The Thinking Man's Religion/Spirituality

[Systematic]

Here I list some musings which I had today about a new possible religion/spirituality for those who wish to be both rational and spiritual:

---Liberty for self and others are highly recommended.
---Science should not only be invited and revered, but also be an integral part of religious study.
---Questioning one's own religion, spirituality, and mundane life are highly recommended.
---The most advanced and useful faculty of humanity is their ability to think rationally, therefore any religion which seeks to thwart that faculty is deeply flawed.
---The divine are guides to humanity, and are not to be followed, but rather consulted for advice as one would consult a friend.

I believe those two (i.e. religion and reason) to be highly compatible, or perhaps it is merely my hope. Both are in need of the other. Religion requires thought the way that medicine requires thought. And thought requires religion, because thought is presently demoted to the station of atheism's handmaiden.

[Harbal]

Here I list some musings which I had today about a new possible religion/spirituality for those who wish to be both rational and spiritual:

---Liberty for self and others are highly recommended.
---Science should not only be invited and revered, but also be an integral part of religious study.
---Questioning one's own religion, spirituality, and mundane life are highly recommended.
---The most advanced and useful faculty of humanity is their ability to think rationally, therefore any religion which seeks to thwart that faculty is deeply flawed.
---The divine are guides to humanity, and are not to be followed, but rather consulted for advice as one would consult a friend.

I believe those two (i.e. religion and reason) to be highly compatible, or perhaps it is merely my hope. Both are in need of the other. Religion requires thought the way that medicine requires thought. And thought requires religion, because thought is presently demoted to the station of atheism's handmaiden.

It's strange that you put so much emphasis on thought, as you have obviously not thought all this out very well.

[Systematic]

It's strange that you put so much emphasis on thought, as you have obviously not thought all this out very well.

I didn't think this out very well, but according to my experience with metacognition, those statements which we intuit to not be true or which have the least support sometimes turn out to be true anyway. For example, the theory of evolution, when originally presented by Darwin, seemed very untrue due to all the support for creationism.

[Skip]

But Darwin did think it out, very long and carefully, on the basis of many years' observations. And the only people to whom it seemed untrue were those who refused to consider it on religious grounds.

So, why would you want to drag religion into a sensible secular approach to life?

---The divine are guides to humanity, and are not to be followed, but rather consulted for advice as one would consult a friend.

What divine? Guides toward what goal? Why not just figure it out?

[Harbal]

I didn't think this out very well,

What I meant was: You are putting much emphasis on rationality but religion/spirituality requires acceptance without understanding. I'm not saying that either rationality or spirituality can't contain an element of the other but I really don't think you can have a 50/50 mix.

[bobevenson]

Since life is evolving in the direction of solid-state electronics, the thinking man's religion is the Solid-state Convention, a religion for the space age. When the universe finally starts to shrink, there will be a convention of solid-state devices from all over the universe, omnisciently communicating with each other. In the meantime, of course, his spirituality emanates from the Church of Ouzo.

[Systematic]

But Darwin did think it out, very long and carefully, on the basis of many years' observations. And the only people to whom it seemed untrue were those who refused to consider it on religious grounds.

So, why would you want to drag religion into a sensible secular approach to life?

---The divine are guides to humanity, and are not to be followed, but rather consulted for advice as one would consult a friend.

What divine? Guides toward what goal? Why not just figure it out?

OK, maybe Darwin was a bad example. An idea can seem untrue while still being true. That's all I meant.

The ideal that I was going for was acceptance for science in a religion and the use of science to uncover spiritual truths. We already have people like Ken Ham who water down science with Biblical assertions. That is not a full acceptance of science.

Exactly my point. We should be able to figure out almost any thought. I was thinking of using the divine for those we can't, such as the future. But divination, I am suggesting, may become more accurate using science. It might be like alchemy--similar to chemistry.

[Systematic]

I didn't think this out very well,

What I meant was: You are putting much emphasis on rationality but religion/spirituality requires acceptance without understanding. I'm not saying that either rationality or spirituality can't contain an element of the other but I really don't think you can have a 50/50 mix.

When Jesus was alive, he questioned his given religion. Do you really believe that the Hebrew religious leaders had him crucified due to his threat to Rome?

[Harbal]

When Jesus was alive, he questioned his given religion. Do you really believe that the Hebrew religious leaders had him crucified due to his threat to Rome?

I don't know who had him crucified or why, so I don't get what point you are making. One particular thing about Christianity that has aways puzzled me is what is meant by "jesus died for us" or "Jesus died for our sins". I've asked for an expanation of this several times in the religion section of this forum and have yet to hear an explanation that makes any sense to me. The concept of Jesus dying for us seems to be fundamentally significant in Christianity, it is certainly refered to often enough, but it's meaning does not seem to be capable of understanding through logical analysis. This state of affairs seems to be the case with the key points of most religions, as far as I can see. The point I am making is that if you take away all the things that don't stand up to reason then what you are left with does not conform to the definition of religion.

[attofishpi]

One particular thing about Christianity that has aways puzzled me is what is meant by "jesus died for us" or "Jesus died for our sins". I've asked for an expanation of this several times in the religion section of this forum and have yet to hear an explanation that makes any sense to me. The concept of Jesus dying for us seems to be fundamentally significant in Christianity, it is certainly refered to often enough, but it's meaning does not seem to be capable of understanding through logical analysis.

From my experience its like this. You get born into a Christian upbringing. You have no idea what the entire Christ thing is all about logically. You do a nasty sin. The karma via God kicks you around for many years especially by way of the fact that Christ "gave his life for you" in the most horrific way. Therefore, you must live your life to be your best, if you stray from this path, then the God karma will kick back in for another two or three months...leaving you wishing you were dead. Any time you call Christ a few nasty expletives, again the God karma will fuck you over again.
Eventually you must capitulate and live the life with respect for what Christ did.

[Harbal]

.
Eventually you must capitulate and live the life with respect for what Christ did.

But it would help a great deal to know why the fuck he did it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The Thinking Man's Religion/Spirituality is contained fully within the following square brackets.
[ ]

[Hobbes' Choice]

Eventually you must capitulate and live the life with respect for what Christ did.

How and why?

[attofishpi]

Eventually you must capitulate and live the life with respect for what Christ did.

How and why?

That's a good question but one which i am not prepared to answer, as yet.

[Harbal]

I believe those two (i.e. religion and reason) to be highly compatible, .

I suspect there are many for whom the attraction of religion lies in the fact that it is not compatible with reason, preferring instead, to have everything already laid out for them. To try and base a religion on reason would defeat the object of religion.