Religion Without Lies: Is it even possible?
Every major religion contains at least one empirically false claim
presented as fact. Most contain many. And yet religion — an organized system
of beliefs, ethics, and meaning — is something humanity appears to need.
The question is whether it is possible to have one without the lies.
This is not a rhetorical question. This post proposes a starting
definition: science, plus the axiom that we are here to improve the well-being
of conscious entities. It's not quite the current Utilitarian economic theory because Evolution by Natural Selection gets in the way. The liberal theory of religion (every person is the judge of what is good, is not only unworkable, it isn't tur.. This is a thesis, not a final answer.
Religious symbols from left to right, top to bottom: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
Judaism, the Baháʼí Faith, Eckankar, Sikhism, Jainism, Wicca, Unitarian Universalism,
Shinto, Taoism, Thelema, Tenrikyo, and Zoroastrianism.
"Superhuman"? Nope. "A personal God?" Nope. Let's try again.
Religion – An organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.
And are any of them made without lies? Not that I've found. It's time to change this. It's critical to change this, because religion leads you in the wrong direction on many moral and ethical questions.[1] Not only religion, but Evolution by Natural Selection also leads you in the wrong direction on many moral and ethical grounds. Evolution optimizes only for survival and progeny, not for human flourishing. The naturalistic fallacy — the assumption that what is natural is what is good — is as misleading as religious dogma. That conscience you feel is to keep you alive, not to keep you moral. Evolution knows nothing about morals.
As one of my favorite rational philosophers, Sam Harris, opines: "Muslims and Christians cannot disagree about the causes of cholera, for instance, because whatever their holy books might say about infectious disease, a genuine understanding of cholera has arrived from another quarter. Epidemiology trumps religion (or it should), especially when people are watching their children die. This is where our hope for a truly nonsectarian future lies: when things matter, people tend to want to understand what is actually going on in the world. Science (and rational discourse generally) delivers this understanding and offers a very frank appraisal of its current limitations; Religion fails on both counts." [2]
We want a religion that doesn't fail when confronted with the truth.
We need to intelligently design this religion.
I'm open to ideas.
Science plus the assumption that we are here to improve the well-being of conscious entities?
Or is this common sense idea too radical for all the fundamentalists and the other 4200 religions in the world?
It's really not just about the tax breaks, Scientologists.
*Sigh*
Thanks for reading!
-Dr. Mike
Note: This 2021 post is answered and fully developed in:
Religion Without Lies: Why We Have Free Will (2025).
This is part of the Final Great Awakening series. The the next installment in this series is:
The Final Great Awakening of the Human Race (2017).
================================================================
[1] Everyone can come up with examples: people believing in miracles, thinking the earth is only 6000 years old, thinking their god favors their wars, the list is endless.
[2] The End of Faith (2004)
No comments:
Post a Comment