There are three criteria that must be satisfied for any rational religion to attract any serious consideration.
Firstly, it must be believable. That does not rule out myths completely, in fact I would argue stories of a mythical nature are a necessary feature of religion. As I've said already, stories are a very useful way to express certain sorts of ideas - in particular, moral ideas. A philosophy textbook on the subject of ethics just doesn't inspire people's imagination in the same way, and may be a bit too intellectual for some. But it is vitally important that none of the stories blatantly contradict known facts, even when they are presented as fiction. The same goes for any of the more philosophical content. It's more important that it isn't definitely false, than for it to be definitely true.
Secondly, it has to be appealing. It's one thing being believable, but there also has to be some kind of reason why people would want to believe it. A religion of doom and gloom might attract some members, but I'm not sure they would be the sort of people I want to attract. We have to be careful here though, to avoid claims of brainwashing. It's a common technique - "Imagine a future where we're all happy and free to lie in the sun drinking fruit cocktails all day while the lambs just about in the fields! Only Capitalism/Socialism/Humanism/Religion can provide this future!" I'm sure we've all seen it.
Quite often, the appealing aspect is "Heaven" - if we only obey everything the religion says, we get to become immortals in paradise! Appealing an idea as it may be, how much sense does it really make? People frequently associate such things as life after death and reward and punishment within it as almost a defining feature of religion. I have even heard it said "what is the point of doing what God wants if you don't go to Heaven afterwards?" Now, that is exactly the sort of self-centred world-view I wish to avoid, and it was a view quite unknown to the early Jews. To the Old Testament prophets, the reason to do what God wills was very simply because God created all things, and you with it, and that makes him the ultimate authority in the Universe. Just as a child must obey his parents, and a man must obey his king, one and all must obey God, children and kings alike; one does not do what is right for one's own sake - for a reward - but, very simply, because it is right. Not that the early Jews had no concept of reward at all; when being led out of Egypt they were striving towards the "promised land" - but this would not be a reward for themselves in Heaven, but a reward on Earth, for their descendants. This is the sort of world view I would like to emphasize - that mankind has a glorious future on the Earth, and even to the furthest reaches of space, if we don't blow ourselves up first or return to the state of animals; and not for ourselves, but for humanity to come. We may never live to see the day, but if we only take God's Will into our heart, the day will come, because God did not create the world for man to perish.
Thirdly, it has to have authority. The first consequence of that is that it must have a well-defined canon. The content of the canon does not need to be strictly fixed, but there must be a well-defined procedure for changing it, much like a nation's constitution. Also, the status of the canon will not be a set of dogma, but rather, a set of literary works which are considered a useful basis for understanding ethics, the nature of the Universe and of God, and God's relationship with mankind. It is important that any narrative work in the canon is not presented as necessarily literally true, although it may be; indeed some of it is intended as lessons from history.
Another important aspect of authority is antiquity. People have a natural respect for that which is long-standing, if it still holds true to this day. Now this is a difficult one for a new religion, and yet I hope to show that the fundamental ideas within are not new at all, but rather, collated from some very ancient sources. The exact details may be subject to change, of course, but I hope the core principles will remain good. To this end, I will be drawing heavily upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as any other monotheistic religion that comes to mind. I've started reading the Qur'an, and also the Sikh scriptures (and if that's not the same God as the God of the Israelites then call me Dutch and slap me silly). I'll get onto the origins of the God of Israel in my next post, but here's your starter for ten - there is one set of moral principles that runs right through the entire Old Testament:
Psalms (before 400 B.C.)
10:18 "to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.
82:3 "Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute."
Malachi (486-464 B.C.)
3:5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says YHVH of hosts."
Zechariah (~520 B.C.)
7:9-10 "Thus says YHVH of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart."
Ezekiel (~590 B.C.)
22:6-7 "Behold, the princes of Israel in you, every one according to his power, have been bent on shedding blood. Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the sojourner suffers extortion in your midst; the fatherless and the widow are wronged in you."
22:29 "The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice."
Jeremiah (~600 B.C.)
22:3 "Thus says YHVH: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place."
Deuteronomy (~622 B.C.)
10:18 "He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing."
Isaiah (~735 B.C.)
1:17 "learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause."
(English Standard Version, with Tetragrammaton restored)
Now, here we go...
The building of Ninĝirsu's temple (Gudea, cylinders A and B ~2100 B.C.)
1224-1231. "He paid attention to the justice of Nanše and Ninĝirsu. He provided protection for the orphan against the rich, and provided protection for the widow against the powerful. He had the daughter become the heir in the families without a son. A day of justice dawned for him. He set his foot on the neck of evil ones and malcontents."
Code of Ur-Nammu (~2100 B.C.)
"The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm not sure I understand. Are you proposing to design a new religion? If that's the case, then I'd agree with your three points. On the other hand, it's a cynical approach; isn't the purpose of religion Truth? What if God *has* created the world for man to perish, or is utterly unconcerned with man's survival? Will you decide that that's not the God you want to worship and make another one up?
Similarly, regarding believability - if man with his finite wetware monkeybrain can formulate quantum electrodynamics, how impossibly bizarre could God be? It's not necessary, of course, but if you insist on presenting a simplistic God then you're playing to the crowd, not looking for truth.
Yes, that's exactly the idea. And the purpose is Truth - but "material facts" are not the only truths, and simply being true is not sufficient on its own - for truth to be anything but impotent, people have to believe it as well. Of course, we don't have magical access to absolute facts in any case, so we have to do a bit of guesswork. That's where the scientific method comes in. The ultimate purpose of religion is the betterment of mankind; without any sort of truth, that aim is rather difficult to achieve.
Ultimately, of course, God invented Quantum Electrodynamics. "Bizarre" is a bit of a subjective term, as QED doesn't seem all that bizarre to me, but even so, nothing can be impossibly bizarre, because that's impossible. It's more like how abstract God can be, and the answer to that is "very". Playing to the crowd has its place, and isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with truth, but there is a case of priorities there.
God's purpose for the Universe needs a thread of its own. But not the very next one, which I'm just about to write.
This sounds like postmodernism gone loopy. I think I'd better wait to read more, because it seems at the moment that you're planning a popularity contest with the most-followed religion being the truest.
By "the ultimate purpose of religion is the betterment of mankind", I presume you're talking about your religion? It's not true for all specific religions.
In the context of what I said, something could be impossibly bizarre *to our brains*.
I think that is the purpose of religion in general, although all the others might not think so.
I'd hate to suggest popularity was any indication of truth... actually making the world a better place is supposed to be an indication of truth. As opposed to saying so, and then not. A religion that is harmful to humanity IS NOT TRUE if it also teaches that God loves humanity. I've not got round to saying this yet, but that is the only doctrine. Well, after "God exists".
The exact nature of God and his internal workings may well remain a mystery to time indefinite, but I don't think that's important. At least not yet. I will be speculating though.
Post a Comment