This has been a topic I've seen cropping up in some circles, and I had a thought. If religion is a natural part of human psychology, then we should be able to design one that satisfies this need while staying grounded in reality.
So, AF.com, how would you go about designing such a religion?
Freudian psychoanalysis came close. Freud was like a rabbi for secular Jewish women ;-) Sociology is based on psychology ... and I see individual spirituality based on psychology also, with religion the social equivalent. One then translates the problem to ... what is good psychology ;-) But at least we can be half-scientific there. Though I think these days we can drop the pipe or cigar ... from psychoanalysis. Being professorial and empathetic and bearded may still help ;-)
Freud's metaphysics was minimal, if you ignore his dream interpretation. Id, Ego and Super-Ego. Consciousness, Sub-Consciousness, Unconsciousness. Add in the animus and anima of Carl Jung ... but drop the symbolic alchemy.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 21, 2016, 05:43:10 PM
This has been a topic I've seen cropping up in some circles, and I had a thought. If religion is a natural part of human psychology, then we should be able to design one that satisfies this need while staying grounded in reality.
So, AF.com, how would you go about designing such a religion?
The works of hesse, camus, julio cortazar, garcia marques, borges , gunter grass, carl sagan, douglas adam, pretty much all the literature and philosophy i have read and liked have worked like that for me. Giving me a secular spirituality and conception of "magic".
I find magic and sprirituality in synchronicity, in simmetry, in aesthetics, in sensuality, in elegant ideas, in powerful feelings.In everything i can use to create meaning for myself is this existential void.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 21, 2016, 05:43:10 PM
This has been a topic I've seen cropping up in some circles, and I had a thought. If religion is a natural part of human psychology, then we should be able to design one that satisfies this need while staying grounded in reality.
So, AF.com, how would you go about designing such a religion?
Well, I'd be at a complete loss, as its also perfectly natural for us to see things that are not actually grounded in reality... as grounded in reality.
We are programmed to see patterns that do not actually exist; as far as I can tell, religion does not exist without this feature.
There is plenty of meaning to be found in reality if that is the idea, I just don't think religion would be a great way to describe it.
"cropping up in some circles" ... crop circles? Damn, the aliens are at it again!
Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2016, 06:34:21 PM
Freud's metaphysics was minimal,
As was his interest in true empirism.
Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2016, 06:34:21 PM
Add in the animus and anima of Carl Jung ... but drop the symbolic alchemy.
What if they're expressions of the rhythms and harmonies in our bodies? I've heard the only good thing to come out of religion is art. If religion is art, then postmodernism surely signaled the end of everything.
Quote from: facebook164 on March 22, 2016, 02:36:16 AM
As was his interest in true empirism.
He was the first medically trained doctor to also counsel people. Neurology and psych-chemistry is a modern development after his time ... in his time it was little better than phrenology. However useful neurology and psych-chemistry are for actual medical problems with the brain and nerves, it doesn't answer what ails us that is more of a syndrome, the primary thing he was addressing .. because that part is subjective. The Behaviorists (an early 20th century school in America of psychology) tried to deal with this by denying people had any thoughts worth bothering about. The Cognitivists (a late 20th century school in America of psychology) tried to deal with this by reducing thought to computer programming. This is still the popular view, and at least admits that people have thoughts.
So if we deny the subjective, and affirm the objective only ... we are still Behaviorists under cover.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on March 22, 2016, 03:08:50 AM
What if they're expressions of the rhythms and harmonies in our bodies? I've heard the only good thing to come out of religion is art. If religion is art, then postmodernism surely signaled the end of everything.
Well they are, rhythms and harmonies ... which reductionist science denies ... rhythms and harmonies involve relationship, and reductionism denies relationship ... reductionism requires that you apply overly simplified models on isolated components. If it is a big plate of spaghetti, then the scientists are stumped ... a they are with the nature of consciousness itself. In a big plate of spaghetti, you have to presume the answer you are already trying to unravel. If you do the Alexander Cuts The Gordian Knot ... that works with rope, but with a brain it is dissection after death. For the scientist, the brain one second before death and one second after death, are one and the same ... atoms moving near randomly, not different in principle from a plate of spaghetti. Music for reductionistic science, is one note .. that they will discover some day .. the master note from which all other notes are constructed. If you take this analogy literally (and scientists are literalists just like religious nuts) then you can't even plink out "chopsticks". One note isn't derivative of another, they have a common origin, and not as natural noise.
Postmodernism ... stupidest movement name of all time ;-) What comes after post-modernism?
(Do mind that I have had a very long absence and my views may be incredibly biased or outright changed since you last saw me.)Religion is "Natural" to the extent that the methods of creation are natural.
For instance, Try the following steps and see if people start following your religion/cult (I am totally going to screw around with the word appeal):
- Appeal to Nationalism/ Herd Mentality.
It's a fact of nature, most want to belong to a group, one way or another. Some argue that we are built around the connections around us, while others claim that people around us only hinder our true self. Regardless, Make your group have many gatherings and have them socialize and rejoice over your Idol (See Idol/Common Goal)
Compassion, though a new idea compared to nature's standards, has become a fundamental part of the human psyche. We strive because of our compassionate ways, the golden rule launching both the person in need and the person giving, forward. Anyway, at least claim to have a Compassionate cult/religion. It will go a long way when you expand your masses and need to justify your actions (See Rationalize)
- Appeal to an Idol/Common Goal
Idols, who can hate them? We adore them, the make us want to do great things, they inspire us... Just be sure to make arbitrary rules centered around the culture of your group and relate them to your purpose or Idol. This way this reinforces the Appeal to Nationalism and Herd Mentality
Perhaps the most important of the four, if you screw up: Make excuses! Blame it on the higher goal or Idol! Blame it on other people or the moral fabric on society! Either way, you're good to go to at least start a cult. We already have so much experience with this in our daily lives, like how most people will
NEVER admit that they have the
POSSIBILITY of wasting their own time. Believe me people, you can, especially with CULTS!
:bounce8:
Unitarian Universalists? They're fine with reality, but if you want to make stuff up, they're fine with that too.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 21, 2016, 05:43:10 PM
This has been a topic I've seen cropping up in some circles, and I had a thought. If religion is a natural part of human psychology, then we should be able to design one that satisfies this need while staying grounded in reality.
So, AF.com, how would you go about designing such a religion?
Your premise is not supported by empirical evidence. Religion has evolved along side civilization, but civilization isn't natural. It's a human construct. So the question should be: does atheism need to follow in the footsteps of religion? If yes, then how. If no? End of story.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on March 21, 2016, 07:38:04 PM
We are programmed to see patterns that do not actually exist; as far as I can tell, religion does not exist without this feature.
That's why there are no religions, but only superstitions. Omniscient; omnipresent, all loving, but it always needs some lucky dog of a human (very good work.................IF you can get it) to tell us about it.
I believe the argument can be made that many, many attempts have been made to do just that- define a universal religion that fills all the bills. U U church might certainly be considered as that religion.
Any so called benefit of a religion becomes illusory the second you imply a higher power. There is nothing in religion in terms of beneficial behavior that doesn't occur already in human behavior. So in my view, building another universal religion serves no real purpose.
And don't forget Deism- that also has aspects of universality.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on March 21, 2016, 07:38:04 PM
Well, I'd be at a complete loss, as its also perfectly natural for us to see things that are not actually grounded in reality... as grounded in reality.
We are programmed to see patterns that do not actually exist; as far as I can tell, religion does not exist without this feature.
There is plenty of meaning to be found in reality if that is the idea, I just don't think religion would be a great way to describe it.
+1
Though the cynic in me is motivated to mention control. The more structured (as in command structure) superstitions/cults are all about control. Why? Because that shit works, and we (men) like our perks.
I was walking down the street the other day; when all of a sudden a Giant Omnipotent Dog appeared to me in a brilliant flash of light, and a huge puff of smoke (that's right..............I'm special----you're not!)!
GOD: This is what's up, here's the Do Not List, the Do List, my authorization of YOU as my sole authorized representative on Earth; all disputes, questions, and pitiful needy shit will be refered to you (as my sole rep) for arbitration. Don't step on my fucking crank, get uppity, or try to promote.........................and you'll do well!
Me: Uuuuhhhhhh..................this is all rather sudden.....................are you sure I'm qualified?
GOD: Are you questioning me you POS??!!! You wanna see the firery pit??!!
Me: I'm good!!! In fact...................the more I think about it....................the more I like it!!!
GOD: Mmmmm???? Good! Common sense, a well honed sense of self preservation.................AND feigned enthusiasm! I like it!! No get on your fuckin' game! Get out there and con your friends and relatives into biting on and validating this shit. Then go forth and MULTIPLY!!
Me: Roger that!! Aaaaahhhhh..............would it be OK if I acquire vast amounts of property, holdings, and wealth for YOUR work here? And, maybe a scantily clad nubile assistant or two?
GOD: I'm not detail orientated--------------handle it!
Me: Sir!!
This idea is a part of
-seeing 'development' of humanity as a linear development of religions and belief systems. In simplest terms, if there were no violent-primitive religious laws to begin with, we wouldn't have reached to a better, more secular ones. Which is correct up to a point, but as in terms of evolution in every sense, not in a world created by god with laws and rules.
-if you do not believe in something bigger than yourself, you are not afraid of anything...the argument we all know; 'universal morality exists and it comes form god'.
-if you do not believe in anything, in an individual level you are doomed to be depressed, selfish...etc.
All of the above is the idea of a fixed childlike construction of human existence, civilisation and universe.
On the other hand, it is difficult to see all this from the point of a modern human. Because it is not as simple as the 21st century general atheist outlook which tends to paint everything in black and white. We are already born into a general culture that is available to us to develop an atheist view/vision of the world. This is very new.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 22, 2016, 08:27:29 AM
Your premise is not supported by empirical evidence. Religion has evolved along side civilization, but civilization isn't natural. It's a human construct. So the question should be: does atheism need to follow in the footsteps of religion? If yes, then how. If no? End of story.
This part of your statement---but civilization isn't natural---drew my attention. This is not to quibble or even say you are wrong, but to explore a bit. The social insects find civilization natural. Ants always are found in colonies with structure. Where humans sprung up in any numbers did they not tend to clump together? Could not those groups or clans or tribes not be the first step on the road to civilization? I guess a lot would be contingent upon how one defines 'civilization'. Just musing................
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 22, 2016, 08:27:29 AM
Your premise is not supported by empirical evidence. Religion has evolved along side civilization, but civilization isn't natural. It's a human construct. So the question should be: does atheism need to follow in the footsteps of religion? If yes, then how. If no? End of story.
The problem with atheism is that it doesn't stand for anything. It's only a lack of belief. It creates a vacuum that's filled with another religion or a political ideology that might as well be a religion. I think religion has the upper had because it's more colorful, mystical and subtle.
Quote from: Jack89 on April 22, 2016, 07:24:19 PM
The problem with atheism is that it doesn't stand for anything. It's only a lack of belief. It creates a vacuum that's filled with another religion or a political ideology that might as well be a religion. I think religion has the upper had because it's more colorful, mystical and subtle.
Actually, atheism 'stands' for more than nothing. It stands for reason; at least gives a nod to critical thinking. It rejects belief as a guiding force in one's life. Religion, on the other hand, discourages, at the very least, rational thinking and asking reasoned questions; it demands faith--which rejects all attempts to bring forth empirical evidence of anything. Religion demands you kill part of your brain (and part of your humanity as I see it) for the sake of the fictional story that a particular religion invented.
The very religious are mostly very shallow, desperate people. They discourage or exclude any factual data about their fairy tale. They want the easy answers, the answers that can be spoon fed to theim by their appointed leader. They refuse to see any side of an issue except the one dictated to them by their fictional god. Atheists on the other hand have no such crutch. They have to use reasoning and critical thinking, not the empty belief or faith of the religious.
Jack, you are just flat wrong!!
Quote from: Jack89 on April 22, 2016, 07:24:19 PMThe problem with atheism is that it doesn't stand for anything. It's only a lack of belief. It creates a vacuum that's filled with another religion or a political ideology that might as well be a religion.
One could say the same about afaerism or aghostism, they're simply lack of belief in faeries and ghosts and don't stand for anything as well. There are lots of things that people don't believe in, yet no one claims that lack belief in ghosts sets the stage for belief in some other superstitious entity or some bad ideology. Saying that eschewing theism creates a vacuum implies a supernaturalist urge sated by other ideologies, which is an assumption yet to be shown to be accurate.
QuoteI think religion has the upper had because it's more colorful, mystical and subtle.
I suppose. It certainly has its pomp and ceremony. And it appeals to people's basic hopes and fears. It has its advantages, particularly in earlier times.
Lately, it seems to have ceded a lot of its previous functions to governments and science. Humanity's place in the cosmos and the nature of the universe itself has become the domain of science, not religion. Secular laws have less and less to do with religion and religious crimes like blasphemy have mostly been eliminated in the West. If you want to get married, you get married by the state, not the church. Popes used to hold land and lead armies, now they work to manage scandal. Just a while ago, a friend of mine showed me a picture of a priest blessing a space shuttle. It struck me as odd, but I couldn't put into words exactly why. Eventually, the word came to me: it looked anachronistic.
People have psychological needs. For some people, some of these needs are met by religion. For other people, those same needs might be met by something else. Generally we are talking about a need for "belonging" ... hence the close connection between religion and politics. I find political fanatics even more disturbing than religious fanatics. "very needy" people are dangerous. So it isn't that "not having a religion" creates a vacuum ... but that people have needs, filled or unfilled. If unfilled, they will bumble around until they find a way to fill it. Once filled however, people have a hard time moving on to a different equilibria. For some people, this need can't be filled by religion, because it is a square peg in a round hole for them. I always find a psychological POV to be better than an ideological or epistemological one.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 22, 2016, 08:21:18 PM
Just a while ago, a friend of mine showed me a picture of a priest blessing a space shuttle. It struck me as odd, but I couldn't put into words exactly why. Eventually, the word came to me: it looked anachronistic.
Finally I had to look up anachronistic. I've seen it a bunch, but from the context, I always thought it meant doing something weird. I guess I was close, but not quite there.
Quote from: Baruch on April 23, 2016, 09:24:19 AM
People have psychological needs. For some people, some of these needs are met by religion. For other people, those same needs might be met by something else. Generally we are talking about a need for "belonging" ... hence the close connection between religion and politics. I find political fanatics even more disturbing than religious fanatics. "very needy" people are dangerous. So it isn't that "not having a religion" creates a vacuum ... but that people have needs, filled or unfilled. If unfilled, they will bumble around until they find a way to fill it. Once filled however, people have a hard time moving on to a different equilibria. For some people, this need can't be filled by religion, because it is a square peg in a round hole for them. I always find a psychological POV to be better than an ideological or epistemological one.
I agree with most of what you're saying as it applies on an individual level, but I was also thinking of the unifying effects of religion and politics. That sense of belonging you talk about leads to a unified people once they have something in common to rally behind. Religion and/or political ideology, take your pick. I think religion has a greater effect in the long run.
Pastafarianism.
Or if you want to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Atheism+ *snicker*
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 21, 2016, 05:43:10 PM
This has been a topic I've seen cropping up in some circles, and I had a thought. If religion is a natural part of human psychology, then we should be able to design one that satisfies this need while staying grounded in reality.
So, AF.com, how would you go about designing such a religion?
People are scared and stupid and easily shoved around and lazy: what other than religion is better suited to take advantage of them? Everything that takes advantage of people uses the very same tools: fear and threats (open or veiled), promises of rewards (which never have to be fulfilled), heroes to worship, and endless ways to debase oneself, either by groveling before a god or by fawning over a celebrity or by being in awe of an "expert". Peter the Great realized that people were as happy w/medals as they were w/the huge tracts of land that his ancestors had given away, so he saved himself and future tsars great heaps of money by giving out medals, rather than estates. Medals and titles, rather than land and wealth. People are stupid. Let them be stupid, he reasoned. Tony DeFries realized that he could make David Bowie a star by telling everyone that Bowie was a star - and so, Bowie became a star - just like that. At least he had talent, unlike most of today's manufactured stars. If you want to know how, study Quentin Crisp!
The Naked Civil Servant could tell you all you need to know about turning yourself into a minor religion: you must never work on anything but yourself!
Quite a few good points.
Most of the superstitious folks I know are my relatives (exclusively Christian). Actually; a really nice bunch of folks--none of them are pushy about the topic; I've always been treated very well by them, and don't resent their occasional bible this, and Jesus that references. Interestingly; the Church I attended as a kid has dwindled from 200+ members down to around 15.............all elderly. The end is near indeed!
I have to contend.................most of you have missed the boat on why superstition is so prevalent. It's the way we're brought up (early life), and it's comfortable (later in life). Nothing more complicated than behavioral patterning, operant conditioning, and role modeling off guess who?
If your parents are superstitious; chances are you will be too. Most people in the US are Christian as it's the predominate superstition. Most in the Middle East are Muslim because that's the way they were brought up. Most in Israel (lived there for two years) are Jewish for the same reason. I further contend if there was anyplace where the bulk of the adult child bearing population was.......................well..........................like us :neener: (Yea! Scary prospect!) most of the kids would grow up with similar beliefs because they were trained that way. To a small degree, I think that's actually occurring in Europe and the US, but obviously has not gained a true/overwhelming majority anywhere yet.
Later in life where most have achieved a degree of autonomous abstract thought, there's the whole angst ridden "why are we here, what does it all mean, what's my purpose in life, blah, blah,blah. I think most of that comes from superstitions providing a fairly high degree of comfort. Life direction; most of 'em got a rule book of some sort that frees many/most from doing any thinking about a wide variety of vexing topics/issues---just follow the rules! The big three all got some sort of afterlife which is a HUGE draw-- reunion with mommy, daddy, puppies, kittens, virgins, bliss, no pain, blah, blah, blah. Definitely a big sales advantage! What's atheism and agnosticism got? YAWNING BLACK NOTHINGNESS. You have to admit................it is kinda bleak compared to the superstitious option. Maybe a fresh coat of paint would spruce it up? Twofers??? Out of the superstitious folks I've discussed it with................they seem to split on can't emotionally deal with the idea of YBN, or "choose" not to by sticking with whatever their Rule books plan is.
A "Final Solution" :bigangel: kinda thing isn't it?
In fairness.................if they're peaceful in their superstitious aims/goals.......................if it makes them feel better; what harm is there?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 21, 2016, 05:43:10 PM
This has been a topic I've seen cropping up in some circles, and I had a thought. If religion is a natural part of human psychology, then we should be able to design one that satisfies this need while staying grounded in reality.
So, AF.com, how would you go about designing such a religion?
I think it's the break from reality that is most appealing to most people. Look at how well Faux News spreads the religion of conservatism with the fear of the black bogeyman. Look at any other given cult. To truly tap into the human psyche and take over you have to kick the door in like you own the place and take a shit in the corner. Conservatism just uses a slightly more realistic break from reality than the "magic" of most religions.
I think the real deep-seated need we as human beings have is a need to feel small and not in control, but have the pretense that we are, odd as it may sound. For Christianity, the world is going to hell and there's nothing you can do about it. You can't save even your loved ones. BUT, you can save yourself. So even when you take control there's still some desperation there. For conservatism, the world is going to hell and there's nothing you can do about it. BUT, you can vote and MAYBE some day America will go "back" to some idealistic time which never really existed. The commonality there seems to be an overall sense of despair with just a glimmer of hope. That you can do SOMETHING about it and maybe save the situation from being a total loss, but overall it is out of your control and, thus, everyone's fault but you and yours.
If you sit down and think about it, that describes the environmentalist movement too. And really, that's something of a religion for some people, and FIRMLY grounded in reality. So maybe it has already been done and we just didn't notice it.