The religion of the future

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Ponderer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is a fascinating concept and one of the main reasons why I made an account here. In fact a sub already exists for this, and I would encourage everyone with an interest to give it a look: /s/altreligion

The ideas you've mentioned are remarkably similar to my own ideas on it:

  • I also think that neither Christianity nor paganism can be a model in the days to come. The former has internal inconsistencies, promotes bad values, and requires the believer to accept the existence of supernatural beings on faith alone. The latter is more traditional, but also requires faith over reason and in the modern age just feels like LARPing.

  • Neoplatonism and ancestor-worship are belief systems that invoke strong feelings of spirituality, but both can be said to be objectively true even in a purely scientific universe.

  • Viewing natural law as an extension of the will of God, or at least something that must be acknowledged and respected, is another belief system that promotes strong spiritual feelings while being compatible with "materialism".

  • Allowing heroic figures to become archetypes is a brilliant idea. This would also make the new religion more appealing to those who followed Christianity or paganism, as well as give the new religion much-needed roots. Heroic figures of the past were not weird heretics or unbelievers, but were past saints. Perhaps Jesus might be re-conceptualized as an Archetype of Mercy, or Odin as an Archetype of Wisdom.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ok this is not a personal attack to you, but we have 2000 years of nerds that tried to reduce the faith to rational philosophy, and that's called theology. The Church is trying to figure out the natural laws since the begging, because they are, indeed, considered an extension of the will of God. And that stuff about using ancestors and other people in order to explain virtues is called cult of the saints. The whole architecture of the Christianity is built upon the premises of an extremely rational faith, which was developed with the most advanced tools of the age, the Greek philosophy. Then came the reformation, with Luther and Calvin, both rabidly hostile toward Aristotele, and the thing devolved into a guessing game about random citations of the Bible. So, if you are going after a rational faith, I advice you to try Catholicism before engaging in the task of creating a whole new religion.

[–]Ponderer 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't see Catholicism as being in conflict with this idea. If anything, Catholicism is a sub-set of the ideology described here, or a specific iteration of it.

This is evidenced by the fact that a pagan, a Christian, and an atheist could all gravitate towards these same conclusions. And this underlying structure is what interests me the most, not the cultural idiosyncrasies that happen to be on top.

A man living on an island all alone, with no exposure to human culture, might independently discover the existence of a creator based on his own rational thought. However, it is highly dubious that he would end up as a devout Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Hindu. He would be something else entirely.

As you say yourself, much of Christianity has "devolved into a guessing game about random citations of the Bible". This doesn't interest me, as the Bible itself - and especially one's particular interpretation of the Bible - must be accepted on faith.

I have read philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and I simply don't believe you can arrive at Catholicism from pure reason based on his arguments. In fact I'm pretty sure he says the same. This doesn't interest me - and to be brutally honest, I don't agree with many of the values that Christianity teaches anyway.

My goal is to identify the bones that make up these belief systems, not become a believer in one that already exists. I wouldn't do what I'm doing if I thought any current religion was sufficient.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You should read Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Levy Strauss then, and after that exploring the authors of the cultural and linguistic turn. But long story short, this task was indeed taken on by some people, and their conclusion is that the language and the discourse (which is symbols and conventions) is what inform the truth and a "blank state truth" doesn't exist. In your lone islander example, every conclusion the islander can come up with is related to the language he develops on the island to articulate his feelings.