some time in the future things were found in the earths crust which throw a spanner in the works as far as the earths history is concerned , but will scientists except it or will they react as religious people do , refusding to budge from a pre concieved idea , i like the idea of a forward looking belief system , if you could make it work i believe a lot of powerfully rich people would soon back it , sprituality derived thru science , now thats a great idea .
by the way you got my height right but evrything else was wrong , i have reddish blonde hair an have been around a bit longer than 35 years , i wish that were true but alas its not , i might have a look at the unitarians if you recomend it

I would agree that science, too, is sometimes dogmatic, and slow to change its ways in light of new evidence -- however, the difference is that science will change much more quickly than religion. It may take 1 generation for the new "crazy" idea to become accepted, but it's ONLY 1 generation. Religion, backward-facing, is much, much slower, usually taking centuries, if at all. (Granted, if a change serves the top powers, it can take a matter of weeks, but that's a top-down change, and not something that usually serves Truth or the members of the society/religion.)

Unitarianism is interesting. I go to meetings every now and then when I have time and interesting. I like the fact that I don't feel guilty in the slightest for missing. :)

Luna

P.S. there are still Dogmas in Unitarianism, which tend to coincide with the dogmas in liberal/leftist politics -- organics are good, save the earth, recycle, be tolerant of everyone, etc.