Jump to content
BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers
  • 0


plasmid
 Share

Question

Some of you may have noticed the topic on this forum: "A useful religion?" Briefly, the OP observed how widespread religion is across virtually all civilizations, presumably indicating a deep fundamental drive for most people to have a religious experience. If so, then that need ought to be met by a religion that is as benign and perhaps even beneficial as possible. Would any of the current mainstream religions fit the bill, or could something even better be devised? To avoid the cop-out answer of "make everyone be atheist", the OP notes that doing so would be inviting something along the lines of militant jihadists or another Jonestown to take root and fill that religious void.

Well, during the course of our discussions, something quite astonishing happened. Divine intervention as a matter of fact. Our eyes were opened, and the religion of Phronism was outlined. Now we present this new religion for your scrutiny, and invite your insights into what might happen if such a beast were released to the world, and whether further tweaking might produce even more useful results.

For now, I will deliberately present just the doctrine without explaining why each of the facets of the religion was adopted, in an effort to avoid guiding the discussion into any one direction too much.

Briefly: "the Essence" is all of the laws of nature (cause and effect anyway) rolled up into a single, only slightly anthropomorphized thing. Phronism is all about understanding the Essence and using that understanding to "harmonize" with it, which means acting to create a better society. The specifics of how to do this are not laid down in core Phronist doctrine in very detailed terms; instead Phronism will have many different denominations to specify reasonable moral guidelines and to provide many of the trappings of modern religion (meeting for a weekly service, holding weddings and funerals if the denomination adopts those practices, having wise elders you can talk to) in a way palatable to the local circumstances, prevailing customs at the time, and scientific advancements. People are free to choose which denomination they want to associate with, and are instructed in the parables that make up the core doctrine of Phronism to visit other denominations frequently (at least every three years) and choose the one that they find drives them to best harmonize with the Essence (do the most good for society). Initially some of the denominations will likely look quite similar to the current major religions as far as their superficial customs in order to make the transition from current religion to Phronism easier, but they will likely evolve over time because new denominations can spring up and people are required to periodically try out other denominations, which should give them the chance to undergo natural selection.

Phronists are actively encouraged to heed the advice of outsiders who offer sincere advice on what they believe is the best course of action, and are instructed to judge the words of Phronists and outsiders alike based not on who said them but on how much sense they make. Phronism's core doctrine is silent on the existence of God, although the possibility of an omnipotent, omniscient, interventionalist God is excluded and people are encouraged toward action to harmonize with the Essence (improve society) rather than prayer and sacrifices to a God as the path to fulfillment. As for "afterlife", Phronism explicitly says that life as we know it does end with death, but it does describe a different form of existence – a merging back with the Essence that is enjoyed proportionally to how well you harmonized with the Essence during your life.

As for the story behind Phronism: there is a particular era in about 500 BC where religious and philosophical thought was in its heydey. Several great names were around at the time, and trade routes linked the world. The story goes that there was a meeting in the trade city of Samarkand between Diotima of Mantinea (reported by Plato to be a teacher of Socrates), Laozi (father of Taoism), Zoroaster, Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Mahavira (founder of Jainism – part of Hinduism), and someone known as the Seventh Shepherd who has been postulated to be the prophet Malachi after the point at which his writings were no longer considered part of Judeo-Christian canon. It is from this meeting that Phronism emerged. At the time, it could not be practiced as intended because travel between denominations to maintain the flow of ideas proved impractical, and the faiths went their separate ways. However, there is a well known Buddhist prophecy of Maitreya – one who is to come after the teachings of Buddha have been forgotten (we assert that they already have been since Phronism no longer exists and has been wiped clean from all historical records) when the oceans decrease in size so that he can traverse easily (which we interpret as the information age). Maitreya revealed the truth of the Samarkand meeting, and some of the parables from that meeting which serve as essentially the holy text of Phronism are shown below.

We can also reveal one big cosmic secret about Phronism to you: the actual identity of Maitreya. For much of the thread where we were developing Phronism, we were considering something called Uberfaith which we now know is heretical. The point at which we realized the error in our ways was when a humble newcomer questioned our path, and thereby sent us into a re-examination of our direction that ultimately led us to the truth. The name of that person, the actual Maitreya who through subtle action revealed the great truths of Phronism, is of course Bran.

The Seventh Shepherd, on questioning words regardless of the speaker

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Laozi, introducing the Essence

A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God, for you at least know to ask of him. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd describe God to you the other day, or do you know him through some other means? Tell me."

A follower answered, "He spoke the word of God with his voice." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true regardless of their source." Laozi then said, "Is this all you can tell me about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might speak about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not find meaning in. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?"

A third follower answered, "Ancient scripture taught to me declares that God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did the hand that wrote these scriptures come to know that all these things emanated from one great being? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is this 'one' that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You have formed ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were merely given words from a hand in an ancient book, or from the voice of a humble Shepherd. But hear me: things of power must not be named until they may be called by their proper names. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name. Let us call it 'The Essence'. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance. It is what gives breath to a living man and light to his eyes, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, 'The Essence', to you? In council we ponder this deeply. For indeed, the Essence ought to be explained to the people. Let me say simply now, just this: The Essence obeys its own laws - laws that men do not fully comprehend. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors: a goat does not beget a monkey. It is our noblest duty to learn these laws. For if you know how the Essence will act, you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me now, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?"

A follower said, "It is not what I expected; but I thirst for your teaching. Please tell us more about the Essence." Laozi smiled and gazed beyond the horizon, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call this thing of apparent power by its proper name."

Diotima of Mantinea, on the nature of the Essence and rejoining it

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

Mahavira came upon a woman in Samarkand who he found to be weeping, and seeking to comfort her, he asked why she wept. The woman answered that her husband had died, struck down by fever and festering boils, and she was sorrowful over the suffering he faced in his final days. But she wept most of all because, although her husband was a good man, he found little but suffering in this life. "Do you believe, then, that your husband's soul is gone? Far be it from the truth. At the end of the stream of life is a return to the Essence from which life is drawn. Do not grieve if your husband has returned." But the woman continued to lament for she believed that, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

Mahavira asked her, "Was your husband brutal, or a liar, or a thief, or a glutton, or full of avarice?" The woman answered that he was none of these. "Then his existence now with the Essence is free of pain" said Mahavira, "Now tell me: was your husband faithful, and was he wise, and did he conduct himself well at all times?" The woman answered that he was. "Then at the end of his stream of existence here, in his existence with the Essence, is a safe and happy and quiet place." The woman then asked if the man would have eternal life in heaven.

Mahavira paused to consider, and told her "You must understand, your husband is dead. No life is eternal, and his is ended. He is no longer plagued by the desires and fears of life, the pain and pleasure, the hubristic and terrified state of clinging to an identity that must grow, change, and ultimately dissipate. Your husband exists, but he does not live. Now he has a new state of being. If his words and deeds have directed the world onto a better course, so has he directed the essence of himself on a better course. As a school of fish may divide and go where the ocean takes them, so has your husband lost his individuality but gained his true identity, shedding the false one that held him in life. Life makes us individuals, but the true substance of ourselves is not so. Fear, desire and pride make us serve and cling to the individual state, but death takes this from us regardless. When we can release ourselves in life from our attachment to the individual, and embrace the whole, then we may attain Nirvana."

Zoroaster, on how to harmonize with the Essence

The followers were daily learning more about the Essence, and they began to understand that it was no mere idol demanding prayer or sacrifice but a force that is guided by every action they take. Yet the followers still lacked direction to channel their efforts. So as the council dismissed for the day, a group of them approached Zoroaster and asked, "Our actions shape the flow of the Essence and determine how we will ultimately exist with it, do they not?" Zoroaster replied, "Any one person's actions may influence the Essence and thereby affect the world around us, and they will affect both your ultimate existence and your existence now. The Essence should be your partner, your efforts must harmonize with it for you to achieve fulfillment."

"Then Zoroaster, if our actions are so important: how ought we to act?" Zoroaster answered them, "As your existence helps shape the Essence, the Essence shapes the lives of everyone else. The most noble of paths would have the Essence bring the world peace and prosperity, understanding of the world around us, imagination to create works that stir our hearts and minds, courage to explore new paths, and compassion to help our fellow man. Guide the Essence toward this end with your acts, and help others do the same with your speech. Focus your thoughts ever on this goal so that you can see clearly how to achieve it. With these right thoughts, right speech, and right acts, your life can harmonize with the Essence for the betterment of all."

Confucius, on reciprocity of the Essence

Confucius was deep in thought as he walked a road by the fields of Samarkand when a farmer saw him and approached. The farmer came holding another man at knife point and asked Confucius, "You are one of the men of the Phronist council, are you not? I have caught this thief stealing from my fields! How should I punish him in accordance with your faith?" Confucius looked to the thief, "Have you stolen from this man's farm?" "Yes, Confucius, I stole from him. Is this a sin? If so, let your Essence strike me down. I say there is no justice from your Essence. I grew up without my parents and rarely knew the shelter of a house, but what had I done to deserve such a fate while I was just a child? If fairness is not dealt to me then I need not grant it to others. Let your Essence that knows no justice be the one to punish me. It is inept and I fear nothing from it."

"Do you expect that the Essence should watch your every move, pay you promptly for every kind act, and punish all who cross you before they leave your sight? With every evil deed you tarnish yourself, and whether repaid immediately or not, you mark yourself for suffering. Good men are not paid for every act they perform, but by developing noble habits and becoming an honorable person they pave the way to happiness and contentment." Confucius turned to the farmer, "Samarkand has laws. Let the authorities punish this thief."

The thief taunted Confucius, "See, your Essence is powerless to bring justice! You are a fraud, deceiving your followers." Confucius answered the thief, "The Essence flows through everything, including the authorities. How did you expect it to act?" Confucius again turned to the farmer, "Just as the Essence brings punishment to this man for stealing, so this man was a punishment for you. Do the people of Samarkand cast children to the street? Do people of means give no way for those without to be a useful part of their society? If that is the case, you have just faced your own punishment at the hands of the Essence."

Laozi, on responsibility

Laozi was awoken in the night as a farmer barged into his dwelling and began looking for valuables to steal. Surprised but not unsettled, Laozi asked the man what he was doing. "I've come to take whatever I wish," was his reply, "for your friend Confucius told me the other day that I was responsible for a thief stealing my crops. If that is they way you Phronists think, then I will steal from you and the fault will be your own for spreading such teachings."

Laozi remained calm and asked, "By what reasoning did Confucius say that you were responsible for that theft?" The farmer answered, "He said that I gave the thief no way of supporting himself without stealing, and so I was to blame." Laozi then asked the farmer, "Do you have means of supporting yourself without stealing?" The farmer realized that he did not need to steal and he began to see the fault in his actions, but he replied, "That is beside the point. If the thief was sent by the Essence to punish me for Samarkand's society, then so I am sent by the Essence to punish you for the flaws of Phronism. Now go back to sleep and I will take what I please."

To that Laozi answered, "Strike a beast and it will move. Give it a harness and it will move in the direction you wish. It is a wonderful thing to be able to guide so much power and to move without moving at all. Still, any horse would have the sense not to run into a burning fire or jump off a cliff. We all take part in the flow of the Essence. We may attempt to guide it, and it will affect the way that we may act. Just like a horse and rider, so a person and the Essence join forces to make their way through the world. Would you call a horse that jumps off a cliff foolish and deserving of its fate? So too is the person who says that the Essence guided them to act foolishly when they should have known better.

"Now in your case, tell me which way you would go if you did not struggle against the Essence. Does necessity compel you to steal? Where would you expect to find my foot if you were to steal from me? And what did Confucius say to do with the thief that stole from you the other day?" When the farmer recalled what had happened to the thief, he realized that he was still held accountable for his actions. The farmer did not stay to answer but dropped all we was carrying and fled. Laozi returned to sleep without having to use his foot.

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from Phronist gatherings. Drawing nearer, Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Buddha, introducing the denominational system

As the young Phronist faith was taking shape, the followers began to disagree about the proper ways of observing the faith. The Hindu practice of cremating bodies was bewildering to the Egyptians, and the Hellenic sacrifices of cattle were reprehensible to the Hindus. The seven discussed this mounting discord in their council, and Gautama Buddha then addressed the followers:

"You each carry your own traditions, your own scriptures, and your own lessons from past teachers that now shape your beliefs. I submit that you should not rely so heavily on such sources of wisdom. The Essence makes itself manifest, for it is what gives the world its form and its function. Every day we interact with the Essence, and so we each learn about it through our own experiences. This experience will guide you in discerning what practices should be followed. When you know that a practice is good and that it is blameless, follow it. When not only your teachers but many wise men praise a practice, follow it. When a practice leads to the benefit and happiness of yourself and all others while avoiding suffering, follow it.

"Because you come from different lands with different customs, by no means must you all follow the same set of practices. Such practices do not define Phronism itself. They are merely different means of harmonizing with the Essence. For that reason, those of you who have found the practice of arranged marriage to lead to greater harmony than allowing each to find their own spouse should continue to do so as long as this is judged to be wise. Those of you who shun alcohol because of the disharmony it breeds, continue avoiding it as long as this course is judged to be wise. Since different groups of people will find different ways of harmonizing with the Essence, let them each form denominations of Phronism to practice the ways that they have found to be fit. Although each will be different in their own ways, these denominations will all be part of Phronism, united in their dedication to understand the Essence, expand the Actual, and benefit all of humankind."

Later, when these words of the great Buddha reached the people, the master was approached by a follower and questioned. "Revered One, we have learned that Phronists are to form various denominations that are instructed to travel to one another to exchange wisdom and understanding. You have traveled far to come to this council. Men of ordinary means cannot abandon their fields and flocks and make such an epic sojourn. What are we to do?"

The great Buddha heaved a deep sigh. His eyes lifted wistfully toward the sky as he responded. "My child, Phronism is a patient faith. I foresee a day when the teachings of Phronism have been completely forgotten for precisely the reason of the difficulty of our many denominations to stay in contact. But this is as it must be. For it is prophesied that the great Mithra, the Maitreya shall not arrive to provide the true dharma of the Essence until a far day when the oceans seem to have decreased in size such that the true dharma, the knowledge of the Essence of Phronism, may traverse the seas freely. In this time will the revival be readied, and Phronism shall finally flower. Be patient, my son."

Confucius, on selecting a denomination

As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher."

"Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets."

The Seventh Shepherd's closing speech at Samarkand

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, so old practices which accomplish nothing should be shunned. Do not offer up sacrifices of life or belongings, rather use them to aid your fellow man. Do not simply recite rote prayers, rather contemplate on your experiences and expose yourself to new ideas to build your understanding of the Essence. Do not pray for intervention from the Essence, rather act to guide its flow. Do not worship by expressing submission, rather express your oneness with the Essence by living joyously and with humble Acts of Legacy. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something you do well that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

It is fit that there be many denominations of Phronism, for not all people are alike, and diversity helps humanity flourish. The denominations shall each have their own customs and ways of harmonizing with the Essence. As it is important for people to each find their unique role in the harmony of the Essence, it is imperative for them to visit other denominations from time to time and experience their ways, and thus find their place in the world. As it is important to have many denominations, so it is important to have people outside Phronism who can view it objectively and dispassionately. Outsiders that understand the world through mankind's endeavors are to be welcomed, for they offer a unique perspective and often seek to advance humanity as the followers do. But beware if outsiders bring ideas that are based not on reason but on unsubstantiated beliefs such as gods, for these may be illusions of human imaginations that guide the way to decay. Likewise, do not accept teachings about an omnipotent, omniscient God, for such beliefs beget a mind geared for servitude rather than questioning and understanding the motives and consequences of your actions.

Human understanding of the Essence is a never ending quest requiring the joint efforts of many, and humanity's understanding should be reviewed from time to time. Phronist councils should take place to review what is known, and when a more complete description of the Essence becomes clear it will be shared with the followers. The council must also evaluate whether people's practices truly guide the Essence to positively affect people's lives. If denominations need to be altered to harmonize with the Essence, they will be so instructed, or will be excluded from Phronism if they cannot harmonize. The council will evaluate new denominations and determine whether they harmonize with the Essence, and will admit those that do into Phronism and allow them to participate in the council.

Q: What is Phronism?

A: Phronism is the pursuit of truth, the balance of chaos and order, the harmony of man, mind, Earth and Essence. Phronists value rational thought and imaginative intellect to expand their understanding of the Actual and Potential states of the Universe in order to harmonize with what we call the Essence.

Q: What is the Essence?

A: The Essence is our spiritual path: our journey into the realms beyond understanding. It is what binds humans to the great mysteries of life and existence. The Essence consists of the Actual (what men have come to understand through our many millenia of truth seeking) and the Potential (the great sea of undiscovered reality that surrounds us). Phronism encourages a vigorous pursuit of the rational understanding of the Potential while at the same time celebrating its sheer, awe-inspiring depth and complexity.

Q: Besides that, what do Phronists believe?

A: Phronism is about the belief of a current of insight, wonder and life that flows through the universe. Understanding this Essence and becoming one with it is our primary mantra. Phronists believe in the innate spirit of arisen life and its meaning within this inevitable existence we call the universe. We believe in responsibility for one's actions and the mutual ability of mankind to positively advance society and humanity. We find no evidence for afterlife (survival of consciousness after death) but rather we anticipate a blissful reconnection with the eternal Essence, losing one's identity in lieu of the greater mutual braid of the universe. We believe in no gods but rather the collective social force of mankind, of species in general, of life in general, of the Earth, of the Universe, of Nature, of the Essence. We believe that recipricocity is built into the universe at all levels, reflecting itself on the macroscopic scale of our daily lives with a karma-esque permeation within life and a ripple effect similar to what you might know as the 'golden-rule', or the 'moral circle'. We believe that everyday small positive actions can build into extremely good results.

Q: How is it different from other religions?

A: Phronism is perhaps the only 'benign' religion. By this we mean that it does not judge, suppress, belittle or restrict the human spirit, but enables, sustains and nurtures it. Phronism flows as does the Essence, constantly adapting to the shifting moral zeitgeist, sensibilities of the times, scientific advancements, social advancements, etc. It has a fluid, open structure that naturally engenders its own evolution. It has limited central leadership and no basis for corruption, infighting, religious zeal/extremism or crusadism. It values the role of nonbelievers. It appreciates the insights and views of all members, and gives total freedom to its members to change around within and out of the system. It tries to take up as little time and energy as possible away from the lives of its adherents. It promotes a full, happy, opportunistic life. It is open to new ideas and opens its member's minds to think about everything around them and to learn more about themselves, their friends and the universe. Phronism found its roots at the dawn of human self-awareness. It re-affirms the original meaning an purpose of religion: to re-connect the people with one another and with every level of reality from the parochial to the Essence. It extends beyond religion to being a true World Philosophy.

Q: What are the goals, mission, vision?

A: The goal of Phronists is to harmonize with the Essence: this does not entail mindless worship but rather expansive thinking, finding oneself and looking objectively at your own mind to better serve yourself and the greater good. The mission of the Phronism movement is to appreciate and expand and positively influence the collective Humanity. And its vision is a world free of tyrant religions, a world free of ignorance, a world free of unfulfilled lives. A world full of breathtaking Potential and a world full of virtuous Actual... a world, a planet, a people, all harmonized with the Essence.

Q: What is the backstory of Phronism?

A: About 2500 years ago, in a year known as 0 PE (Phronist Era), religious leaders from all over the world flocked to a central, secret location. Sacrificial priests from the jungle ziggurats met with Greek philosophers. Buddhist cave meditators came and shook hands with icy shamans from the North. These influential figures had one thing in common: they existed in a time broiling with conflict, discovery, internationalization and religious action. They would have considerable impact on the next two and half thousand years of philosophy and theology... and these figures were fed up with the problems that were developing within their religions: political corruption, infighting, increase in ritual in lieu of true faith. The council was held in secret, with 7 members most esteemed. You can read more about the details of this world conference in other Phronist material as well as the parables left behind by these ancient freethinkers, but the First Council was rumored to have occurred in Samarkand along the Spice Trade routes. These masters of thought discussed many things and imparted many important and timeless ethical lessons, as well as exchanged ideas which would shape their religions when they returned home from the conference. However, Phronism suffered a major setback: due to the culture gap of customs and languages, the leaders went their separate ways shortly after the conclusion of the Council, taking their separate denominations in different paths without enough contact. The world was not yet internationalized enough to allow for the members to interchange denominations which is a Phronism key focus. Thus, Phronism lost its name to the tides of time, as per the Buddhist prophecy of Matriyema (sp?), but the ideas remained, spread out throughout history among the works of the great. Aristotle built on the virtues discussed, expanding various ones discussed at the Council such as Prudence and Moderation. But the name and central ideas of Phronism went into hibernation, lost to history, until a time when the world could become internationalized enough for these ideas to reconnect. Recently there has been a resurgence of Phronism due to the information age and the free flow of people and ideas across the world. In our modern society, Phronism has a chance to flourish and take root to make this universe a better place.

Q: So what are these denomination thingies?

A: Phronism is like the Essence in that it is the sum of the streams that make it up, the denominations, but also defines these streams. There are numerous denominations, and making one is a simple matter. They live, thrive and die according to a sort of memetic evolution process based on member count (anyone can join and anyone can switch around freely - in fact it's strongly encouraged to "shop around" and change to find the denomination that suits your tastes). Denominations have certain foci and ideas, and different places of meeting and interpretation of ethics and other issues (however they must adhere to the "core doctrine" concepts of Phronism), and thus the denominational scene changes over time to reflect the changes in the mindset of society. There is an annual council that discusses, debates and approves the denominations. You can read more about it and denominations in general in other Phronist material (just like anything else briefly touched upon in this FAQ).

Q: Why do you value the role of nonbelievers in society?

A: This is an important aspect of Phronism because no single perspective can fully grasp the Essence. The more viewpoints we see the truth from, the more we can discern it. Often an outsider to any religion can offer insightful input on the inner workings of said religion and its beliefs. Unlike other religions, Phronism understands and respects this and uses it to its full advantage by both supporting and being supported by these nonbelievers.

Q: Are Phronists' views on ethics similar to those of Moral Relativists'?

A: Yes and No. On a metalevel, Phronism as a whole endorses a variety of moral standards due to the unique denominational system. Since these denominations change with the times, then yes, overall, Phronism's ethical beliefs are similar to Moral Relativism's. However, an individual Phronist is part of a denomination, which are much more specific ethics-wise than the general assertions of the Phronism core doctrine. So it can be different for each Phronist, depending on the denomination they adhere to, which in turn reflect their own personal moral compasses. Ergo, Phronism is similar morally to Moral Relativism, but in a more organized way.

Procedural details have not yet been worked out, but the idea is to have an annual meeting of denomination representatives to conduct business, including evaluating groups who want to establish a new denomination within Phronism. The path to forming a new denomination starts with simply putting up a shingle (so to speak) and getting people meeting, then beginning to invite people from established Phronist denominations to come visit (they're supposed to be visiting other denominations every once in a while anyway), and finally appearing at an annual council and ask to have the people who visited evaluate whether or not you're a suitable denomination.

The council will also evaluate the current denominations and offer input on whether or not changes to their practices should be considered. If offenses are considered very egregious with no realistic prospect for reconciliation, the council can decide to expel a denomination from Phronism and no longer encourage people to visit it. Changes may even be made to the interpretation of the core Phronist doctrine if a large enough percentage of the denominations support it.

post-15489-12466689124117.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Hahaha. Okay, that sounds more like a religion then. ;) I'm in. :D

Oh, randomish question. Can Phronism's doctrine include something about how the Essence is, mostly, good, so we should be allowed, legally, to ingest whatever happens to grow/we can produce? ...;D? >_>

I believe that would fall under personal choice, which Phronism puts no limits on. Keep in mind that separation of church and state is a major facet of Phronism.

I find it curious that you, of all people, would suggest an attempt to use religion as justification for illegal and/or socially unacceptable activities, even if in jest.

Okay, there are some more problems. The first being, well, atheists, as of so far, are all free thinkers who question authority already. You can't tell an atheist what to think (though you can advise) because they already think for themselves. What we would need for this religion to work is a massive amount of atheists who jump on, and curious theists. The atheists are there to be there, because there is strength in numbers, and the sense of "Hey, everyone's doing it, me being the theist that doesn't question anything, this must be right!". The theists are the ones who NEED to be told what to think (because, as the evidence shows, they aren't capable of doing so for themselves. ;) ) ...So, we have to make sure not to advertise this as atheism, or the theists will be like "gmoz, nooo, gawd!".

Brainwash is still brainwash though... even if it is in OUR favor.

Phronism was never meant to be a "religion for atheists". Rather, it is a religion that is non theistic. It is for atheists who feel like they need something more, and for theists who have become disenchanted with the status quo of their respective faith.

As for brainwashing... if the masses are milling about yearning to be brainwashed, shouldn't it be something as benign as possible, rather than some new Jonestown tragedy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Okay, I'm down with this. Getting actual followers that NEED to be guided is still a total challenge though.

I doubt starting successful new religion has ever been easy. The key will be finding that charismatic figure head that people will be naturally drawn to, for initial exposure. Then it's up to the doctrine and internal leadership to convert and retain. Typical religion stuff, I imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I believe that would fall under personal choice, which Phronism puts no limits on. Keep in mind that separation of church and state is a major facet of Phronism.

I find it curious that you, of all people, would suggest an attempt to use religion as justification for illegal and/or socially unacceptable activities, even if in jest.

This is more of a personal philosophy to me than a religion (let it be whatever to everyone else), so I don't feel bad using it as a means to justify whatever. Though, for this, I don't care HOW I get my rights, I just want them. I want the freedom to do with myself that is promised in the American Constitution. As of now, it doesn't exist, go figure. And hey, religions (namely Christianity) have been pretty successful at getting their ways, however stupid. Yeah, I'm sick of it. There should be a total abolition of church, and if that can't happen, a COMPLETE separation of church and state. That's not going to happen any time soon, so if I can't put out the fire, I'll play with it. ;)

I was only half-joking..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
This is more of a personal philosophy to me than a religion (let it be whatever to everyone else), so I don't feel bad using it as a means to justify whatever. Though, for this, I don't care HOW I get my rights, I just want them. I want the freedom to do with myself that is promised in the American Constitution. As of now, it doesn't exist, go figure. And hey, religions (namely Christianity) have been pretty successful at getting their ways, however stupid. Yeah, I'm sick of it. There should be a total abolition of church, and if that can't happen, a COMPLETE separation of church and state. That's not going to happen any time soon, so if I can't put out the fire, I'll play with it. ;)

I was only half-joking..

Joking aside, Phronism isn't a suitable vehicle for overriding the law of the land, nor should it be. I agree that church and state should be completely separate, and although this is not explicitly stated in the Phronist doctrine, our general policy of respect for opinions outside the church lends itself to this (and the Confucius teaching shows that Phronists accept the value of the law). Your specific issue is a matter of law and it isn't the place of religion to intervene. Yes, religions have been successful at dictating and even defying law in the past, but Phronism is designed as a religion for the future, in which there is no place for that. However, Phronism would be conducive to greater open-mindedness in lawmaking (which is currently dictated far too much by other religions). This would help your cause if it is a truly worthy one (big "if").
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I'm actually quite pleased to see that an atheist thinks that Phronism is just telling people to do what a good atheist would do, without even considering it to be a full-blown religion. That tells me that it might be a Good thing.

Regarding the question of whether Phronism is a religion or a philosophy: I'm more concerned with how it would work in practice. If you were a Phronist, would you want to be a part of a traditional religion as well? If you were the type of person who wanted to be involved in a religion, then would Phronism fit the bill? If the answers are no and yes respectively, then for all practical purposes Phronism would accomplish what is intended, and whether or not you want to call it a religion or a philosophy seems little more than an academic exercise.

As far as drugs, Phronist doctrine would encourage listening to people who know what they're talking about and who offer advice that they genuinely believe is in your best interest. Marijuana is to my knowledge mostly harmless, aside from the legal and social problems it could get you into. I suggest weighing whether or not getting high is really worth running the risk of getting into legal trouble. Maybe it is. But please don't drive when you're high. I'm also not aware of any widely accepted long term consequences of LSD, although you definitely would want to make sure you're in an environment where a bad trip won't have serious consequences. Cocaine, meth, vitamin X and the like are more dangerous. Coke can cause seizures, brain hemorrhages, and a combination of coronary artery spasm with a high heart rate and work load that can potentially give you a full-blown heart attack. Even worse, if you show up in an ER with an MI and deny having done coke, then one of the standard drugs we give to people having heart attacks can interact with cocaine to actually worsen the spasms. When you see thirty-year-olds having heart attacks, cocaine's usually to blame (not teenagers collapsing on a basketball court – that's from something else). As for heroin... geez, just look at a junkie. FUBAR. You really don't want that. But if you do decide to, then at least use clean needles so you don't give yourself HIV or hepatitis or endocarditis.

But back on topic, suppose people did start practicing Phronism. Would they be the type of people you would want to have in your neighborhood? Would their practices be sustainable, or would Phronism be doomed to spiral into decay until it's nothing more than a bunch of intolerant idiots listening to televangelists? Are there ways we could tweak it to make it better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I want to put my 2¢ in about the drug issue. Many drugs are dangerous, and deadly, and corrosive for society. But just as many are natural and generally safe (for example, the only long term effect of regular nitrous oxide inhalation is a Vitamin B-12 deficiency which can be overcome with vitamin boosts; psylocibin (sp?) mushrooms aka "shrooms" are generally regarded as "healthy and natural" as long as you don't get a poisonous one; etc) and seem to be illegal just for the hell of it. And drugs like MDMA generally tend to be dangerous because of bad stuff like meth laced in... which wouldn't happen if it was legalized and sold by reputable companies or governments.

What I'm saying is, I think it's a mixed bag with drugs, when you consider it from a legal and philosophical standpoint. I am pretty much vehemently against anything highly addictive like cigarettes, heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. Even the people that do those drugs generally tend to wish they had never started, since it ruins your life. It should be illegal and philosophically frowned on. It's bad for the human and for the society.

As for the more-healthy drugs, I think the government needs to step back a little. If it's healthy (even acid is healthier by a million than alcohol) and non-addictive, and if you're not dealing it to minors, I don't think it's the government's business what you put in your body.

And many religions, like or not, have certain drugs associated with them. Native American shamans do "peyote", and the government legalized it for them... it just goes to show that church and state are still not entirely separated.

Anyway, in a nutshell, I don't think Phronism should have an official stance one way or the other, and if a denomination wants to make that a centric of its "worship", then by all means. Phronism is about religious freedom after all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Unreality, you essentially took the words out of my mouth.

Regarding MDMA, I have a friend who's been using it monthly for the last 10 years. He just had an MRI done at some university because he's taking part in a study. The findings were that his brain function wasn't significantly lower than someone who hadn't done any drugs. (He's done a lot of drugs, so it's not only the MDMA effecting his brain.) My response to that was "Well, it IS lower." Yeah, sure, that comes along with drug use. But he doesn't have any brain damage, and this dude is still smarter than 95% of the people out there, so it's not like it makes a difference. Though, personally I think the faintly lower brain function was do to the massive amounts of ethanol he's been known to consume, not the actual MDMA. Annnnnyway. Ecstasy is only crap when it's Ecstasy. If you get the pure stuff (which, bleh, is actually kinda hard to get nowadays, unless you make it yourself or know someone who does), chances are, you'll be alright. There are loads of sites with pillreports to help you be safe. A while back there was an incident where this one guy passed off blue guns as good MDMA when it was actually meth, so some people tried it, and the dude totally got it the next day. These people know. Invest in a testing kit if you're not sure about the quality of your stuff. Only a few dozen people in the history of EVER have died from stuff cops SUSPECT was related to MDMA usage. Bleh.

Mushrooms are legal in Florida. ;D Again, biggest threat here is false identification. Websites like the Shroomery exist to help with that. It also helps to hunt with people who know the area. Or, just buy spores online. That's legal. (I think they're only legal to grow wildly because they're so difficult to eradicate, so, haha, trespassing would probably be your biggest problem when gathering. But hey, buy spores, grow your own, no problem. ;D)

When regards to addiction, remember that's it's different for each person. Said guy above can handle cocaine really well but is crap with opiates. He has a friend who's the opposite. Some people get addicted to McDonalds (as seen in SuperSize me, it actually is psychologically and physically addicting), but if we aren't going to limit when a person can and can't eat there, why the hell do it with drugs? It's my RIGHT to 'pollute' my body. It's my RIGHT to CHOOSE how I want to pollute my body. I personally couldn't care less about chocolate and hot dogs. I like.. other things. Why? I don't know. It's personal preference. I don't care if people frown on that. I don't care if this is a totally taboo subject. It shouldn't be.

And yeah, ethanol is really really really really really bad for you. Why is it legal while pot isn't? Don't ask me. Pot shouldn't be illegal if cigs aren't, as the only threat there is lung cancer. LSD shouldn't be illegal if hypnosis (let's pretend it's real for a sec...) isn't. What's LSD? Well, it alters your mind.

Meh meh meh meh meh.

I want a psychedelic denomination. I'm not saying I encourage drug use. I'm not saying I discourage it. I demand the freedom to do whatever I want with my own body, regardless of age. All I can say about safety is already in my sig. Know your body, know your mind, know your substance, know your source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

[clor=purple]btw, and jsutjgonna point this out jw ow cos it seems like a good time to do so. ethanol sucks. kids evertywehre are RUINING THEIR BRIANS beaceuse its too much of an inconceineve/difficult to get better stuf than aclohol all the time. people under 21 steal from they're prentea bar. if drugs were 'norma' and parents kept that studs in the hosue instead, then hell, no rpboems. better world. just saying.

okay. phtronism . basically, i dont cerae who my enighbros are as lon gas they arent exstremists. id rather have a phronist than a christian, but taht sdoeont mean phronitss will always be better than christians. ill like you mor e if your atheist, cos im shallow lkiek that, but that doesnt mean your better. well, it does. but it doenst. not always. if you know what i mena? yeah.

i dont want meetings. not like, mandatory onces. thats lame. alos. haha. nv,. il post again in a few hoursa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

[clor=purple]btw, and jsutjgonna point this out jw ow cos it seems like a good time to do so. ethanol sucks. kids evertywehre are RUINING THEIR BRIANS beaceuse its too much of an inconceineve/difficult to get better stuf than aclohol all the time. people under 21 steal from they're prentea bar. if drugs were 'norma' and parents kept that studs in the hosue instead, then hell, no rpboems. better world. just saying.

okay. phtronism . basically, i dont cerae who my enighbros are as lon gas they arent exstremists. id rather have a phronist than a christian, but taht sdoeont mean phronitss will always be better than christians. ill like you mor e if your atheist, cos im shallow lkiek that, but that doesnt mean your better. well, it does. but it doenst. not always. if you know what i mena? yeah.

i dont want meetings. not like, mandatory onces. thats lame. alos. haha. nv,. il post again in a few hoursa.

hmmmmmmm ...

Well, do you want a chemical telling your brain what to do or a benign religion?

My point: using *is* a religion, often a powerful one, often far less benign.

I'd rather have a fundamentalist Christian as a neighbor than a druggie.

This from an original hippie--60's drug user who went through the whole scene. Tried everything but heroin.

The root word for 'religion' is "re-connect", as in bringing people together. Phronism is a noble effort to bring folk to a common ground for common good - good that extends beyond the boundaries of Phronism itself - good that denies that Phronism *has* boundaries. Drug use is one of those old-fashioned religions that binds you with a little group (like-minded, like-mind-altered), but leads you to drift away from many others who care about you. It's sad to see people drift off like that. You don't see the connections you're losing. When I was your age I didn't either. But I got old. Old people realize at some point: "well, it's not about me any more, it's not about what thrill *I* experience inside my individual head -- I'll be back floating amid the Essence pretty soon." That's when you begin to really sense the subtle, essentially universal inter-connectedness. It's about the world as a collective place and trying to evolve it to make it better. No mandatory meetings -- just ones that are there when you want them - connections that are *always* there, and always have been, patiently waiting for you to tap into the wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I agree with what seeksit says about drug use isolating you and affecting thinking in ways that are far from obvious at the time, I've seen that a lot. Even milder stuff like pot really seems to have a long term effect on your perception, and in my experience users have a lot of denial about that. That said, I don't think it should be illegal, just strongly discouraged. As a matter of principle I think we should have choice, and besides, prohibition is not effective, the fact is that we do have that choice. There are better ways to moderate drug use, like education and taxation.

Can we get back on topic soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Ideally we'd like people from this forum to ask a few searching questions. Izzy's made a good start but I don't know if she wants to continue.

I still thing it's worth sticking it on RD. I personally am not in a hurry 'cos I'm off on my travels and you won't see much of me 'til September. Have a nice summer everybody!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Drug use isn't a religion any more than playing sports is. Yes, you can get 'religious' with it, just like sports fanatics, but that's drug abuse. Difference. ...But that sounds weird saying I wanted a psychedelic religion. Umm. I don't want it to revolve around drugs, but drug use incorporated into special ceremonies and whatever, for those who want to, would be fun. We could be like The Hive (seeksit, remember that one?). :D

Umm. I can't really think of any other questions (it'll be on my mind though). The 'religion' makes sense. It will do a lot of good, granted it takes off.

Edited by Izzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

That's the other problem, the 'taking off' bit. We've already established that we need some kind of charismatic figure to spearhead the public movement, but do you have any suggestions as to how to make it a publicized religion?

Personally, I think that if we make a big deal out of it with a big spokesperson and movements and advertisements and just "leap out of the shadows" roaring, it will make a big splash, a big sensation, and then die off into anonymity fairly quickly.

IMO, introducing it to the public would need to be a gradual process, maybe over a 20-year period or so. We would start by insinuating the ideas, the concepts, the backstories, implanting little gems of thought and history into the populace, inserting it into society slowly. The name "Phronism" wouldn't even come up until much later in the process, by the time the background ideas aren't so alien, and that when the religon emerges as true and real, it has sufficient backstory and buildup to be taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This is my first post on Brainden and it doesn't seem to like me. My post keeps getting shorter every time I have to retype it though this time I've learned my lesson and will copy it first. My question is how could a morally relativistic religion claim to strive for good? How can you define what's good? This seems to have already cropped up in your discussion on drugs. Some might hold personal freedom to be the highest good while others might think order and safety are more necessary. I don't really want to restart the conversation on drugs I just use that as an example of the types of problems that will arise. Good is subjective and if it is not subjectively decided by a higher authority (i.e. God or the writers of the constitution) to become an objective fact, then it can't be defined as a goal. Suicide bombers would probably tell you they are working for the "good" of mankind. This might have come up in creating Phronism and if you have a solution to this problem I'd love to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Just throwing thoughts around here, but maybe we could create some sort of spreadsheet with different criteria for judging something, and give it a raw score of 'goodness'. The criteria can be at the top, with the ideas along the side. Sort of like this:

Beneficial to.................... me ...... other people ..... animals...... easy to do? ..... cost efficient? ... TOTAL

1. Donating to cancer research... 7 ...........8.................3...............10................5............33

2. Bombing the UK ...............0............2..................0...............2.................1............5

3. Farming.......................9............9..................7...............6.................8...........39

4. Buying a new TV .............5............2..................0...............3................2............12

The scale is out of 10, and the higher the score the 'better' the idea. By better, I mean, has a greater positive impact on mankind. 1 and 3 are very important, 3 actually crucial for our survival, so they have higher scores. 4 is a selfish act, so overall not that great (not saying people shouldn't do what they want with their money, but that one of the goal's of Phronism shouldn't be to buy me a TV :P), and 2 is just evil, so that's why they have lower scores. It isn't perfect. It's slightly biased. The beneficial to 'me' category could probably be changed... but it's a good way to get a grasp on the difference between good and bad ideas.

Iklop, Freedom vs. Order and Safety (and similar disputes) can be solved by the different denominations. Though I do think we should have some consensus on where Phronism itself actually stands. I like the pagan idea of "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." (Include the right to hurt yourself.) This ensures freedom and safety, and a sense of order will be maintained anyway, because the government does that for us. If we drift into an anarchic state, which we won't, then meh. Maybe it needed to be done? Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
This is my first post on Brainden and it doesn't seem to like me. My post keeps getting shorter every time I have to retype it though this time I've learned my lesson and will copy it first. My question is how could a morally relativistic religion claim to strive for good? How can you define what's good? This seems to have already cropped up in your discussion on drugs. Some might hold personal freedom to be the highest good while others might think order and safety are more necessary. I don't really want to restart the conversation on drugs I just use that as an example of the types of problems that will arise. Good is subjective and if it is not subjectively decided by a higher authority (i.e. God or the writers of the constitution) to become an objective fact, then it can't be defined as a goal. Suicide bombers would probably tell you they are working for the "good" of mankind. This might have come up in creating Phronism and if you have a solution to this problem I'd love to hear it.
Ooh. Welcome to the den!

(I know I'm not supposed to be here, but it's a good question)

We've tried to steer clear of defining exactly what "good" is, as that has been one of the major flaws of previous religions. The general social notion of "good" tends to develop over time and if your religion has it set in stone, that's going to be a problem. One of the key ideas behind Phronism is that we create a central doctrine which controls the development of the religion, but leave the specifics (ie. moral teachings) to the denominations. Of course there are some aspects of "good" in which we have sufficient confidence to place them in the core doctrine, stuff like "live joyously", "Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie". We've tried to anticipate the major problems (like suicide bombers thinking they are doing good) and making it clear enough to rule out that kind of behaviour. But where it gets a bit uncertain, we leave it to the denominations. We encourage followers to be open minded to others' opinions and to experience other denominations. In this way, people will make educated choices between denominations and hopefully favour the ones which are getting it right. The idea is to leave it as an open debate, and create the right circumstances for this to move in a positive direction.

This is certainly one of the areas where we need to think hard about whether we've got it right. There's a delicate balance to be struck in the core doctrine, between giving enough moral guidance to drive Phronism in the right direction, and giving it sufficient room to adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This is my first post on Brainden and it doesn't seem to like me. My post keeps getting shorter every time I have to retype it though this time I've learned my lesson and will copy it first. My question is how could a morally relativistic religion claim to strive for good? How can you define what's good? This seems to have already cropped up in your discussion on drugs. Some might hold personal freedom to be the highest good while others might think order and safety are more necessary. I don't really want to restart the conversation on drugs I just use that as an example of the types of problems that will arise. Good is subjective and if it is not subjectively decided by a higher authority (i.e. God or the writers of the constitution) to become an objective fact, then it can't be defined as a goal. Suicide bombers would probably tell you they are working for the "good" of mankind. This might have come up in creating Phronism and if you have a solution to this problem I'd love to hear it.

Really good question, iklop. It's true that being able to tell which actions will lead to the greater good is difficult if you don't define exactly what the greater good is. Most religions lay down a set of commandments to guide behavior, and like octopuppy said we did that in only the most general terms. But I would assert that despite their claims of divine guidance, even the other religions actually DON'T define what good is. Not in any practical way, at least. They claim that God has sent clear instructions from on high in the form of their holy texts, but people's interpretations of those texts have been so wildly different that in practice they have offered no guidance at all – just look at the Southerners who used the Bible to support slavery, or the Jihadists who use Islam to support suicide bombings.

But just because other religions don't offer great guidance is no excuse for us not to. Deciding which course of action is best for humanity is potentially very complex, and the best we can do is have the brightest available minds take on each question as it arises and see if they can come to a consensus. The yearly councils could decide if any denominations are so out of line that they need to either straighten up and fly right or be booted from Phronism. If it's not so clear-cut, then let each denomination take whichever approach seems best and "run the experiment" of taking that path; then visitors to the denomination can see what happened when they took that approach and decide if it's right. Granted, it might be a hard call to tell what is really "best" for the world, but hopefully people are generally wise enough to be able to make the call on which of two options are better if they see the results, and if it's still a tough call then the two options might be about equal.

Advantages of Phronism over other religions are that 1) questions of right and wrong can be decided given the current situation rather than having to be specified by us founders in an era that might completely change over time, and 2) everyone knows that no one is carrying the word of God... if you say that suicide bombing is the way to go, then you'll have to be able to explain why that would make humanity better, you can't just say that Phronism compels you and you'd better not question it. (That kind of stuff should be weeded out by the yearly councils though.) It's not perfect because it does depend on people using their own fallible judgement to decide what's right, but it still seemed better than us trying to write rules that would fit any situation. Even "do not kill" might not have been great guidance during World War II.

That's the reasoning we went with. Do you think there are some specific things that we need to spell out more clearly as being right or wrong in the core Phronist doctrine, rather than leaving it up to yearly councils and individual denominations? If so, we can certainly consider them.

Edited by plasmid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
...Granted, it might be a hard call to tell what is really "best" for the world, but hopefully people are generally wise enough to be able to make the call on which of two options are better if they see the results, and if it's still a tough call then the two options might be about equal...

...It's not perfect because it does depend on people using their own fallible judgement to decide what's right, but it still seemed better than us trying to write rules that would fit any situation. Even "do not kill" might not have been great guidance during World War II...

Ack! I do so hate quoting out of context like that.

The first step in the evolution of Phronism was identifying the common traits of popular religions. We had to decide what was necessary to constitute a religion, what could be used even if it wasn't, and what just had to go. A "Rules of Conduct" list is present in all major religions. Unfortunately, the ambiguous and subjective ideas of good vs. evil and right vs. wrong make these guidelines very difficult to define, as iklop says.

Fortunately, humans are social animals. Our primal instincts tell us it's better to be helpful and cooperative with each other for the survival of the species. We're hard wired to be "good" and to do the "right" thing, as a general rule, or else we wouldn't have near the over crowding problems that we currently do. Logically, if it were OK to murder, humanity would have been wiped out ages ago.

The same goes for environmental responsibility, familial loyalty, etc. Our DNA tells us we should protect those things and ideals that got us here in the first place.

What Phronism does is gives the "follower"(I really don't like that word for Phronists, it has a "sheep" vibe to it. Too bad "Participant" has no romance to it... but I digress.) the same basic guidelines of other religions, but within a framework that leaves room for influence from current social and cultural paradigms.

The catch is exactly what iklop pointed out. This same self preservation instinct could be easily used to justify things like slavery, genocide, televangelists... you get the idea. Thats why there is no final "version" of Phronism.

Enough for now, the little one needs me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This is my first post on Brainden and it doesn't seem to like me. My post keeps getting shorter every time I have to retype it though this time I've learned my lesson and will copy it first. My question is how could a morally relativistic religion claim to strive for good? How can you define what's good? This seems to have already cropped up in your discussion on drugs. Some might hold personal freedom to be the highest good while others might think order and safety are more necessary. I don't really want to restart the conversation on drugs I just use that as an example of the types of problems that will arise. Good is subjective and if it is not subjectively decided by a higher authority (i.e. God or the writers of the constitution) to become an objective fact, then it can't be defined as a goal. Suicide bombers would probably tell you they are working for the "good" of mankind. This might have come up in creating Phronism and if you have a solution to this problem I'd love to hear it.

Great input, iklop. One of our important historical mentors, Aristotle, addressed a wise approach to defining good that he called "phronesis". That Greek root word inspired us to name the religion after it.

I think it is worthwhile to re-post Aristotle's relevant writing on this subject. His writings elevated the concept of phronesis to the level of probably the highest of the four classic (cardinal) virtues. The word is rather humbly translated as "prudence", but see the wikipedia page on phronesis, and also read what Aristotle himself had to say about this virtue (From his Nicomachean Ethics, Book 6):

V. [1] We may arrive at a definition of Prudence by considering who are the persons whom we call prudent. Now it is held to be the mark of a prudent man to be able to deliberate well about what is good and advantageous for himself, not in some one department, for instance what is good for his health or strength, but what is advantageous as a means to the good life in general.

[2] This is proved by the fact that we also speak of people as prudent or wise in some particular thing, when they calculate well with a view to attaining some particular end of value (other than those ends which are the object of an art); so that the prudent man in general will be the man who is good at deliberating in general.

[3] But no one deliberates about things that cannot vary, nor about things not within his power to do. Hence inasmuch as scientific knowledge involves demonstration, whereas things whose fundamental principles are variable are not capable of demonstration, because everything about them is variable,

and inasmuch as one cannot deliberate about things that are of necessity, it follows that Prudence is not the same as Science. Nor can it be the same as Art. It is not Science, because matters of conduct admit of variation; and not Art, because doing and making are generically different, since making aims at an end distinct from the act of making, whereas in doing the end cannot be other than the act itself: doing well is in itself the end.

[4] It remains therefore that it is a truth-attaining rational quality, concerned with action in relation to things that are good and bad for human beings.

[5] Hence men like Pericles are deemed prudent, because they possess a faculty of discerning what things are good for themselves and for mankind and that is our conception of an expert in Domestic Economy or Political Science.

(This also accounts for the word Temperance, which signifies ‘preserving prudence.’ [6] And Temperance does in fact preserve our belief as to our own good; for pleasure and pain do not destroy or pervert all beliefs, for instance, the belief that the three angles of a triangle are, or are not, together equal to two right angles, but only beliefs concerning action. The first principles of action are the end to which our acts are means; but a man corrupted by a love of pleasure or fear of pain, entirely fails to discern any first principle, and cannot see that he ought to choose and do everything as a means to this end, and for its sake; for vice tends to destroy the sense of principle.)

It therefore follows that Prudence is a truth-attaining rational quality, concerned with action in relation to the things that are good for human beings.

[7] Moreover, we can speak of excellence in Art, but not of excellence in Prudence. Also in Art voluntary error is not so bad as involuntary, whereas in the sphere of Prudence it is worse, as it is in the sphere of the virtues. It is therefore clear that Prudence is an excellence or virtue, and not an Art.

[8] Of the two parts of the soul possessed of reason, Prudence must be the virtue of one, namely, the part that forms opinions ; for Opinion deals with that which can vary, and so does Prudence. But yet Prudence is not a rational quality merely, as shown by the fact that a purely rational faculty can be forgotten, whereas a failure in Prudence is not a mere lapse of memory.

-----------------------------

One of the things that a complete but succinct summary of Phronism needs is a one sentence explanation of the origin of the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I particularly like the end of that third paragraph:

It ["phronesis" aka Prudence] is not Science, because matters of conduct admit of variation; and not Art, because doing and making are generically different, since making aims at an end distinct from the act of making, whereas in doing the end cannot be other than the act itself: doing well is in itself the end.

also,

As for the origin of the word, the root phron at this link, and that evolved into "Phronism".

The link attributes the root word to:

* "having understanding; being wise and prudent"

* "to intend to do something or have purpose doing something"

* "to comprehend; to be sensible; to be alive; to be in high-spirits"

So we can connect it back through Aristotle and even farther by saying something like:

"The word Phronism originates from an ancient Greek root word meaning to think, act, and live with purpose... it morphed into the word phronesis as used by Aristotle to denote a Virtue of highest regard, attributed to wise thinking and rational understanding of the world"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...