Designing a New Religion

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by TealLeaf

You misunderstood me. What I said was that calling the Universe interactive is just another way of saying the there is cause and effect. It's not much of a revelation or anything but obvious and ordinary.

Just because something might be ordinary, it does not preclude it from also being wondrous.

You can but when things go wrong, as they will, a simple "cause and effect" Universe offers little or no solace.

Different hang-ups for different folks. *shugs*

[TealLeaf]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Different hang-ups for different folks.

You mean different principles for different folks.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by TealLeaf

You mean different principles for different folks.

Well then, why not stick to your principles of wanting religion to keep up with science? Taking the wonderment out of 'simple cause and effect' sort of discourages that, no?

[TealLeaf]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well then, why not stick to your principles of wanting religion to keep up with science?

How you are linking a lack of awe at the process of cause and effect with not being consistent with science? I don't understand.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Taking the wonderment out of 'simple cause and effect' sort of discourages that, no?

I don't think that I am taking the wonderment out of cause and effect. I just don't see any wonderment there to begin with. You might just as well stand in awe at the persistence of solid objects. Things don't just disappear. Wow.

Cause and effect doesn't provide the solace of a purpose or a plan when bad things happen. It only offers the harsh reality of; You might have done something wrong, and/or, What are you going to do now? And while both of those may be true everyone needs a little solace sometimes lest we see our actions as futile and vain.

As for jiving God or a perfect Universe with modern scientific understanding I don't see the problem especially when it comes to a perfect Universe. The fact that the the laws of physics perform absolutely and flawlessly combined with the concept of the interdependence of opposites is enough to scientifically view the Universe as perfect.

To jive God with modern science is a bit trickier but doable none-the-less. The key to a scientifically viable concept of God is faith. If one does not believe in God but rather has faith in God nothing of science, other than objectivity apparently, is violated. But if one considers that people behave more cooperatively when they believe that someone is watching them, and there is much scientific evidence to show that this is true, then faith in God has a practical and objective basis.

Of course the problem with the former view is that the Universe can be quite perfect even if you don't put in any effort which is where I can see your emphasis on interactivity being helpful.

The problem with the latter view is that in order for God to jive fully with the scientific method you have to expose Him/Her as an artificial construct thus effectively eliminating or at least severely reducing the positive effects of faith in God.

After giving it some thought I am willing to run with the idea of a perfect interactive Universe where perfection is defined as an ongoing process. Further I am thinking that maybe it should be a duty in the pursuit of perfecting the Universe to bolster a belief in God if for no other reason than to get people to behave better than they would otherwise. Or is that too much?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by TealLeaf

How you are linking a lack of awe at the process of cause and effect with not being consistent with science? I don't understand.



I don't think that I am taking the wonderment out of cause and effect. I just don't see any wonderment there to begin with. You might just as well stand in awe at the persistence of solid objects. Things don't just disappear. Wow.

Hey, the more closely I look at it, the more in wonder I become. (Individual results may vary.)

Cause and effect doesn't provide the solace of a purpose or a plan when bad things happen. It only offers the harsh reality of; You might have done something wrong, and/or, What are you going to do now? And while both of those may be true everyone needs a little solace sometimes lest we see our actions as futile and vain.

How can our actions be futile and vain if there is cause and effect?

As for jiving God or a perfect Universe with modern scientific understanding I don't see the problem especially when it comes to a perfect Universe. The fact that the the laws of physics perform absolutely and flawlessly combined with the concept of the interdependence of opposites is enough to scientifically view the Universe as perfect.

To jive God with modern science is a bit trickier but doable none-the-less. The key to a scientifically viable concept of God is faith. If one does not believe in God but rather has faith in God nothing of science, other than objectivity apparently, is violated. But if one considers that people behave more cooperatively when they believe that someone is watching them, and there is much scientific evidence to show that this is true, then faith in God has a practical and objective basis.

Of course the problem with the former view is that the Universe can be quite perfect even if you don't put in any effort which is where I can see your emphasis on interactivity being helpful.

The problem with the latter view is that in order for God to jive fully with the scientific method you have to expose Him/Her as an artificial construct thus effectively eliminating or at least severely reducing the positive effects of faith in God.

After giving it some thought I am willing to run with the idea of a perfect interactive Universe where perfection is defined as an ongoing process. Further I am thinking that maybe it should be a duty in the pursuit of perfecting the Universe to bolster a belief in God if for no other reason than to get people to behave better than they would otherwise. Or is that too much?

You mean behaving well because it will improve your life and your mind, and will bring you happiness in the here-and-now? What a concept!

[TealLeaf]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

How can our actions be futile and vain if there is cause and effect?

Sure. Why not?

Originally Posted by seattlegal

You mean behaving well because it will improve your life and your mind, and will bring you happiness in the here-and-now?

Not that I disagree but I don't think that is exactly what I was getting at.

[Nightowl]

I still don't understand why there is so much zealous opposition to the idea of designing a new religion. After all, all that I am talking about is writing a self help book with a spiritual theme and an emphasis on group behavior. Again I'm just talking about writing a book.

Ahhh I missed that some where.... well that I can agree with andddd rofl have in a sense started one. lol but as for creating a newly organise religion with deity or what not.... not a good idea. A book on ethics and good behavior yeh you have me sold on that one

I disagree with the less schooling part. As for war and disease your right but you left out the other biggie that is famine.

Well seems to me the less educated and the less understanding people have.... the more likely they are to kill. 1st Its hard ro find a good job. So out of starvation you get desperate, and you'll do anything to feed yourself or your family including murder. 2nd The less we understand other people the most likely they will be the boogy men we are scared of. So education is not a good thing for decreasing population.

[TealLeaf]

Originally Posted by Nightowl

Ahhh I missed that some where.... well that I can agree with andddd rofl have in a sense started one. lol but as for creating a newly organise religion with deity or what not.... not a good idea. A book on ethics and good behavior yeh you have me sold on that one

Well it would be a book like the Bible or the Koran only more up-to-date.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

You mean behaving well because it will improve your life and your mind, and will bring you happiness in the here-and-now? What a concept!

Originally Posted by TealLeaf

Not that I disagree but I don't think that is exactly what I was getting at.

How would perfecting an interactive universe not improve your life and happiness? (While improving your interface with the universe--your mind--as well?) We are still talking cause-and-effect here, no? (Or is that not wondrous enough to qualify as religious?)

[TealLeaf]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

How would perfecting an interactive universe not improve your life and happiness? (While improving your interface with the universe--your mind--as well?) We are still talking cause-and-effect here, no? (Or is that not wondrous enough to qualify as religious?)

Again I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying I just think that it is not what I was getting at.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by TealLeaf

Again I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying I just think that it is not what I was getting at.

Alright, what exactly were you getting at?

[TealLeaf]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Alright, what exactly were you getting at?

Visualizing the Universe as perfect where perfection is defined as an ongoing process whilst simultaneously bolstering a belief in God to get people to behave better than they would otherwise.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by TealLeaf

Visualizing the Universe as perfect where perfection is defined as an ongoing process whilst simultaneously bolstering a belief in God to get people to behave better than they would otherwise.

Some things we deem as perfect simply cannot manifest in the universe due to quantum elements. For instance, one cannot physically draw a perfectly straight line or a perfect circle. We can understand the concept with our minds, but we cannot physically represent it. This would mean that we would have to tweak the meaning of "perfect" away from the conceptual and more towards the physically possible "optimized" in order to make it work.

Now, if participating in "perfecting/optimizing" the universe and oneself is accomplished through better behavior, then where does this leave God? (Back to that cause and effect thing again. It can be simply mundane if you leave God out of 'simple cause-and-effect,' or it can be simply wondrous if you can look for God within it.)

Of course, we being imperfect implies the need of some sort of help. There's another place where God can come in.

[TealLeaf]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Some things we deem as perfect simply cannot manifest in the universe due to quantum elements. For instance, one cannot physically draw a perfectly straight line or a perfect circle. We can understand the concept with our minds, but we cannot physically represent it. This would mean that we would have to tweak the meaning of "perfect" away from the conceptual and more towards the physically possible "optimized" in order to make it work.

Now, if participating in "perfecting/optimizing" the universe and oneself is accomplished through better behavior, then where does this leave God? (Back to that cause and effect thing again. It can be simply mundane if you leave God out of 'simple cause-and-effect,' or it can be simply wondrous if you can look for God within it.)

Of course, we being imperfect implies the need of some sort of help. There's another place where God can come in.

I disagree with your semantics. A line that you draw is not a line. By mathematical definition lines are imaginary. What you draw is perfectly what it is which is not an imaginary geometric line but a real representation of a line segment which is perfect in and of itself unless it is drawn distorted in which case it is a perfectly distorted representation of a line segment. It's not an optimized representation of distorted line segment.

You seem to be jumping a lot of fences to get this word "optimized" across. I know you said you liked it but to me the word sounds cold. As in "You have been optimized." *said in an alien computer generated voice*

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by TealLeaf

I disagree with your semantics.

Oh boy! Semantics!

A line that you draw is not a line. By mathematical definition lines are imaginary. What you draw is perfectly what it is which is not an imaginary geometric line but a real representation of a line segment which is perfect in and of itself unless it is drawn distorted in which case it is a perfectly distorted representation of a line segment. It's not an optimized representation of distorted line segment.

You seem to be jumping a lot of fences to get this word "optimized" across. I know you said you liked it but to me the word sounds cold. As in "You have been optimized." *said in an alien computer generated voice*

See, we are having a bit of difficulty "perfectly" applying the word "perfect" and its variations, here. Bringing its use into perfection would most definitely have to be an ongoing process, methinks. Speaking of definitions, something sorta like this?

op⋅ti⋅mize

   /ˈɒptəˌmaɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [op-tuh-mahyz] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -mized, -miz⋅ing. –verb (used with object)

1. to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.
2. to make the best of.
3. Computers. to write or rewrite (the instructions in a program) so as to maximize efficiency and speed in retrieval, storage, or execution.
4. Mathematics. to determine the maximum or minimum values of (a specified function that is subject to certain constraints).
–verb (used without object)
5. to be optimistic.

If you are going to define or describe the universe, wouldn't a truthful description entail the recognition of the constraints built within the universe? Even the definition of perfect requires this:

per⋅fect

   /adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v. pərˈfɛkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.
6. thorough; complete; utter: perfect strangers.
7. pure or unmixed: perfect yellow.
8. unqualified; absolute: He has perfect control over his followers.
9. expert; accomplished; proficient.
10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree: He made a perfect fool of himself.
11. Botany.
a. having all parts or members present.
b. monoclinous.
12. Grammar.
a. noting an action or state brought to a close prior to some temporal point of reference, in contrast to imperfect or incomplete action.
b. designating a tense or other verb formation or construction with such meaning.
13. Music.
a. applied to the consonances of unison, octave, and fifth, as distinguished from those of the third and sixth, which are called imperfect.
b. applied to the intervals, harmonic or melodic, of an octave, fifth, and fourth in their normal form, as opposed to augmented and diminished.
14. Mathematics. (of a set) equal to its set of accumulation points.
15. Obsolete. assured or certain.
–noun Grammar.
16. the perfect tense.
17. a verb form or construction in the perfect tense. Compare future perfect, pluperfect, present perfect.
–verb (used with object)
18. to bring to completion; finish.
19. to bring to perfection; make flawless or faultless.
20. to bring nearer to perfection; improve.
21. to make fully skilled.
22. Printing. to print the reverse of (a printed sheet).
Origin:
1250–1300; < L perfectus, ptp. of perficere to finish, bring to completion (per- per- + -fec-, comb. form of facere to do 1 + -tus ptp. suffix); r. ME parfit < OF < L as above

The origin of the word perfect means to finish, or bring to completion. Redefining perfect to mean "an ongoing process" would be a nullification of the original meaning of the word, "perfect."

Semantics can certainly be problematic...