I'm working on an idea, as yet extremely undeveloped. However, it is likely going to prove much too complex and difficult for me alone, and I wondered if anybody would care to devote perhaps a little time to seeing if could go anywhere.

The idea is this: Can we find a way to get the "best of benefits of both worlds, while avoiding the pitfalls." In this case, "both worlds" refers to theism/deism (or the world of faith) and the atheist/secular world-view.

The idea comes from some teaching I was doing recently on "principled negotiation." Negotiators typically work along a spectrum of "competitive negotiation to win" versus "cooperative negotiation to preserve the relationship." Each style can easily be shown to have major benefits, and each can just as easily be shown to have major negative consequence. Principled negotiation (developed at Harvard U.) seeks to get the benefits -- while avoiding the pitfalls -- of each style.

And so I wondered if some few of us begain to try and gather both the benefits and pitfalls of both religious and secular world-views, and then see if we can find a way forward that reaps the benefits of both, while avoiding the negatives.

As to where we can find such benefits and pitfalls, there are of course no end of sources. Religious apologetics abound on the web, and secular authors have provided no end of benefits of atheism versus the negatives of religion.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating, but you don't have to do anything yet. If there's any interest, I'll try to cobble together a more formal proposal as a way to go forward.

Allen

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Anything that joins hearts and minds is good with me! I think it's a necessary step towards peace for us as individuals and as a species. If I can help, just let me know.

I am presently working on such a project. It has gone through several iterations.

It's a good idea. Le'ts stick this thread so it won't disappear. We can continue to work on it here. If the project gets to big we can give it it's own forum and subforums.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Hi Allen
At this early stage is it possible for you to set out where, in your wildest dreams and in an ideal world, you'd ultimately hope this might end up?
I guess what I'm trying to ask is have you got an end result in mind, regardless of how far fetched it may seem at the moment?

First, a couple of observations:

• Most of the world's important religions appear to be at least in part "syncretic," fused bits and pieces that have been reconciled from earlier beliefs.
• Religion is not going to go away, as it seems to fill a basic need for the majority of humankind. Included in that need are:
  • A purpose for existence
  • Comfort in an uncertain universe, in which everyone is going to live and die
  • Guidelines for ethical living, etc.
• Atheism on its own leads to no particular philosophy that provides anything like a basic need of humans, and thus most atheists (and many theists) gravitate towards another "faith" -- Humanism, although most wouldn't call it a faith.
• Every belief system, inasmuch as it can't be proven, leads inevitably to some kind of dogma, "formally and/or authoritatively held truth." I include atheism as a belief system in this context.
• Competing dogmas are by definition antithetical to each other -- Authoritatively held truths that deny other authoritatively held truths.
• Competing dogmas lead to conflict, conflict leads to death and destruction on a grand scale
• Heresy (opinion or doctrine at odds with the going dogma) often results in exclusion -- and sometimes much, much worse -- for the heretic.

That list could likely go on for a long time, but you get the idea.

So, I was thinking, if most religions are syncretic, and most syncretism appears almost accidental (as cultures and faiths interact through history) why not give some consideration to doing it deliberately, and while doing so, consciously working through the ramifications of whatever dogmatic contradictions might result?

The end result, it is my hope, might be something that the vast majority of human beings could accept, and might fulfill their basic spiritual needs.

Okay, let's take a look at just one teeny-weeny example:

• Religous positive: Has a set of codified moral laws by which right and wrong are judged.
• Religious negative: Some moral rules in the scriptural texts don't really fit in our present society, and some guidelines for moral behaviour fail to provide the right examples. We do not think killing children for disobedience can be right.
• Atheism negative: Doesn't appear to have any "absolute" moral positions. Atheists may not think of abortion as killing children.
• Atheist positive: As society and culture changes, moral positions may be more flexible, and capable of adjusting, while still providing needed moral guidance.

What we can observe in real life, however, is that some religious believers commit crimes (while most do not) and most atheists are reasonably good people (and some are not and commit crimes). What can we say that ancient codes, or the lack of them, have contributed? And the answer appears to be "not much."

For example, Christians will claim that the Bible is their codified set of morals, and yet they ignore, quite literally, the vast majority of the rules it contains. Granted there are lots of reasons for this, but it defies any claim to be "absolute."

Atheists and theists alike both appear to know right from wrong, in most cases, and disagree over a few things. (This is normal human behaviour, and reflects the fact that some things are simply more difficult than others.) Therefore, it might be possible for our new "syncretic religion" to make the assumption that, and possibly even write it into the creed:
We now have hope of achieving the best of both a religious and atheist point of view, while avoiding the pitfalls of each!

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I don't mean to be a downer, because I think the aims are noble, its just that we are addressing these very problems in Integral Theory, and I'm afraid I would just be making posts that say, "Well, Integral Theory addresses that like this...". I don't want to kill this creative process, so I'll watch from the sidelines.

-TC

You wouldn't be a downer, TC, but I respect your observation.

Still, integral theory is a solution, and I don't know that I've figured out what the problem is, yet. And for whatever value integral theory has, I would be reluctant to try to apply it without knowing what it is I'm trying to resolve.

And I might add just one thing -- integral theory is either incredibly complex, or it contains prescriptions that can be foist upon business men and others without understanding deeply where those prescriptions come from. Very much, to my mind, like theology versus creeds. The theology is for the few wise, the creeds are for the ignorant masses needing to be told what to do.

What I was really hoping for to start, though, is simple lists. What are the benefits to theistic beliefs, and what are the problems? And what are the benefits and problems from atheistic beliefs?

That's simple brainstorming, where we give our thoughts uncritically, and uncriticized. The analysis comes later.

So, for instance (as an atheist) I would point out that it seems to be a very theistic viewpoint, based on an assumption about what God wants, that led to the fatwa demanding Salman Rushdie's death (and led in fact to the death of a couple of people around him). I would post that, and ask that people don't say "no, that wasn't religion, that was ignorance" just yet. We do that later.

In a similar vein, someone might say, "Atheism offers no firm basis from which to decide if abortion, or capital punishment, or preemptive military strikes are right or wrong." I would accept that as a possible negative about atheism at face value during the brainstorming phaze, and keep my mouth shut (well, actually I'd keep my chubby fingers off the keyboard. )

Still, please feel free to observe or not at your leisure, and any thoughts that you might have would be valuable and welcome.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Most Religions put Atheist as the 'Devil's work' not meaning that Atheists are the Devil because most Religions believe that 'all' can be saved in one way or another but the ones who deny God as real are the Devil's work in application.

For a 'Religious' person to incorporate a nexus in the Devil's work with a Religious person is futile because in the Relgiousosity lol , Satan does not enter " DO NOT ENTER"
but an Atheist sign is " ALL WELCOME" [byob] lol.

However, l can discuss this because l am in a category all by my lonesome which is , in your definitions evangelicalhumanist, "in my mind " lol but also a delusion , an illusion and the whole bottle of wax , am l , lol and more crazy than even evangelicalhumanist can comprehend .

Although l am not schizophrenic l like to say ,,

" what a beautiful day to be schizophrenic "

lol whatever.

So l must take my name off the ballot too because since evangelicalhumanist sees my words as an extension of my delusions , and most of us here actually, but me alone evangelicalhumanist feels that all my events from the para-nomal and Spritual aspects are a delusion and a brain faction of "application in delusion" that it is pointless for me to say anything and because this person feels that almost all Humans should be on medication such as Haldol or say any delusional stopping medicine , what is the use of a debate of this caliber when the non-Atheist half of this debate should be on anti-psychotic or anti-delusion etc medications according to the Atheist side of this debate .

Anyway l am excluded from this debate because l am so delusional as the rest of us and all our ancestors etc , Einstein included because Einstein stated "there is more" and did not rule out Spiritualsm , that my delusions render me 'null and void' of making sense , so me and most of you here and pretty much all our ancestors are non- applicable to this debate due to mental deficits and we all need anti-delusional medications so we can see the light just as evangelicalhumanist does .

This is without predjudice ofcourse and l want to debate with evangelicalhumanist but how can l when l live in a delusional world and evangelicalhumanist does not .

Please clarify for me , evangelicalhumanist.

Thanks .