[plasmid]

I'm curious about non-theist opinions on this matter, but theists are of course invited to participate and provide illumination as well. The almost universal development of religion in some form or other across many different cultures seems to indicate that there is a deep underlying drive to have some sort of religious experience which is embedded in many (if not to some degree all) humans. I doubt that it's purely due to primitive attempts to understand the universe before the development of science -- even with modern science and state endorsement of atheism, the Soviet Union still had plenty of believers. If religion as we know it were wiped from the face of the earth, it seems likely that it would simply resprout in some new form.

If this is the case (which is certainly open to argument) then would it not be in our best interest to fill this illogical but evident need with a religion that is as benign and perhaps even beneficial as possible? Most mainstream religions at least preach to love thy neighbor and straighten up and fly right and all that, whether or not it's actually put into practice. Christianity may stand to be improved regarding its opposition to stem cell research and discrimination against homosexuals to name a few issues. However, it was previously opposed to a non-geocentric solar system and abolition of slavery (in areas where it was profitable) and has since mended its ways, not without cost in the meantime, but the point is that it's adaptable.

Is it better to have such a mainstream religion fill the void of the masses who apparently can't do without it, or attempt to eliminate all but reason and leave open the chance for something much more uncontrolled and potentially malignant to take root in the open void (militant jihadists, or another Jonestown)? If something must fill the void but not any currently existing religion, would it be possible to design something better, bearing in mind that you have control only over the text of the holy doctrine but not people's interpretation and implementation of it, and that it must have enough of this intangible spiritualistic property that people crave in order to persist?

And the ultimate question: could you craft a doctrine to fill this need in such a way that its propagation would have an overall positive effect on humanity, and be so convinced in its potential that you would put forth whatever effort and resources were required to make it a reality? I have no intention of converting any nonbelievers into messiahs, I'm just curious what people think. Seeing as how we're on BrainDen, you can consider this a practical riddle.

Edited April 20, 2009 by plasmid

[unreality]

so Sunoharmonism or something? I like both words, it's just a bit hard to combine them into a pronouncible coagulation that uses the majority of each word

I think we should sketch up a list of possible names, then have some kind of voting ritual ;D

1) Uberfaith

2) The Philosophy

3) Neoneoplatonism

4) Essencius Bellum

5) Ontaporism

6) Alethianism

7) Eucredism

8) sunodia+harmonia (Sunoharmonism?)

etc

also my idea about a "transition period" was overlooked I think until plasmid came on with the hybridization/subtle-overthrow idea, which I think is awesome. That does seem to be how most religions vanquish their memetic foes... by hijacking existing doctrines and mutating them, incorporating them into their own system as they slowly transform into the new religion

I like it

so going back to the source, here is what <NAME> is based on:

* inexistence of god(s) but rather an omnipresent universal current, purposely vague, called the Essence

* a karma-esque system that acknowledges the recipricocity built into the universe at all levels

* lore, parables and doctrine involving a denominational system to encourage memetic advancement and adaptation to always loosely stress good morals, living well, etc

* clause involving how our actions, decisions, and thoughts affect the future of Humanity, Earth and the Universe forever

* clause involving how our mental imprint enters a vague bliss and joins the continuum of the Essence after we die

anything else that's especially noteworthy on how <NAME> is different?

[Guest]

so Sunoharmonism or something? I like both words, it's just a bit hard to combine them into a pronouncible coagulation that uses the majority of each word

They were just a couple of suggestions of things we could use singly as in "Sunodism", or "Harmonism", or otherwise food for thought.

[Guest]

anything else that's especially noteworthy on how <NAME> is different?

Its lack of interference into both thought processes and lifestyle is also relevant. That only popped into my head because I've been thinking about religious practice and rituals. To my mind, religious services typically serve multiple functions including:

1) Teaching and reinforcing religious doctrine

2) Getting people together in a social setting

3) Spiritual activities like singing and dancing

My flippant comment about combining churches and pubs set me wondering about whether we should try to minimise specifically religious activity and bring the "spiritual activities" out into the common domain. Religion has always had a relationship with arts and entertainment, although with questionable success. Hundreds of years ago religion was the greatest patron of the arts, so naturally some great works of religious art (music included) occurred. Nowadays patronage comes from a much wider variety of sources, and the arts have become much more free. Christianity seems to be having trouble dealing with this (sorry to pick on Christianity again but it's what I'm familiar with), desperately trying to play catch-up to a fast moving culture that now takes its lead from other sources.

So naturally I didn't think at first that religious culture and mainstream culture could merge successfully. Most non-religious people would rather spend the afternoon at the dentist getting all their teeth drilled than go to a concert to see a "Christian band" perform (a quite distinct thing from a "band" which happens to be composed of Christians). But why is that? Well, a Christian band would probably feel obliged to push a Christian agenda in their performance, not to mention conforming to certain restrictions concerning the content and style of their music and the way they present themselves. No band that puts creativity first would do that (on the other hand, being a Christian band means you get a captive audience since many Christians feel obliged to listen to Christian music and do their best to enjoy it).

So far so excruciating. But <NAME> is not like this (or shouldn't be). We should encourage creativity and self-expression, free of constraints and with no obligation to include religious content. Self-expression in ALL forms is a religious activity. This will create a whole new style of religious arts, which are religious in the sense that religion provides the drive but not the direction.

Non-believers would not be turned off by this and non-believer artists would probably welcome it and be happy to participate in religious events.

The more I thought about this the more I loved the idea. For example in the UK we have a real problem with excessive drinking. Too many young people think they need to get seriously hammered on nasty alcopops in order to have a good time. It's the extension of a long-standing drinking culture that we can't seem to shake off, which simply equates fun with drinking to excess. I've nothing against having a few drinks but British kids are just getting it all wrong. Something like <NAME> could be the answer, providing the psychological means to free your inhibitions and be yourself without needing to drink yourself stupid. It could work its way into all forms of entertainment, leisure and arts, in the form of individuals who are equipped and primed to enjoy and express themselves fully. In this way <NAME> could make a very positive contribution to society in ways I hadn't previously considered.

[unreality]

so we have:

* inexistence of god(s) but rather an omnipresent universal current, purposely vague, called the Essence

* a karma-esque system that acknowledges the recipricocity built into the universe at all levels

* lore, parables and doctrine involving a denominational system to encourage memetic advancement and adaptation to always loosely stress good morals, living well, etc

* clause involving how our actions, decisions, and thoughts affect the future of Humanity, Earth and the Universe forever

* clause involving how our mental imprint enters a vague bliss and joins the continuum of the Essence after we die

* lack of interference with thought processes, lifestyles, education, politics, etc

* drive, but not direction, for the arts and entertainment and parties and "Essence festivals" (rewording of religious holidays)

* encouragement of both creativity and rational thinking, allowing self-expression of all forms... where any kind of self-actuation, whether directly related to the <NAME> or not, is an act of Essence and religion

* support of social gatherings and pub+church combinations ;D

* church system called "rendezvous", which are largely based on the denomination that owns it (it could be a shrine to the Essence, a massive bar/club, a zenlike meditation garden, an art gallery, etc)

* support of nonbelievers and their role in the Essence

I like it so far hehe

edit: just wanted to add, this is shaping up to be the 'benign religion', so to speak, that we've been gunning for

now to combine the above points (after we get a few more central foci maybe) with the coredoctrine/Truth lists & descriptions, throw in the parables, and we have ourselves the framework of a pretty damn good religiosophicaluberfaith

we still need to round off a few things, decide a few finer points of government (such as, are the denominations going to meet annually to debate the Truth and whatnot? How exactly is a denomination made and declared? How many people does it need to gain to become one and how many does it need to lose (or drop down to) to make "extinct" a denomination? What is our exact meaning by "holy war" and are we going to revise that point?).... and then decide the name of course.

And then... if we could start this in the real world, how would it be done? How would it start? Is it actually possible?

Edited May 11, 2009 by unreality

[plasmid]

* inexistence of god(s) but rather an omnipresent universal current, purposely vague, called the Essence

* a karma-esque system that acknowledges the recipricocity built into the universe at all levels

* lore, parables and doctrine involving a denominational system to encourage memetic advancement and adaptation to always loosely stress good morals, living well, etc

* clause involving how our actions, decisions, and thoughts affect the future of Humanity, Earth and the Universe forever

* clause involving how our mental imprint enters a vague bliss and joins the continuum of the Essence after we die

* lack of interference with thought processes, lifestyles, education, politics, etc

* drive, but not direction, for the arts and entertainment and parties and "Essence festivals" (rewording of religious holidays)

* encouragement of both creativity and rational thinking, allowing self-expression of all forms... where any kind of self-actuation, whether directly related to the <NAME> or not, is an act of Essence and religion

* support of social gatherings and pub+church combinations ;D

One more important thing about <name> that's very different from other religions is its attitude toward non-believers. The others would more willingly lick the nearest electrical outlet than change their practices based on what an outsider has to say.

Certainly we can incorporate songs, festivals, and buildings consistent with existing religions, and I think it's helpful to do so. But a major sticking point would be the existence of God(s), and I don't think we can compromise on core issues like that. However, the world is not as it once was. Religions are much more geographically mixed than they used to be, so we can coexist alongside other religions while absorbing their following.

That seems reasonable. Allowing even a watered down version of God to persist could be deleterious. Keeping their cheesy excuses for gift giving or dressing up seem mostly harmless.

There could actually be a sizable market for a Denomination of The Arts, where the Essence is mentioned from time to time but most of each Sunday sermon is about the latest exhibits. Mingling with other aficionados might make it worth the extra effort of showing up to meet in a physical building instead of just reading about it in the news. Since we aren't using tithes to pay for education I presume we're not going to be financially supporting artists, so the rendezvous would be more of a meeting point for people to discuss while counting on the patrons to pay the artists through outside means. Suppose it works and the chance to be with others and participate in something that you're genuinely passionate about does make the social aspect provided by the old traditional religious experience seem less necessary and less enjoyable compared to the new alternative, and it starts winning converts. Could the traditional religions fight back by instituting their own competing arts & culture nights at the local places of worship to defuse the threat, and even outdo us by using tithe money to support their artists? If they find that they need to do so in order to survive, even if it means supporting art that's not self-glorifying, then I think they will quickly do it.

And if someone forms a Denomination of Getting Totally Blitzed Every Night, would non-believers be able to put the brakes on it (so at least it wouldn't be recognized as a true denomination of <name> if they continued their ways) or is everyone in the country so far gone that it'd be a hopeless battle?

As far as the name, I looked up "How to start a new religion" at eHow.com and their biggest piece of advice was to pick a short, simple, easy to spell name. They point out the awful mistake made by "The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints" and how they had to go back and ignobly fix this blunder by changing their name to "Mormons". So right now the name with the fewest syllables and easiest spelling is still Uberfaith. We'll need to come up with something catchy using two or fewer syllables. By that logic, we can take over the world by calling it Mip.

[unreality]

plasmid: see my edit, I added on two more bullet points that you missed (one addressing the nonbelievers)

edit - I was thinking some more, after making the edit on my previous post (the one above the one above this one), about support of nonbelievers... I was thinking it might be a double-edged sword, not drawing people into the nucleus of our doctrine. That's the point of course - but also could be negative. But then I thought further, and both sides are good. It's good to support nonbelievers by reasons we've already discussed, but also, I think our support of nonbelievers will make nonbelievers love <NAME> the most out of all other religions, since we are the ones that support them and even give them a special spot within <NAME>, whether they Know the Way of The Essence or not. They are more likely to love any of the other things associated with <NAME>.

In other words, since no other religion encompasses and supports nonbelievers, all nonbelievers (nonbelievers of all religions I mean) are part of <NAME>

so it's a very good thing that we support nonbelievers. Just reiterating that point. I might make a sequel to my parable that explains the worth of nonbelievers, or should I just edit the existing one?

Edited May 11, 2009 by unreality

[Guest]

There could actually be a sizable market for a Denomination of The Arts, where the Essence is mentioned from time to time but most of each Sunday sermon is about the latest exhibits. Mingling with other aficionados might make it worth the extra effort of showing up to meet in a physical building instead of just reading about it in the news. Since we aren't using tithes to pay for education I presume we're not going to be financially supporting artists, so the rendezvous would be more of a meeting point for people to discuss while counting on the patrons to pay the artists through outside means.

Yes it's like religion meets real life, though I don't see that as being down to a particular demonination but rather a style of thinking we should promote throughout <NAME>. Naturally some denominations will be more arts-based than others, but that's their choice and I don't think we should seek to control that. And I don't think promoting the arts financially is our job, it's more important to provide encouragement for everybody to explore their own potential and become professional or amateur artists if they choose to be. Financial patronage is a historical thing and it's as much about control as anything, not so relevant these days.

Suppose it works and the chance to be with others and participate in something that you're genuinely passionate about does make the social aspect provided by the old traditional religious experience seem less necessary and less enjoyable compared to the new alternative, and it starts winning converts. Could the traditional religions fight back by instituting their own competing arts & culture nights at the local places of worship to defuse the threat, and even outdo us by using tithe money to support their artists? If they find that they need to do so in order to survive, even if it means supporting art that's not self-glorifying, then I think they will quickly do it.

No doubt they will but it will ring hollow. Their goal will always transparently be to push their own religious message and get bums on pews. Ours is driven by our core beliefs, which require and demand that we be useful and encourage people to realise their potential. Spot the difference. They can only be a pale imitation of us because their motives are wrong, and in the end for them it would be all about exerting control over people. That's not conducive to good art.

And if someone forms a Denomination of Getting Totally Blitzed Every Night, would non-believers be able to put the brakes on it (so at least it wouldn't be recognized as a true denomination of <name> if they continued their ways) or is everyone in the country so far gone that it'd be a hopeless battle?

An interesting scenario and it illustrates the dangers of having uncontrolled denominational variation. I guess we need to include as much common sense in our core doctrine as possible. If we reword a few bits of good sense ("eat plenty of fruit and veg", "don't run with scissors", that kind of thing) into religion-speak it may help to safeguard against denominations indulging in unforeseen daftness, and has the added benefit that in a few hundred years people will look at our scriptures and think we invented common sense .

As far as the name, I looked up "How to start a new religion" at eHow.com and their biggest piece of advice was to pick a short, simple, easy to spell name. They point out the awful mistake made by "The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints" and how they had to go back and ignobly fix this blunder by changing their name to "Mormons". So right now the name with the fewest syllables and easiest spelling is still Uberfaith. We'll need to come up with something catchy using two or fewer syllables. By that logic, we can take over the world by calling it Mip.

For this reason "Harmonism" is my current favourite, though its interesting that The Church of Jesus Christ and blah blah has done remarkably well considering its "blunder". Maybe having a name so awkward it sticks in people's minds is equally effective. It's like the Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick & Tich of religions.

EDIT: I take that back. Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick & Tich totally got by on talent alone. Just checked out some of their stuff & they rock!

I was thinking it might be a double-edged sword, not drawing people into the nucleus of our doctrine. That's the point of course - but also could be negative. But then I thought further, and both sides are good. It's good to support nonbelievers by reasons we've already discussed, but also, I think our support of nonbelievers will make nonbelievers love <NAME> the most out of all other religions, since we are the ones that support them and even give them a special spot within <NAME>, whether they Know the Way of The Essence or not. They are more likely to love any of the other things associated with <NAME>.

In other words, since no other religion encompasses and supports nonbelievers, all nonbelievers (nonbelievers of all religions I mean) are part of <NAME>

It's a bold strategy but I think it'll work. In any case it's the only strategy that fits our mandate to be useful, since converting people who don't need religion is not useful. We just need to be careful about not being patronising and claiming non-believers as part of our faith when they didn't choose to be (like Catholic baptism). Blessed is the unbeliever, who by the light of reason, shepherds the faithful through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost keys.

Hell, under the circumstances I think we could even come clean and say that the religion was founded on disbelief, the ultimate testimony to this principle. Who else could have located the key to life, the universe, and everything, other than one who was not looking for it?

[Guest]

edit - I was thinking some more, after making the edit on my previous post (the one above the one above this one), about support of nonbelievers... I was thinking it might be a double-edged sword, not drawing people into the nucleus of our doctrine. That's the point of course - but also could be negative. But then I thought further, and both sides are good. It's good to support nonbelievers by reasons we've already discussed, but also, I think our support of nonbelievers will make nonbelievers love <NAME> the most out of all other religions, since we are the ones that support them and even give them a special spot within <NAME>, whether they Know the Way of The Essence or not. They are more likely to love any of the other things associated with <NAME>.

In other words, since no other religion encompasses and supports nonbelievers, all nonbelievers (nonbelievers of all religions I mean) are part of <NAME>

so it's a very good thing that we support nonbelievers. Just reiterating that point. I might make a sequel to my parable that explains the worth of nonbelievers, or should I just edit the existing one?

"In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword. His face was like the sun when it shines with full force." - Revelations 1:16 - International Standard Version 2008

Two points to make here. First, embrace the "two-edge swords" that we encounter in this process, as they are the means by which He shall rule the Churches and the Nations. (sound like a politician to you?)

Secondly, the metaphor here about the seven stars indicates the seven churches. We may want to purposely limit ourselves to seven denominations at the outset. Just a thought. This is a key verse which affects interpretation of much of the book of Revelations.

[Guest]

I suppose I need to get my hands on other books of prophecy from other major religions. Any suggestions? I need to cover Muslim and Judaism, of course, but Buddhism and Hinduism cover some pretty major populations as well, so we should integrate them as well.

Also, I would like to submit "Endoxinism" as a name. It is a variation of Endoxa. Not sure if it's of any value, but we're brainstorming, right?

[unreality]

so we have:

* inexistence of god(s) but rather an omnipresent universal current, purposely vague, called the Essence

* a karma-esque system that acknowledges the recipricocity built into the universe at all levels

* lore, parables and doctrine involving a denominational system to encourage memetic advancement and adaptation to always loosely stress good morals, living well, etc

* clause involving how our actions, decisions, and thoughts affect the future of Humanity, Earth and the Universe forever

* clause involving how our mental imprint enters a vague bliss and joins the continuum of the Essence after we die

* lack of interference with thought processes, lifestyles, education, politics, etc

* drive, but not direction, for the arts and entertainment and parties and "Essence festivals" (rewording of religious holidays)

* encouragement of both creativity and rational thinking, allowing self-expression of all forms... where any kind of self-actuation, whether directly related to the <NAME> or not, is an act of Essence and religion

* support of social gatherings and pub+church combinations ;D

* church system called "rendezvous", which are largely based on the denomination that owns it (it could be a shrine to the Essence, a massive bar/club, a zenlike meditation garden, an art gallery, etc)

* support of nonbelievers and their role in the Essence

I like it so far hehe

edit: just wanted to add, this is shaping up to be the 'benign religion', so to speak, that we've been gunning for

now to combine the above points (after we get a few more central foci maybe) with the coredoctrine/Truth lists & descriptions, throw in the parables, and we have ourselves the framework of a pretty damn good religiosophicaluberfaith

we still need to round off a few things, decide a few finer points of government (such as, are the denominations going to meet annually to debate the Truth and whatnot? How exactly is a denomination made and declared? How many people does it need to gain to become one and how many does it need to lose (or drop down to) to make "extinct" a denomination? What is our exact meaning by "holy war" and are we going to revise that point?).... and then decide the name of course.

And then... if we could start this in the real world, how would it be done? How would it start? Is it actually possible?

I was thinking about this and how much do we actually want the "core" Truth to be adaptive? Is the point to have the Truth be hardset and the denominations change with the times so that we have up-to-date ethics while still attached to the core dogma from whenever it was first made? Or do we want everything to be fluid and changeable?

I vote that the core dogma is changeable as well, but much more gradually than denominational whims. That's why I was thinking of some kind annual council, like a Superrendezvous (was tempted to say Uber ) where each registered denomination (bringing me to another point: I think starting a denomination should need about 10-20 ppl minimum with a sort of "tithe" charge for clerical costs or something) sends 3 representatives to the Council. They have a big bash (anyone can come of course, but only up to 3 official reps from each denom) and banquet and party and stuff, and have philosophical discussions & debates (some official, some not) and have an all-round fun Councilday (we can make it a holiday ;D). Then at the end there's a big convention where various points of <NAME> are discussed and a triumvirate of three denoms can co-present a proposed change to the core Truth. Then there's a big vote where each official rep has equal vote value. The 9 reps from the three presenting denoms cannot vote

What do you think?

For this reason "Harmonism" is my current favourite

yeah that's a pretty good one.

While we're on name ideas, how about Phronism?

It's a bold strategy but I think it'll work. In any case it's the only strategy that fits our mandate to be useful, since converting people who don't need religion is not useful. We just need to be careful about not being patronising and claiming non-believers as part of our faith when they didn't choose to be (like Catholic baptism). Blessed is the unbeliever, who by the light of reason, shepherds the faithful through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost keys.

yeah... for example, in the parable on that topic, I just stressed how important nonbelievers are to the Essence. Bad things will happen if we try to "claim" them in any way for any purpose. I was just commenting how that, if we just let simmer our ideas that nonbelievers are extremely important to <NAME>, they will feel more gratitude and whatnot to <NAME> than to other blasphemous religions

Hell, under the circumstances I think we could even come clean and say that the religion was founded on disbelief, the ultimate testimony to this principle. Who else could have located the key to life, the universe, and everything, other than one who was not looking for it?

not sure about that. We can say that it was formed by disbelievers but not by disbelief. To keep a transparent base, I think we can safely say that some things are intentionally vague, meant for you to find your own purpose within them and the Essence (which is likewise vague enough to endow universal appeal, comfort and yet transparency)... I think this is attainable without playing off all our cards.

But at the least, we can say that nonbelievers have just as valid picture of everything, even though it's slightly different. "It's just another facet of the Essence"

Secondly, the metaphor here about the seven stars indicates the seven churches. We may want to purposely limit ourselves to seven denominations at the outset. Just a thought. This is a key verse which affects interpretation of much of the book of Revelations.

Nooo When we were talking about the memetic system with the denoms, I assumed there would be a couple hundred or so. Maybe not at first. But we CANNOT restrict who wants to make a denom and stuff. I figured there'd be a couple dozen "major" denoms with a few standing out as some of the biggest and most respected, and a lot of smaller more specific ones, and then after that a few that have like the minimum number of people and are struggling to get off the ground

edit: current name list ~

1) Uberfaith

2) The Philosophy

3) Neoneoplatonism

4) Essencius Bellum

5) Ontaporism

6) Alethianism

7) Eucredism

8) Harmonism

9) Endoxinism

10) Phronism (see the link in this post for what it means)

the first four are really not to be considered though, so let's shorten it a bit:

1) Ontaporism

2) Alethianism

3) Eucredism

4) Harmonism

5) Endoxinism

6) Phronism (see the link in this post for what it means)

Edited May 11, 2009 by unreality

[Guest]

While we're on name ideas, how about Phronism?

That one gets my vote. We could call the sacred gathering place a "Phronistery" or "thinking place". I admit, I haven't been fond of "Rendezvous". It's too.... French, really. Do they even make a good beer?

And Phronism only gets 3 results on Google.... creepy. I don't know that I've ever gotten less than a full page of results before.

I suppose I should clarify some of my previous ramblings from the past week. I've been brainstorming. I turned my self editor off just to see what it would produce. The whole "Essence=Truth+Potential" was just a way of trying to shoehorn the idea of "The Potential" into what had already been done. Replace "The Truth" with something less emotion evoking, such as "The Actual" (I think I like that. The Actual would then be defined by Acts of Legacy in my example.)

That whole post was a first draft, so maybe I'll take a fresh look if I get the time. Perhaps I will include a parable or allegory to help clarify my intent.

[Guest]

not sure about that. We can say that it was formed by disbelievers but not by disbelief. To keep a transparent base, I think we can safely say that some things are intentionally vague, meant for you to find your own purpose within them and the Essence (which is likewise vague enough to endow universal appeal, comfort and yet transparency)... I think this is attainable without playing off all our cards.

Like seeksit says we can learn a lot from existing religions. Let's see now... Mohammad spent many months meditating in a cave. Buddha sat under a tree for 49 days meditating. Jesus spent 40 days and nights alone in the desert. We posted all our deliberations on an internet forum. Whoops!

Still, on the plus side, nobody knows what <NAME> will be called yet...

[plasmid]

I suppose I need to get my hands on other books of prophecy from other major religions. Any suggestions? I need to cover Muslim and Judaism, of course, but Buddhism and Hinduism cover some pretty major populations as well, so we should integrate them as well.

Apparently the major Hindu / Buddhist prophecy is about Kalki.

we still need to round off a few things, decide a few finer points of government (such as, are the denominations going to meet annually to debate the Truth and whatnot? How exactly is a denomination made and declared? How many people does it need to gain to become one and how many does it need to lose (or drop down to) to make "extinct" a denomination? What is our exact meaning by "holy war" and are we going to revise that point?).... and then decide the name of course.

Yeah, the "holy war" stuff has to go.

I was personally inclined to avoid making any centralized leadership at all. Anything that's not part of a denomination would not be subjected to selective pressure and would be prone to corruption. The denominations would be pretty much self-running, and could get started by just hanging a shingle out front saying "new denomination of <name>" and inviting people in. That would mean that the denominations would have to be able to police themselves to keep each other from getting out of line, with the two particularly nasty things that I'm most concerned about being first not having their followers go visit other denominations from time to time (they really need to be under selective pressure), and second failing to follow the sincere guidance of non-believers. To prevent this, I would have each denomination keep a public list of all other denominations that they consider to be part of the true faith and worth letting their members visit, as well as a list of all that they deem blasphemous and the reason for their exclusion. Any denomination that gets excommunicated by virtually all others would (I hope) have a tough time surviving. But if two denominations get in a squabble and excommunicate each other, people will see that they're each accepted by most others and not worry about it too much.

Doing stuff like saying there's an omniscient, omnipotent, interventionalist God would also be bad. But I'm not sure if we would want to completely rule out any existence of a God whatsoever. At least not yet. After all, we can't prove that there wasn't, say, a clockmaker God that set the universe into motion with the big bang and just stood back and watched since then. One might argue that it would be almost as bad to say that a God must not exist until proven otherwise as it would be to say that a God does exist until disproven (Occam's razor be damned!). I don't think it's at all likely, but I've gotta admit it can't be disproven.

Edit: On second thought, the possibility that someone will ever prove the existence of a God and thus jeopardize the religion seems nil. For the sake of not dragging this thread into unnecessary territory, I'd be fine with having a God-free doctrine requirement and excommunicating violators.

I was thinking about this and how much do we actually want the "core" Truth to be adaptive? Is the point to have the Truth be hardset and the denominations change with the times so that we have up-to-date ethics while still attached to the core dogma from whenever it was first made? Or do we want everything to be fluid and changeable?

I vote that the core dogma is changeable as well, but much more gradually than denominational whims. That's why I was thinking of some kind annual council, like a Superrendezvous (was tempted to say Uber ) where each registered denomination (bringing me to another point: I think starting a denomination should need about 10-20 ppl minimum with a sort of "tithe" charge for clerical costs or something) sends 3 representatives to the Council. They have a big bash (anyone can come of course, but only up to 3 official reps from each denom) and banquet and party and stuff, and have philosophical discussions & debates (some official, some not) and have an all-round fun Councilday (we can make it a holiday ;D). Then at the end there's a big convention where various points of <NAME> are discussed and a triumvirate of three denoms can co-present a proposed change to the core Truth. Then there's a big vote where each official rep has equal vote value. The 9 reps from the three presenting denoms cannot vote

What do you think?

If there is no centralized government to run councils to make such changes, an option would be that each denomination can change the core doctrine that it follows, but they must publicly proclaim their core doctrine, and two denominations that hold different core doctrines are automatically excommunicated by each other. That way, if something catastrophic happens that requires the core doctrine to change, then all denominations could change it simultaneously and survive. But if one denomination were to try to change it unilaterally, it would be instantly excommunicated and die off.

Then there might be problems if a major schism were to occur with two separate core doctrines. Not sure how that could be handled.

But... we're designing a religion, right? Religions don't typically have governing documents covering how dissenters can change the core doctrine. No matter what approach we use, I'd like to frame it in such a way that it still seems like we're running a religion instead of parliamentary procedures for the United Nations. Granted it's already very unconventional to solicit non-believers for advice, but it still just doesn't seem right to say "we might have messed up when we designed the faith, so if it becomes painfully obvious then do this". How can we gracefully leave instructions on how to change the core doctrine? We might just have to be very very careful about designing the core doctrine and hope it doesn't ever need to be changed, although I would definitely feel more comfortable about it if it could be changed.

Edited May 12, 2009 by plasmid

[Guest]

Apparently the major Hindu / Buddhist prophecy is about Kalki.

Did you read that? There's some tricky interpretation there. It's going to take a good bit of spin to make what we're doing here a positive. At face value, <NAME> is part of the problem. Of course, I'll need direct translation to work off, rather than Wikipedia interpretation. This project gets more and more interesting.

But... we're designing a religion, right? Religions don't typically have governing documents covering how dissenters can change the core doctrine. No matter what approach we use, I'd like to frame it in such a way that it still seems like we're running a religion instead of parliamentary procedures for the United Nations. Granted it's already very unconventional to solicit non-believers for advice, but it still just doesn't seem right to say "we might have messed up when we designed the faith, so if it becomes painfully obvious then do this". How can we gracefully leave instructions on how to change the core doctrine? We might just have to be very very careful about designing the core doctrine and hope it doesn't ever need to be changed, although I would definitely feel more comfortable about it if it could be changed.

We aren't exactly letting dissenters change core doctrine. More precisely, we're humbly admitting that what we know and understand is a finite subset of all that could be. It is our sacred duty to increase our collective knowledge base, and when necessary, challenge our Core ideas. It would be arrogant to exclude valid scientific data just because a non-<NAME> originated it. That specific type of arrogance would be the greatest sin that we could perpetrate.

[brainstorming]

To evaluate these outside sources, we would need a non-denominational council. I envision a Supreme Court type set up where each field (Physics, Philosophy, Biology, Economic, Political, the Arts, Etc.) is represented by expert(s) that have been democratically selected by their peers in the field. Any new idea would first be presented to an individual expert and his advisors. If that new idea is found to have merit, that council member would then have the task of presenting it to the rest of the council. Core doctrine would change only with unanimous agreement from all council members.

[/brainstorming]

Adopting a stance of "humble consideration and evaluation" of new or challenging ideas based solely on reason and scientific merit should be set in stone. The concept has been recognized repeatedly as necessary in this thread, so I doubt that we can find a satisfactory way around it without compromising ideals.

[unreality]

I disagree with plasmid and agree with Grayven & support my earlier idea about the Council... as octopuppy said early on, we need to admit that our religion isn't 100% perfect as nothing can capture the Essence in its entirety. As Grayven put it, we should humbly admit the vastness of the Essence and the need to change over time.

No central government or "Supreme Court" is needed however to facilitate the annual Councilday... a small committe can get together to plan the actual holiday, that's not a big deal. There's no governing necessary - all of the denominations send their 3 reps to the Council and we would proceed as described in my previous post.

This should allow open and fluid changing of the core doctrine without any complex issues involving denomination excommunication, hostility, etc. I strongly dislike the excommunication idea... it just seems to promote hostility and conflict between the denominations, and is likely to cause schisms and alliances within the denoms, probably within even the first year.

No - as we said in the beginning, a change to the core Truth should be near-unanimous (we could make it 100% or 99% instead of the current 90% number if you guys think that's better) and apply to ALL denominations. The Truth cannot be wavered from, in ANY denomination. However by working together, analyzing the current times and voting together near-unanimously, as they would do on Councilday, the denominations as a body can change the Truth. If any successful changes to the Truth go through (this isn't very likely to happen that often, maybe minor changes every once in a while), then every denomination accepts the new change without question or resentment, since everyone voted unanimously on it.

I'm thinking now we should up the number from 90% to 95% or so. I was thinking of making it 100% but then one stubborn denomination could vote against just to be a b*tch. If they have any valid reason to not change the core Truth, they should be able to convince other denominations enough to get more than 5% opposed to the change. So 95% seems good - very unanimous while still retaining room for nonvoters or whatever

While we're on name ideas, how about Phronism?

That one gets my vote. We could call the sacred gathering place a "Phronistery" or "thinking place". I admit, I haven't been fond of "Rendezvous". It's too.... French, really. Do they even make a good beer?

I totally agree... if we go with Phronism, then "Phronistery" (as long as its pronounced rhyming to "monastery", that is, the "ery" at the end rhymes with "dairy") is easy enough to say and pretty relevant

I suppose I should clarify some of my previous ramblings from the past week. I've been brainstorming. I turned my self editor off just to see what it would produce. The whole "Essence=Truth+Potential" was just a way of trying to shoehorn the idea of "The Potential" into what had already been done. Replace "The Truth" with something less emotion evoking, such as "The Actual" (I think I like that. The Actual would then be defined by Acts of Legacy in my example.)

That whole post was a first draft, so maybe I'll take a fresh look if I get the time. Perhaps I will include a parable or allegory to help clarify my intent.

awesome... yeah. We could say that the "Knowledge Base" of the Essence is made up of the Actual and the Potential, but not the Essence itself. The Essence as a whole cannot be described so simply. But the Knowledge Base (or similar term... maybe Phronicism or something ;D Hehe) of the Essence can be described as the sum of the Actual and the Potential. Part of the many interlocking harmonies of the Essence is the balance of the Actual and the Potential, which we must attain by achieving our greatest Potential and transforming it into the Actual, leaving behind less ideal Potentials

Again, this seems like more of a point that would be adaptable by the denominations if they pleased, but left very vague in the Core Truth itself. This is one of those things that the denominations can differ in

edit: I forgot to add, I agree with plasmid that the holy war idea has to go. Instead, we can incorporate it into the Council: when one denom gets out of line, a coalition of 3 denoms can present the idea (the same procedure as changing the Truth) to remove one denom from <NAME> entirely, or evict some change in it. This one cannot be 95%, it must be absolutely 100% unanimous (except for the offending denomination of course).

Also, I think we should start the voting for the name... (if we are going to vote for it, but at least remember who is supporting what name so we can better work together to pick the best name)

1) Ontaporism

2) Alethianism

3) Eucredism

4) Harmonism

5) Endoxinism

6) Phronism - unreality, Grayven

Edited May 12, 2009 by unreality

[Guest]

When I say Phronism, I pronounce Phron like the name Ron, but with an "f" sound in front. Phronistery is the same Phron sound followed by istery which sounds a lot like "history" in my head. I'm not opposed to making sound like monastery, but the spelling would need to be changed a bit to make that more intuitive.(i.e. Phronastery or Phronastary?)

Other derived terms:

Phronist - Follower of the ways of Phronism.

Phronistic - Like monastic. "She lives a very Phronistic lifestyle."

The Phronetic - Possible name for the knowledge base. It's a nasty Frankenstein of a word, but the sum of the parts is what counts.

Phronus - ? Sounds a bit anatomical, but I like the word. I just don't know what it would be assigned to. Maybe the name of the Phronism Cannon, if we have one. Perhaps the name of our most sacred periodical? ($5.99 USD)

Phroner - ?? Sounds silly. Probably useless.

Phroned - Slang. Like "PWND". Used to infiltrate pop culture and create top of mind brand awareness. "We (Phronism) just Phroned (absorbed into our collective, according to our particular idiom, in this case) Mormonism."

[unreality]

i'm pretty sure it's pronounced "froan" as rhyming with "groan" or "loan", though I'll need to check the greek pronounciation guide, we could make it either way, or both

[Guest]

A strong visual symbol is very important. Maybe one that doesn't actually represent the religion but represents what the religion represents (so you can wear it on a T-shirt even if you don't subscribe to the beliefs of the religion).

We could encourage evangelism with a "Phrone a friend" campaign

[Guest]

A strong visual symbol is very important. Maybe one that doesn't actually represent the religion but represents what the religion represents (so you can wear it on a T-shirt even if you don't subscribe to the beliefs of the religion).

We could encourage evangelism with a "Phrone a friend" campaign

BRILLIANT!! Both counts.

I was thinking about the Symbol too. Perhaps something as simple as an infinity symbol made out of a mobius strip? It's ambiguous and cerebral, without being too weird. It would look good on a T-Shirt, for sure. Hopefully, the symbol isn't already trademarked or something...

OK, so it's a common image.(pages and pages of Google Images) That's not necessarily a bad thing - Lots and lots of existing artwork, jewelry, etc. (And T-Shirts)

Phriends of Phronism?? Nah, we gotta have standards.

[Guest]

I was thinking about the Symbol too. Perhaps something as simple as an infinity symbol made out of a mobius strip? It's ambiguous and cerebral, without being too weird.

I think we need to represent one or several of our key features in the symbol:

No Gods

Respect of reason

Ethos of freedom and non-interference

The Essence and how it flows through us (arguably represented by the strip but the flow is not circular)

Positive attitude to nonbelief

A good model for what I mean is the yin yang symbol which embodies a key concept of Taoism, but has an appeal beyond Taoism itself.

PS. Why would anyone have Pi tattooed on their arm? That's definitely not a good symbol for Phronism since we don't condone irrationality.

[unreality]

about the mobius symbol:

it's a good idea but St. Francis is stealing our thunder

Maybe we can go 3d and nab ourselves a Klein bottle ;D

we could say that the Essence can fit into a Klein bottle in 7-dimensional space (as a Klein bottle has no inside or outside)

Edited May 12, 2009 by unreality

[plasmid]

When I say Phronism, I pronounce Phron like the name Ron, but with an "f" sound in front. Phronistery is the same Phron sound followed by istery which sounds a lot like "history" in my head. I'm not opposed to making sound like monastery, but the spelling would need to be changed a bit to make that more intuitive.(i.e. Phronastery or Phronastary?)

Other derived terms:

Phronist - Follower of the ways of Phronism.

Phronistic - Like monastic. "She lives a very Phronistic lifestyle."

The Phronetic - Possible name for the knowledge base. It's a nasty Frankenstein of a word, but the sum of the parts is what counts.

Phronus - ? Sounds a bit anatomical, but I like the word. I just don't know what it would be assigned to. Maybe the name of the Phronism Cannon, if we have one. Perhaps the name of our most sacred periodical? ($5.99 USD)

Phroner - ?? Sounds silly. Probably useless.

Phroned - Slang. Like "PWND". Used to infiltrate pop culture and create top of mind brand awareness. "We (Phronism) just Phroned (absorbed into our collective, according to our particular idiom, in this case) Mormonism."

Yeah, it better be pronounced "fr-aw-nism" instead of "fr-oh-nism". Otherwise anything associated with Phronism would be called "Phrony". Oh, the mockery that would ensue.

Ok, as long as there's no central organization running the show then a Council of the denominations doesn't seem so bad. We might have to be careful about the rules, though, especially early on. Suppose the Catholics decide they don't like us (imagine that) and they decide to have enough groups of ten people each form a denomination so they can get a 90% vote in the council. They then change the core dogma to say that all denominations are to pay the Catholic church a tithe. To prevent this, I'll change my position on what it takes to start a new denomination. You have to be up and operational for say six months or so and have a bunch of members of other denominations visit to watch you in action and make sure you're legit. Then you get voted in by a majority. In principle it might still be possible for the Catholics to put on a good show and fool everyone for six months before disintegrating the faith, but if our followers are that easily duped then they deserve what's coming to them.

I originally thought that making the core dogma mutable would seriously compromise the appeal to our target audience: the religious people who have so eagerly devoured the Truths preached to them simply because of the seeming unquestionability and cultural ingrainment of the institutions. If Phronism is ultimately presented as understanding bestowed by the Essence, then are we saying that the Essence might be wrong, or misunderstood, or maybe just didn't want to give us the whole truth right away? But the more I think about it, the more I'm reminded that somewhere in the Bible Jesus warned his followers that there might be people who falsely claim Christianity, yet rarely do Christians ever think that their own denomination might be false. Apparently, even if followers are warned up front not to trust people, they will anyway. But I'd still prefer to keep anything about changing core dogma buried deep in the "Robert's Rules of Order" book governing Councils instead of in the Phronetic Bible, leaving it to be pointed out only in an emergency.

And then... if we could start this in the real world, how would it be done? How would it start? Is it actually possible?

That's a tough question that I've been hesitant to answer. The very unique thing going for Phronism is that it would serve the interests of atheists and other rationalist-type folks. If non-believers were convinced that this actually could satisfy the OP, they might buy into helping it succeed. Of course, I don't think anyone would take it seriously if we said we were going to recruit Barack Obama as our messiah (sorry, Grayven) and Chuck Norris as a guest star, and the parables might need some cleaning up, but otherwise it seems plausible. We would just need a good story for how the Essence revealed itself to the world.

[unreality]

nice point about "phrony denominations" instigated by rival pagan religions. Yeah a revision should be necessary: one of the events of Councilday (besides partying, doctrine-change-voting and disband-a-bad-denom-voting) should be a thing where people can register a new denomination. They would need, say, 9 people as the initial founders (subject to change), some legal documents, some cash, etc. They present their denom (we could have sub-Councils for this event so that it goes by quicker... boredom is not on the Councilday event list), get it vouched for, prove its worth and what it will stand for, etc. If approved and generally well liked, it becomes a "quasidenom" for exactly 1 year. During this time, it acts like any other denom except it has the sole goal of getting off the ground, advertising itself, gaining members, etc. At the next Councilday, it does NOT send reps (nor does it send reps to any Emergency Councils that may be called - that requires a coalition of three denoms, like most called actions do) but rather is "reviewed" and the Council (or a sub-Council) inspects what it has accomplished during its first year. It will either get canned (but in more helpful terms of course), extended for another "quasidenom" year (no more than one extension ever) or, like most should be, made into a full denom.

So, events of Councilday:

* partying, events, fun for all ages

* Council/sub-Council(s) for approving new quasidenoms

* Council/sub-Council(s) for elevating quasidenoms to full denoms

* general Phronetic chatting before, during and after philosophical speeches and formal debates held around-the-clock in various exposition halls and stuff

* Council for the doctrine change (requires 3 denoms working together to present change idea, it is debated and discussed, then voted on... 95% needed) as well as denom suspension (same dealio - 3 denoms file a charge against a denom to suspend it from <NAME>, and all the other denoms other than the presenters and the accused vote, needs 97% or something to proceed with the suspension)

* Essence hymns at your local phronastary

* etc

~~

as for the actual implimentation, we could pull that Atlantis stunt I suggested a while back. We spread some influences and claims and mysterious mentionings about "Atlantis" and something called "the Essence". We release the doctrine and start some initial denominations but keep it all low key. Some predictions and prophecies about Atlantis included... then a couple years later, we raise "Atlantis" from the sea. It is revealed that the Atlanteans were the original Phronists, and harmonized with the Essence until they were so at peace with the universe they ignored a giant volcanic tsunami (or whatever) that sunk their fragile (but near-utopian) island.

From that incident, and the subsequent miracle of the Essence reclaiming it from the sea, we realized that the Essence is ready to introduce itself to humanity again, and that we got the message - the dogma should be adaptable this time. If we need to save our asses from a giant wave instead of meditating, we should. That's the "difference" this time... we're the next step from the Atlanteans. We are the enlightened ones to embrace the Essence...

before that event, we'll have been spreading the influence of Phronism both subconsciously and consciously with subtle memetic engineering & viral marketing. Shards of it will be all over the place, then we'll connect it all back in one sacred moment and our net will have been cast over the world before it's too late: <NAME> will dominate muhaha ;D

in reality, something like the above might actually work, minus the Atlantis part. I'm thinking some hardcore masterful viral marketing would help a ton

edit: funds will be necessary of course. I'm thinking door-to-door soliciting. Does anyone know where Richard Dawkins lives?

Edited May 13, 2009 by unreality

[Guest]

Surfing around I found that Phronesis is a term used by Aristotle, meaning "practical wisdom/judgment, common sense, prudence." It isn't quite the lofty term that evokes religious zeal, but it may be appropriate based on the topic title: A "useful" religion.

Phronetic Social Science is a branch of Social Science that eschews parallels with the "hard" sciences, preferring a practical approach based on the inherent unpredictability of human behavior.

Phrontistery is a term for an institution of study.

Checking my dictionary for words with the Greek 'phron' as a root word, the pronounciation of Phronned would be identical to the word "frond", as in palm frond, or frond of a fern. If this is to be the <NAME>, then perhaps the symbol of a fern frond would be appropriate. Christians co-opted the palm frond for Palm Sunday, but the fern frond seems to be available as a new religious icon. I love the idea of a logo on a T-shirt (showing a fern frond) saying "I've been Phronned, have you?"

I note with interest that with all the back-and-forth about the name of the movement, the term "Essence" seems to have been adopted unanimously by acclamation. A simple name for the movement, such as "Church of the Essence" (or substitute a more secular word in place of "church") might satisfy most of the adherents.

Now given that the Essence leaves open a gateway to spiritual realms, I think the "strictly no gods" approach would be hugely conterproductive in attracting converts. There's been mention of the way Christianity spread world-wide by adapting local "heathen" rituals and even gods (such as Ishtar --> Easter). In Peru and Bolivia, Christianity is full of adapted Inca rituals, for example. So I'd suggest a softer approach that supports people's belief in their God(s), recognizing Him/her/it/them as partial emanations of the Essence, imperfectly understood, that can and will be naturally discarded or subordinated as the person grows in enlightenment (all enlightenment to be accomplished at the convert's own pace of growth, without interference or pressure) through education and the use of reason, through classes at the local denomination and/or at the Great Centers of Higher Phronetic Learning, the Phrontisteries, to be established world-wide. If we're going to honor non-believers of the a-theist sort, then we at least need to afford a basic respect to all non-believers - acknowledging the personal worth of individuals who are non-believers of the theist bent as well. Not to do so would seem hypocritical. The theist, however, would need to take an "open-mindedness" vow and accept a course of rational study. In fact, such a vow ought to be part of a spoken "credo" recited by all members at every gathering, the way the Apostle's Creed is recited at Christian services.

Edited May 13, 2009 by seeksit

[unreality]

Surfing around I found that Phronesis is a term used by Aristotle, meaning "practical wisdom/judgment, common sense, prudence." It isn't quite the lofty term that evokes religious zeal, but it may be appropriate based on the topic title: A "useful" religion.

Phronetic Social Science is a branch of Social Science that eschews parallels with the "hard" sciences, preferring a practical approach based on the inherent unpredictability of human behavior.

Phrontistery is a term for an institution of study.

nice, thanks for the additional searches... the main root of the word has almost no results and hasn't really been used before. As I linked to, the definition and words associated with "phron-" are:

* to be minded, either of reflection or of purpose

* have understanding, be wise, prudent

* understanding

* to be wise in respect of the most important matters

* think rightly, to be sane, to be well disposed

* think, mean

* feel by experience, know full well

* to be fain that, to be minded, mean, intend

* think, purpose, to have wise thoughts, to be cunning

* mind, notions, spirit

* having certain thoughts or states of mind - to be high minded or high spirited

* opinion

* comprehend, to be well aware of, pay heed to, pay regard to, consider, ponder

* to be in possession of one's senses, to be sensible, to be alive

I like the root... and it's a simple tense change to make 'Phronism' so I don't think any meaning is lost

Now given that the Essence leaves open a gateway to spiritual realms,

wait, what? No! No it doesn't. No "gateways to spiritual realms" are opened by the Essence, literally nor figuratively nor metaphorically. There are no spiritual realms in <NAME>

I think the "strictly no gods" approach would be hugely conterproductive in attracting converts. There's been mention of the way Christianity spread world-wide by adapting local "heathen" rituals and even gods (such as Ishtar --> Easter). In Peru and Bolivia, Christianity is full of adapted Inca rituals, for example. So I'd suggest a softer approach that supports people's belief in their God(s), recognizing Him/her/it/them as partial emanations of the Essence, imperfectly understood, that can and will be naturally discarded or subordinated as the person grows in enlightenment (all enlightenment to be accomplished at the convert's own pace of growth, without interference or pressure) through education and the use of reason, through classes at the local denomination and/or at the Great Centers of Higher Phronetic Learning, the Phrontisteries, to be established world-wide. If we're going to honor non-believers of the a-theist sort, then we at least need to afford a basic respect to all non-believers - acknowledging the personal worth of individuals who are non-believers of the theist bent as well. Not to do so would seem hypocritical. The theist, however, would need to take an "open-mindedness" vow and accept a course of rational study. In fact, such a vow ought to be part of a spoken "credo" recited by all members at every gathering, the way the Apostle's Creed is recited at Christian services.

yes, we've deeply considered the idea of "conversion via subtle takeover" - that is, to adopt pagan rituals. We've made some adjustments and had some ideas about how to hijack current faiths and customs, but a few pages back I think we decided to NOT waver on one of our main points - the absence of gods. We have a bunch of bullet-pointed idealisms that <NAME> is sticking to, the points that it's founded on. Those won't waver and differ just because we need more members... we've got lots of mechanisms to get new members and hijack existing religions, I think plasmid has come up with the most good points and ideas in that area... but look back to the list octopuppy and me were creating. Those are our basic foci that make <NAME> different from the other religions, and those are foci that we're not compromising on ;D