Religion, New and Improved

November 2004

Abstract:
We need a new, worldwide, unifying religion that satisfies people's needs for hocus-pocus but doesn't preach hate. Here are some suggestions.

Improved religion?

Religion is both a unifying and a divisive force. Each religion promotes a feeling of unity within its own fellowship. Unfortunately, that's closely tied to the chasm of enmity separating the believers from those outside the fellowship. This appears to be an unvarying truth. If it is, the solution to the evil brought about by our "moral guides" must involve forging a religion which can appeal to all cultures, in which the whole world can in fact join in brotherhood.

Those who don't use religion may well ask why we need religion at all. Wouldn't the problems of wars and terror in the name of God vanish if all religion vanished? True, they would, but such a solution is unfortunately not possible. First, those who need and use religion will not give it up, and second, religion has actual benefits for many who make use of it. (See BRJ note from earlier this year.) I will proceed on the premise that the need for religion is accepted; that the comfort, cameraderie, and social stability that comes from religious practice is both a benefit to individuals and society and, at this stage of humanity, is a necessity.

If we try to look forward a couple of hundred years, what do we see, in the absence of any revolutionary changes in the religious landscape? Most likely, a continuation of the same kinds of conflicts, with new participants but perhaps lingering in many of the same areas: Palestine-Israel, Pakistan-India-Sri Lanka, Ireland, Afghanistan, Chechnya, the Balkan peninsula, Iraq, the Caucasus, "Kurdestan", Arabia, most of Africa, and countless other religious hot spots. The history of the last several hundred years gives little reason for hope that mankind's religious disputes will be settled any less violently in the near future.

Can we make a new religion?

What would be the features of such a religion? Let's say it would retain the features of religion that are beneficial, and cashier those that are destructive. At least seven beneficial effects of religion stand out:

1. Everlasting life. Belief in an afterlife is immensely reassuring. Relatively few humans are comfortable with the idea of his/her life being simply extinguished.
2. Authoritative direction to the course of life.
3. Moral guidance.
4. Comfort in times of need is for many the crucial benefit of their faith. Access to a higher being who will listen to and care about their plight is a source of daily strength.
5. Promise of eventual justice is also a powerful comfort, satisfying also our desire for revenge on our enemies. In the afterlife, all wrongs of this life will be made right.
6. Social communion and friendship with likeminded friends is not the least of the benefits of the religious experience.
7. Mutual assistance is related to the previous; religious groups provide a social safety net better than most other groupings.

1. Exclusionism and fanaticism, with mistrust and loathing of God's "enemies".
2. Certainty of truth. While this may seem a "benefit" to the believer, it is an insidious trap. The more firmly a person believes that his own beliefs are right, the more he is convinced that other beliefs are wrong and evil. It is no great step from that to the view that the other (wrong) religions are the enemy of his God.
3. Exclusive revelation. Information received from an omniscient God does not leave much room for debate. Therefore, any claimant to contrary divine revelation is a charlatan and an enemy of God, and his followers are deluded or evil.

An interesting result of this is that even believers believe that religions were created, not revealed. That is, they believe that about all the other religions, while their own religion is the exception. The upshot is that each and every religion is thought by a majority of religious believers to be false and the work of man, not of God. So can we make use of that fact to create a competitive religion?

Sure we can:

It should have a "great creator" god (we're bowing to modern convention in limiting ourselves to one god, though the scientific evidence for multiple gods has been shown to be precisely equally persuasive). A god with a distinctive name – neither masculine or feminine, of course – "Pat" will do for now. We'll define Pat as the power that created everything, but has left us to deduce what we can about this creation, using our wits. Pat has given us no revealed truth; no holy book, rules, or commandments; no prophets, messengers, sons, angels, devils, visions, or miracles; no Church, no rites, no call to worship, and definitely no "Viceroy on Earth" (BRJ link). Pat is non-corporeal and sex-less, but probably approachable – we'll believe It (seems like the appropriate pronoun) listens to prayer, or at the very least assigns someone on staff to listen. (Responses are not to be expected, however; just like with the current gods.) Pat is naturally above all else. Beyond that, Pat just IS.

So far, so good. Admittedly we don't know much at this stage; perhaps not enough to move a congregation. But it's precisely the lack of revealed truth that is the charm of our new religion. Oh, the body of practitioners will factionalize with time, and probably very quickly, because Nothingness is so open to interpretation, and the various interpreters will have their followers. Theologians will finally have something to do again after centuries of inactivity. But the beauty is that schisms based on mere opinion will (hopefully) be neither as militant nor as long-lasting as those that point to a basis in the received word. But we digress. To return to our doctrine:

The core of Patological doctrine is that there is no revealed doctrine. We "know" that Pat exists and created the universe(s) and the physical laws. Everything else we're only relatively certain about. Yes, doctrine will develop, and so will doctrinal disputes, but the lovely difference from current religions is that you're less likely to attack your fellow man over beliefs that you're only relatively sure of. But we must ask, how satisfying is relative assurance of eternal life, eventual justice, moral guidance, and the other items on our list of goodies above? That's hard to say; one must admit that mankind may not be ready to leave the need for absolute certainty behind.

What then of the future?

(Appendix: For a subsequent epiphany, see "Conversation with Pat")