A suggestion [#125]

[phlegm]

My ultimate goal is to get a bunch of people doing this, spreading my conception of God (or a similar one they have come up with) all over the place. These ideas mutate as they get passed along, and they displace religion as we know it with something better.

I haven't read the entire thread, but it sounds to me like you're advocating "displacing" religion with a new religion.  I would agree with that.  To me, the question of God's existence is a distraction.  The whole of humanity has already established God's existence in the sense that every culture believes in some form or another.

Returning to my language metaphor, rejecting a belief in God is like rejecting language because you don't like something about it.  No one that wants to remain as part of humanity will reject all language.  So, if you don't like something about religion, why not try to modify it instead of rejecting it entirely?

[JustMe]

My ultimate goal is to get a bunch of people doing this, spreading my conception of God (or a similar one they have come up with) all over the place. These ideas mutate as they get passed along, and they displace religion as we know it with something better.

I haven't read the entire thread, but it sounds to me like you're advocating "displacing" religion with a new religion.  I would agree with that.  To me, the question of God's existence is a distraction.  The whole of humanity has already established God's existence in the sense that every culture believes in some form or another.

Returning to my language metaphor, rejecting a belief in God is like rejecting language because you don't like something about it.  No one that wants to remain as part of humanity will reject all language.  So, if you don't like something about religion, why not try to modify it instead of rejecting it entirely?

That's exactly what I'm advocating and exactly why (arguing about God's existence is a distraction and makes us much less effective agents for change than we could be). And I have an idea what sort of thing I want to displace it with, which I'm developing on my blog (address in OP).

Also, if anyone would like to point people from other forums besides WWGHA to this discussion, I'd appreciate it. I'm in week 2 ish of this type of discussion, so I don't know what the other atheist forums are, and this conversation takes a lot of mental effort, so repeating it as few times as possible would be nice.

[screwtape]

My ultimate goal is to get a bunch of people doing this, spreading my conception of God (or a similar one they have come up with) all over the place. These ideas mutate as they get passed along, and they displace religion as we know it with something better.

I haven't read the entire thread, but it sounds to me like you're advocating "displacing" religion with a new religion.  I would agree with that.  To me, the question of God's existence is a distraction.  The whole of humanity has already established God's existence in the sense that every culture believes in some form or another.

Returning to my language metaphor, rejecting a belief in God is like rejecting language because you don't like something about it.  No one that wants to remain as part of humanity will reject all language.  So, if you don't like something about religion, why not try to modify it instead of rejecting it entirely?

That's exactly what I'm advocating and exactly why (arguing about God's existence is a distraction and makes us much less effective agents for change than we could be). And I have an idea what sort of thing I want to displace it with, which I'm developing on my blog (address in OP).

Also, if anyone would like to point people from other forums besides WWGHA to this discussion, I'd appreciate it. I'm in week 2 ish of this type of discussion, so I don't know what the other atheist forums are, and this conversation takes a lot of mental effort, so repeating it as few times as possible would be nice.

a lengthy thread, but similar in the theme of "how to get rid of religion".
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=302.0

[JustMe]

a lengthy thread, but similar in the theme of "how to get rid of religion".
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=302.0

Thanks. This is too long to read all at once, but I will read it over the next few days. To anyone who has read this full thread: Has someone already suggested something similar to my idea, or should I wade in and make suggestions?

[screwtape]

I'm up to page 8 or 9 and I've not seen your idea mentioned, per se.  However, there is discussion of hijacking the theist meme and trying to turn it back on them.  There is also extensive elaboration by KCrady on separating god from yaweh.  It is a great thread.

[velkyn]

My ultimate goal is to get a bunch of people doing this, spreading my conception of God (or a similar one they have come up with) all over the place. These ideas mutate as they get passed along, and they displace religion as we know it with something better.

I haven't read the entire thread, but it sounds to me like you're advocating "displacing" religion with a new religion.  I would agree with that.  To me, the question of God's existence is a distraction.  The whole of humanity has already established God's existence in the sense that every culture believes in some form or another.

Returning to my language metaphor, rejecting a belief in God is like rejecting language because you don't like something about it.  No one that wants to remain as part of humanity will reject all language.  So, if you don't like something about religion, why not try to modify it instead of rejecting it entirely?

this seems to be a little odd in that religions are always absolutes.  The Christian God says "me, nothing else".  To do what you are saying (at least what I think you are saying) you have to throw away ever attribute of every deity and every religion.  Then you must say that "there is "something" that is really really powerful but that's the only way we can even try to define it" and leave it like that. 

[phlegm]

My ultimate goal is to get a bunch of people doing this, spreading my conception of God (or a similar one they have come up with) all over the place. These ideas mutate as they get passed along, and they displace religion as we know it with something better.

I haven't read the entire thread, but it sounds to me like you're advocating "displacing" religion with a new religion.  I would agree with that.  To me, the question of God's existence is a distraction.  The whole of humanity has already established God's existence in the sense that every culture believes in some form or another.

Returning to my language metaphor, rejecting a belief in God is like rejecting language because you don't like something about it.  No one that wants to remain as part of humanity will reject all language.  So, if you don't like something about religion, why not try to modify it instead of rejecting it entirely?

this seems to be a little odd in that religions are always absolutes.  The Christian God says "me, nothing else".  To do what you are saying (at least what I think you are saying) you have to throw away ever attribute of every deity and every religion.  Then you must say that "there is "something" that is really really powerful but that's the only way we can even try to define it" and leave it like that. 

Religions are only absolutes if you treat them that way.  You can understand them as the human creation that they are and study them independently.  Do you look at two paintings in an art gallery and try to decide which one is right?

I'm assuming that you're still operating under the idea that science is more than just one possible human perspective of the universe.  Otherwise, I don't think there's a need to define "what God really is" in a universal sense.

[Codswallop]

Religions are only absolutes if you treat them that way.  You can understand them as the human creation that they are and study them independently.  Do you look at two paintings in an art gallery and try to decide which one is right?

The problem is not that a non-theist may perceive religion as a set of absolutes; the problem is the theist does. We aren't sitting around a theology class debating the number of mythical spirit beings capable of performing a rhumba on the flattened end of a sewing implement. We are people dealing with theists who fly planes into buildings and set off IEDs on crowded high-speed trains.

As for introducing relativism into conventional religion, I'm all for it, but I am not hopeful for the result. Absolutist religion attracts a particular kind of person who is simply not persuaded by subtle reasoning, and who views any "softening" of his views as weakness or even outright evil.

Until you have a concrete plan for dealing with that kind of person, you don't really address the problem.

[JustMe]

My ultimate goal is to get a bunch of people doing this, spreading my conception of God (or a similar one they have come up with) all over the place. These ideas mutate as they get passed along, and they displace religion as we know it with something better.

I haven't read the entire thread, but it sounds to me like you're advocating "displacing" religion with a new religion.  I would agree with that.  To me, the question of God's existence is a distraction.  The whole of humanity has already established God's existence in the sense that every culture believes in some form or another.

Returning to my language metaphor, rejecting a belief in God is like rejecting language because you don't like something about it.  No one that wants to remain as part of humanity will reject all language.  So, if you don't like something about religion, why not try to modify it instead of rejecting it entirely?

this seems to be a little odd in that religions are always absolutes.  The Christian God says "me, nothing else".  To do what you are saying (at least what I think you are saying) you have to throw away ever attribute of every deity and every religion.  Then you must say that "there is "something" that is really really powerful but that's the only way we can even try to define it" and leave it like that. 

The Christian God says "Me, nothing else", but everyone has a slightly different idea of what the Christian God is. When I put my idea out there on a Catholic blog, they said "That's very much like the Christian God, you're really not too far from it". And I think that if I put my ideas out there in a group of people who have different ideas of God will adopt some of my ideas as their own, once they hear people say "Hey, that's what God is _supposed_ to be like! I hate it when people corrupt it and make it something stupid!" They do this to try and convince me that their belief systems are valid, but what it's really doing is convincing others that bits of my belief system are valid.

Stripping anyone's belief system down to nothing is hard. Changing it so it's less stupid isn't. And people come away feeling like they have a better conception of their faith, so they share it with others.

I don't think it will work for everyone. The real hard cases are going to need something like the mailbag approach. We're not talking about people who are flying planes into things or think the bible is the literal word-for-word truth, those people are almost a lost cause to this method. They need people like are on this forum, who can go "See this passage? And this one? Now, they contradict each other, so they can't both be true. Pick one." But there's a whole chunk of mainstream Christianity this would work for.

[JustMe]

Then you must say that "there is "something" that is really really powerful but that's the only way we can even try to define it" and leave it like that. 

Nope. You say "Here's what I think it might look like, and here's why". Make sure your conception of God answers as many of the big religious questions as possible, but does it in a logical way. And then defend it. Explain how you've reasoned it out. This gives you a chance to say "Well, I don't think this bit of Christianity works the way you think" and suggest a way that makes more sense. If you know Christian Lit, you can drop names of people who said something similar but not exactly the same as what you're saying, and your ideas will seem like legitimate Christian stuff, when really the acceptance of those ideas is just SPAG. But whatever, they still end up thinking some less crazy things.

[velkyn]

Then you must say that "there is "something" that is really really powerful but that's the only way we can even try to define it" and leave it like that. 

Nope. You say "Here's what I think it might look like, and here's why". Make sure your conception of God answers as many of the big religious questions as possible, but does it in a logical way. And then defend it. Explain how you've reasoned it out. This gives you a chance to say "Well, I don't think this bit of Christianity works the way you think" and suggest a way that makes more sense. If you know Christian Lit, you can drop names of people who said something similar but not exactly the same as what you're saying, and your ideas will seem like legitimate Christian stuff, when really the acceptance of those ideas is just SPAG. But whatever, they still end up thinking some less crazy things.

that's the problem.  IMO, there is no way to "reason it out" since all of the big questions seem to revolve around a particular "god" being right.  Yes, I could make up a good story on what makes sense to me but that's about it. 

now for phelgm's response

Religions are only absolutes if you treat them that way.  You can understand them as the human creation that they are and study them independently.  Do you look at two paintings in an art gallery and try to decide which one is right?

I'm assuming that you're still operating under the idea that science is more than just one possible human perspective of the universe.  Otherwise, I don't think there's a need to define "what God really is" in a universal sense.

So, now the supposed words of "God", Vishnu, etc are just human creations.  I agree, but that then begs the qeustion, just how does anyone know about
"Deity" other than their own opinion and therefore makes all religion/faith/belief simply spag.   To compare religons with paintings again ignores the fact that religiosn claim that they are divinely inspired and therefore completely right.  No painting does this.

And yes, science is more than some opinion about the universe.  What does this have to do with your refusal to "define what God really is" in whatever you might mean by a "universal sense"?

[JustMe]

that's the problem.  IMO, there is no way to "reason it out" since all of the big questions seem to revolve around a particular "god" being right.  Yes, I could make up a good story on what makes sense to me but that's about it. 

So what's the problem with that? Everyone does that, it's how religion works. So you make up an idea that makes sense to you, and put it out there, and as people criticize it it gets better. And a few people adopt it. But let's say atheists are 5% of the population. If each of them does this, and then gets 19 people to adopt something similar to "their" god, we win. Of course, we will never get the true crazies this way. But convincing 15 or so people to adopt something you think makes sense is something you could probably do. Maybe not in a year, but let's say you do this, and you get one person per year. 15 years from now, we win. And long before that, there's some serious social change. Consider also that since people will be passing these ideas around, your effectiveness is multiplied. It's doable.

Of course, during this time the religions are going to be recruiting as well, so it's not going to be nearly the cakewalk the above paragraph suggests. But this is why my idea is better than the standard atheist meme - once you've adopted another belief, and it's satisfying and fulfilling, the old religions have less appeal. The atheist belief is a null position, which is less satisfying.

So, now the supposed words of "God", Vishnu, etc are just human creations.  I agree, but that then begs the qeustion, just how does anyone know about
"Deity" other than their own opinion and therefore makes all religion/faith/belief simply spag.   To compare religons with paintings again ignores the fact that religiosn claim that they are divinely inspired and therefore completely right.  No painting does this.

Yup. Religion is personal opinion, not passed down from God's messenger the Church. But you notice that everyone has very similar opinions about certain things, and you say the things that people have the most agreement on are "God's Will", because they're somehow written into the order of the universe. So personal opinion is still significant.

Religions claim they are divinely inspired, and that's how they have all the answers. But you need to read their books, do their rituals, and pay them money in order to understand God. I claim my idea might be divinely inspired, as I've tried to explain what I see as true and evident from how the world works, and I find it quite satisfying and a good guide to behaviour. And I, being just a humble human being before God, think that it's OK not to know all the answers, so long as we acknowledge the important ones which relate to how we should act (based on our consciences) and continue to seek to understand. I think at least a few people will like my idea more than the standard model of religion, but I'm working on making it even more appealing.

Right now you have a certain approach, bashing people in the mailbag. I'm not claiming my approach is a miracle cure. But relative to your current strategy, is mine better, or is it worse? I think better.

[CosmicScherzo]

The mailbag is a very small part of the forum, and the majority of senders deserve nothing but ridicule.

Your systematic appeal to majority may be realistic, yet do you think that lends an ounce of truth to your claims?  There was a time when most people were pagans.  Were they then in the right?  More and more people believe Mohammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse every day.  Does that make it true?

The attempt to bolster one's viewpoint through a multitude of adherents only amplifies its inability to stand on its own.

[Airyaman]

The mailbag is a very small part of the forum, and the majority of senders deserve nothing but ridicule.

The mailbag is the biggest part of this forum right now .

[CosmicScherzo]

Well, yeah, I guess it's updated more frequently here than at the Old Country.

[velkyn]

that's the problem.  IMO, there is no way to "reason it out" since all of the big questions seem to revolve around a particular "god" being right.  Yes, I could make up a good story on what makes sense to me but that's about it. 

So what's the problem with that? Everyone does that, it's how religion works. So you make up an idea that makes sense to you, and put it out there, and as people criticize it it gets better. And a few people adopt it. But let's say atheists are 5% of the population. If each of them does this, and then gets 19 people to adopt something similar to "their" god, we win. Of course, we will never get the true crazies this way. But convincing 15 or so people to adopt something you think makes sense is something you could probably do. Maybe not in a year, but let's say you do this, and you get one person per year. 15 years from now, we win. And long before that, there's some serious social change. Consider also that since people will be passing these ideas around, your effectiveness is multiplied. It's doable.

only if basic human nature changes.  Do you really think it's "doable" to come up with a perfect religion?  As soon as humans touch it there will be schism.

Of course, during this time the religions are going to be recruiting as well, so it's not going to be nearly the cakewalk the above paragraph suggests. But this is why my idea is better than the standard atheist meme - once you've adopted another belief, and it's satisfying and fulfilling, the old religions have less appeal. The atheist belief is a null position, which is less satisfying.

"Less satisfying"?  Not to me.  Belief for the sake of belief is worthless.

So, now the supposed words of "God", Vishnu, etc are just human creations.  I agree, but that then begs the qeustion, just how does anyone know about
"Deity" other than their own opinion and therefore makes all religion/faith/belief simply spag.   To compare religons with paintings again ignores the fact that religiosn claim that they are divinely inspired and therefore completely right.  No painting does this.

Yup. Religion is personal opinion, not passed down from God's messenger the Church. But you notice that everyone has very similar opinions about certain things, and you say the things that people have the most agreement on are "God's Will", because they're somehow written into the order of the universe. So personal opinion is still significant.

"similar"?  I dont' think so.  They think that only people that agree totally with them are "good".  It's part and parcel of religion.  That's the only similar opinion I can see. 

Religions claim they are divinely inspired, and that's how they have all the answers. But you need to read their books, do their rituals, and pay them money in order to understand God. I claim my idea might be divinely inspired, as I've tried to explain what I see as true and evident from how the world works, and I find it quite satisfying and a good guide to behaviour. And I, being just a humble human being before God, think that it's OK not to know all the answers, so long as we acknowledge the important ones which relate to how we should act (based on our consciences) and continue to seek to understand. I think at least a few people will like my idea more than the standard model of religion, but I'm working on making it even more appealing.

Appealing to whom?  Rational people?  That's nice but most rational people will spot any flaws in your idea and there we go again. 

Right now you have a certain approach, bashing people in the mailbag. I'm not claiming my approach is a miracle cure. But relative to your current strategy, is mine better, or is it worse? I think better.

Which you are free to do, since it is only your opinion.  I find that attacking theist claims does more "good" in that it doesn't try to be a wolf in sheeps clothing and prolong the tedium of religious thought. 

[JustMe]

Your systematic appeal to majority may be realistic, yet do you think that lends an ounce of truth to your claims?  There was a time when most people were pagans.  Were they then in the right?  More and more people believe Mohammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse every day.  Does that make it true?

The attempt to bolster one's viewpoint through a multitude of adherents only amplifies its inability to stand on its own.

I'm not saying my claims about God are true, not at all, they're SPAG. Just that they provide an alternative to religion as we know it today, and one I think is likely to be adopted more quickly than nonbelief. Adopting an interim deistic view will reduce the harm done by more extreme religious beliefs, and allow people to more easily move to views that make even more sense.

Also, re: the perfect religion. The perfect belief system (I wouldn't call what I've got a religion) is individual to each person. I think I can make one which has wide appeal (and of course people are going to SPAG-modify it to fit their personal needs), and others can make ones which appeal to some of the people I've missed. I'm trying to build something that is biased towards the individual and critical thought, rather than collectivity and conformance to dogma.

And I'm not trying to be a wolf in sheep's clothing - I'm very up font that I don't know what I've got is true, in the same way I don't know religion is true. I just think if you've got to believe in something, this makes more sense.

Not everyone has a need to believe in things, but it seems to me most people do, and this need is exploited by religious leaders. I want to build a belief system that fills that need, and makes it more difficult for people to be exploited.

It's natural to look down on people who think differently (call them less good). But with a belief system like I'm proposing, the structure of that makes it harder to do, because it values questioning and attempting to come to a greater understanding of things, rather than strict adherence to a set of beliefs which you can define other groups as outsiders for not believing.

And no, I'm not trying to make it appealing to rational people, those who have no need to believe in God will just contine not to believe in God, and that's fine. Although I'm doing what I can to make sure there are no gaping logical flaws in it. The people I want it to appeal to are those who are not 100% satisfied with the dogma of religion, but do have a need to believe in something, and the standard model of religion is all they see as available to them. I don't think I'm going to convert fundamentalists with this, they're just going to say "the bible is the word of God, and you're quite possibly the devil." So dealing with those people through mailbag debate is important. But there is a group that could slip from moderate religious belief into more extreme forms, and this may prevent them from doing so.

[JustMe]

Which you are free to do, since it is only your opinion.  I find that attacking theist claims does more "good" in that it doesn't try to be a wolf in sheeps clothing and prolong the tedium of religious thought. 

We have very similar goals, and I wish you luck.

[CosmicScherzo]

I understand what you're saying, but broadening the appeal of religion, however watered down, will do more harm than good.  No matter how benign a religious viewpoint is, it's still supplanting reality with wishful thinking and is exactly what we need to stop doing if we want to advance as a society.

[JustMe]

I understand what you're saying, but broadening the appeal of religion, however watered down, will do more harm than good.  No matter how benign a religious viewpoint is, it's still supplanting reality with wishful thinking and is exactly what we need to stop doing if we want to advance as a society.

And honestly, I understand precisely where you're coming from with that statement as well. And I agree with it. If I thought it was possible, I'd do it. However, it's just not realistic.You counter my proposal by saying what you're going to do is extinguish wishful thinking. I understand you're serious, but I feel like asking if you're kidding me. Even in countries where God-belief is relatively low, wishful thinking is still rampant. It would be wonderful if everyone was scrupulously intellectually honest, and always questioned everything they're told. But come on, that's a utopia which, if it will ever be realized, is a long, long way off.

Just because what you're doing will work for a few people who (eventually) have seen religion as a tool of evil power-hungry cynics, doesn't mean you can get it through the heads of the general population. You couldn't even get it through your own head without going through a deistic phase first. What makes you think anyone else will be any different? I am basing my idea around an understanding that it's best to work around the toughest things to change about people's worldview, if those things are secondary. To me, getting everyone to move to something approaching deism will take much less time than getting everyone to move to something approaching atheism. But the deistic beliefs are almost the same in terms of direct and immediate harmfulness as atheistic beliefs. Once we're there, and people aren't being persecuted in the name of religion, we can work on getting them to give up their wishful thinking about God, among many other things.

I understand you want to rip out the root of religion. But the root of religion isn't God, it's patterns of thought that let people control other people, and stop those who are being controlled from questioning. And you can fight those thought patterns most effectively by using the mind-changing techniques of the religions themselves. They've been at this for thousands of years, and yet you're unwilling to use the techniques they have tested and refined. How can you think that throwing those approaches away and starting from scratch, working directly against the impulses of human nature which you should be able to see in your own deconversion experience, is the most effective approach?

[CosmicScherzo]

Fundies are going to be fundies, and I realize that.  It's the ones capable of critical thought that are the target audience.  The reason I went through a deist phase isn't because I was desperately hanging on, but because I didn't realize yet how much the deistic view lacked.  If I had come across others like the ones who post here sooner, I might have avoided the whole step.

If a free-thinking society is ever going to emerge, it will more closely resemble the popping of popcorn than the baking of bread.  An attempt to shift an entire population through the vestibule of deism is just as unlikely as a unanimous leap to atheism, and it still amounts to the same type of intellectual anesthesia that we see in religion.

[JustMe]

An attempt to shift an entire population through the vestibule of deism is just as unlikely as a unanimous leap to atheism

This is our fundamental disagreement. I think deism is much closer to theism than atheism is, and thus easier to shift people to. Also, your popcorn analogy suggests you believe getting a few true free thinkers while leaving many behind is more important than getting larger numbers of people to make incremental changes in their beliefs. I disagree. Even if people's belief systems don't match my ideal, if they're not ostracizing each other (or worse) based on their religion any more, I count that as a win, regardless of what type of intellectual anaesthetic they might be under.

Perhaps our goals are more different than I thought. I want to move as many people as possible to less harmful belief systems as quickly as possible, whereas you want to move as many people as possible to your ideal belief system as quickly as possible.