Why religions are good but we need new ones

I think people in modern times do not understand religion and are far too quick to dismiss them, probably because of defects they can point to in existing popular ones. Like the tenets of the popular Abrahamic religions. Sure, Abrahamic religions do have lots of problems with them, but that shouldn't mean jettisoning all of religion in its entirety.

Some functions of religion:
i. trying to help people understand the meaning of life, the purpose of existence, and what happens after we cease to exist
ii. prescriptions about how to live life: both moral and material
iii. giving people community: this is very apparent in how the Abrahamic religions work. there is a ton of congregating with other people in groups which helps people develop friendships and relationships. it is maybe not a surprise for example that with increasing secularity in the West has come social atomization and lots of other social problems

So religion is actually a great thing. It seems like the only way to solve the sorts of problems that it does solve at scale. The people who created these Abrahamic religions were directionally right, but these religions have problems with them. Like:

i. sketchy foundations: 2000 years ago, it might have been possible to make up stories about angels and prophets to achieve the sorts of things religions try to achieve, but with our superior understanding of the natural world (science), it's very hard to take stories about angels seriously

ii. certain outdated prescriptions: materials ones like the prohibition of the consumption of pork in some Abrahamic religions for example. Maybe it makes sense when animal husbandry was less developed and pigs had a propensity to free-roam, consume undesirable stuff and thence and increased chances of acquiring bad illnesses from consuming them. but we have modern science and tech, and such prescriptions are outdated

So religion is good, but Abrahamic religions have hair on them. Solution? create new religions (well, in our case, just one) which better foundations, are scientifically rigorous, are reconcilable with the modern world and going forward into the future.

Do take a look at >>1181 and >>857.

>>1712
>sketchy foundations
Theology is ever evolving, and mythology is mythology. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water for small reasons; there are plenty of people firmly within Christianity who hold all kinds of views on these topics. The more offensive problems are the demands for orthodoxy on beliefs that defy both common sense and careful reasoning about the world. I'm sure some disagree, but see "virgin birth", "the resurrection", and "ascended into heaven". But even there, you can just be a heretic and choose not to believe the superstitious stuff confused 1st century jews made up about the great man who came to them. Take of it what makes sense to your inner conscience, and don't use a few absurd claims as reason not to study the whole body of work.

>certain outdated prescriptions
Jesus said that all the prescriptions are fulfilled in the two prime commandments: love God, and love your neighbor (with loving your neighbor meaning something like a leap of faith that we can act like the good samaritan towards each other). So don't worry about detailed prescriptions. Worry about who is God, and how to love Him, and who is your neighbor, and how to love him. And that's not bad advice even if you don't believe any of "the religion".

If you take my attitude towards religion, which is the attitude of a heretic, the problem is not how to have a religion. Any half baked philosopher has all kinds of religious beliefs and practices that serve him well in life and give him his orientation. The problem is how to have communal epistemic authority about the totality of life that is both trustworthy and compelling so that you're not living the philosopher's life alone.

One does not simply "create" such a thing. It has to be grown and revealed. You certainly don't get there by trying to create "a new religion". "Religion" is probably a failure mode of the real thing. The thing to focus on is getting the deep philosophical and life questions right, and making those answers available in a systematic form.

>>1729
> You certainly don't get there by trying to create "a new religion". "Religion" is probably a failure mode of the real thing. The thing to focus on is getting the deep philosophical and life questions right, and making those answers available in a systematic form.

Agree. I think this is the core of the thing, especially how best to "make those answers available."

>>1734
fwiw I think the straightforward answer is best: write, teach, publish, speak, promote. The hard part is the content, not the delivery.

Posts like these need an autism check. True faith and the accompanying religious instiutitions come from sudden illumination and the fulfillment of prophecy, not optimizing stats-bonuses in an RPG.

The fact is that no one is ever operating outside a religious framework because positing right and wrong, saying "should," requires that you acknowledge a fundamentally irrational commitment to whatever moral precepts you're pushing.

Christians call the ability to discern what God thinks is right "grace." What exactly prompts a materialist to assert any imperative at all besides an obfuscation of this?

>>1757
>What exactly prompts a materialist to assert any imperative at all besides an obfuscation of this?
Take it up in the materialism thread. >>1754