To Begin
It is my intention on this blog to propose and develop an idea. While I know it will be controversial, contrary as it is to the polarised nature of the present discussions on similar topics. And following, as it does, in the footsteps of cults and pseudoscience, it is well that intelligent people should be wary of it. Nonetheless, it is my belief that the following is both rationable and for the greater good.The idea in question is of a 'religion' of sorts, or, more accurately of a kind of 'meta-religion' (the prefix, Greek, meaning 'after'- and having come to mean 'underpinning' or 'overarching'), by which other religions (and, indeed, lack thereof) may be understood, enjoyed and codified. This overarching system requires, I claim, no leap of faith or special belief; and, as a common frame for discussion; moreover, in cultivating those (tangible and intangible) benefits attributed to traditional religion, I claim also that it will be of benefit to its holders, and to humanity at large. And for want of a better place, I post it here.
'Break Out The Poisoned Kool-Aid...!'?- Cards On The Table
 |
| Matching tracksuits will be optional... |
I do not claim revelation, and would not believe it if it were given to me. A childhood game that went too far once taught me personally how flexible 'true perception' can be- that one can in every sense experience the supernatural, and yet it still not be as experienced. I have since found it hard to accept the claims of religions: I have become unwilling to 'seek', because I know I would 'find' God as described, regardless of his existence or properties.
But I have seen a certain truth and beauty in the faith of my friends: I have understood the grounding and strength in adhering to a moral life that it has given them- and have gone in search of its precise locus. What I intend to present are arguments for the rational legitimacy of what I believe to be the locus of this truth, beauty and strength. And if these arguments should prove fallacious, I would consider the project falsified.
And I should add, further, that, as will become clear, unlike many cultists, I do not consider myself central to the notion at hand. What I am proposing is decentralised by design, and I have made attempts to spread it anonymously so that it could grow without any ostensible 'leader figure'- to write in the first person, as here, is something of a last resort. I suspect that I am no more moral than those reading this: no more enlightened (much of what follows is indeed likely trite)- and I have no desire for power or for leadership.
'The Big Idea'
While it is my intention to present the idea, as it were, in its full force, over time (and, hopefully, to develop it with help from those kind enough to read around it), it would be disingenuous to give an introduction without including an overview. Naturally this will be somewhat impressionistic, certainly insufficiently rigorous, but I hope, nonetheless, sufficiently clear and plausible to merit further investigation. To get us started, a 'bullet point' summary of the polar oppositions that have led me here:Dogma vs. Pragmatism:
It is scarcely a thesis that needs expanding upon in the current media climate that dogmatic belief is dangerous: both in the blindness that comes from beliefs which cannot change, and in the fulcrum they provide for persons to push others toward all kinds of evil.Pragmatism (by which I mean what is commonly called pragmatism- not the philosophy of William James), too, though less artfully dismissed in modern culture is also dangerous. 'Practical men...', as Keynes noted, are too often '...the slaves of some defunct economist'; and the full or partial abnegation of living by principles that a so-called 'pragmatic' or 'neutral' stance demands has seen many aspirations to social good lost or unfulfilled- and with it the potential of uncounted human lives as moral and democratic agents.
The most obvious notion of compromise- that our principles be left vague- is just pragmatism with pretentions, and leads to the same 'quantum morality', in which one does not know the strength of one's moral conviction until it is called upon (and too often it is not there when we would have it be).
The answer, then, is that which good science has long held, and good theology too (although- and this is the nub- good theology is all too often in the hands of high priests and not their flock). One must have principles, rigid and affirmed, but with the status of a 'working model' to be used dogmatically until they are improved upon, or supplanted.
Subjective vs. Objective
So how should we go about improving upon our principles for how to live? Scientific truths, if they are not universal, will be discovered as such when someone repeats the experiment (this is the famous falibilism of Karl Popper), and as such are unparalelled in describing the 'objective realm', such as we may manipulate or find use for it. |
| Karl Popper: super cool guy (and notable proponent of the limits of scientific thinking) |
But, and this is a crucial fact ignored by many: the objective science of consciousness- of the subjective realm- though perhaps limitless in its potential, is in its extreme infancy, and with it any hope of objective morality or principles for living. And, though I would not advocate a 'God of the gaps' of any kind, I submit that, like the 17th century astronomer who refuses to use copernican principles because he hears 'This chap Newton is working on something big', even those greatest champions of science must turn to the subjective realm for principles to live by, at least until science has earned the right to speak upon it.
A subjective claim cannot be falsified, in the manner of a scientific one (or else it would not be subjective), but a simple observation allows us to claim it can be refined. That is: 'For intelligent beings, no honestly held false belief, concerning what is, does not contain at least a truth, concerning what seems to be'.
As such, we may always find truth in others' beliefs: and by hearing them, finding the truth they contain as given by our own worldview, and passing this truth as we see it back to them, we can help them refine their beliefs, can make them more universal- more true.
God vs. No Gods
It would seem, at face value, that an atheist could not find truth in the central subjective claim of theists, but I claim that this is not true, and that there is a construct in an atheist worldview which can take all of the functions of God, and by which those religious experiences of theists may be understood. The full arguments will naturally take some time- but to give a flavour, consider the following experiment:When you are finished reading this, I want you to close your eyes. Knowing that one cannot imagine an incomprehensible world, imagine one that is comprehensible (your worldview), and imagine what, were such a being to exist, a being that could comprehend it all would think.
Bring your worries to the putative mind of this putative being: some find it easiest, I am told, to speak them aloud. And imagine them comprehended by it- among the grand scheme of things; will, the infinite and the indecipherably causal- imagine them known and comprehended by this putative universal comprehender.
Open your eyes and ask yourself: were you praying?
Note that you did not need to 'believe' in any proper sense. And perhaps, unconsciously at least, you may even have encountered this 'God' before.
A Sketch:
Suppose, to make their principles rigid and affirmed, people placed them in a book- which could include stories (perhaps religious ones), poetry, even pictures- some may even wish to start with a ready-made book. Suppose they lived by that book, much as the faithful do now with their holy books (although, without mental edits concerning fabric choice or Malachites, somewhat less pragmatically), finding its truth in the world and facing it when they failed to live up to their principles.Suppose once a week they met up in groups and read from their books, and after each reading others commented, finding the truth in each reading such as their own principles dictated- each understanding with all the depth of empathy they could bring. Suppose also that they were encouraged not to go to the same group each week, so as to avoid pockets of dogmatism. And suppose further that they were encouraged, on the basis of the reflections of their peers, to edit their books, always looking to become more universal.
One might imagine a world where this took the role of religion: where marriage was marked by the ability to write in one anothers' books; in which children were raised on copies of the books of their parents, which they would ceremonially burn on their 16th birthday (having to write their own by age 21).
Whether the full extent of such a sketch emerges or otherwise- even if this is only the preserve of a handful of persons- to have a community supporting the best intents of its people, in which good is approached with more rigour, by which the avoidance of dogma is integral to the belief system, empathy nurtured and belief made more universal; by which the God-fearing and the godless might share together their impressions of the sublime, and government by the people is government by philosopher kings- I have no doubt in my mind that community would make the world a better place to live in, and that it would bring more than pleasure to those that shared in it.
