difficult question. on one hand becoming an organized church will give us legal protection of religion against accusations of "selling a pipe dream" that our critics like to accuse us with threats of making laws restricting practices that we promote. On the other hand, becoming officially a religion can turn away some scientifically minded people (due to conflict thesis promoted by media and atheist organizations) and make national academies of sciences reluctant to listen to us and undermine research funding from already marginalized and underfunded research programs. So I have mixed thoughts about the idea
So do I. As I see things, the main argument for launching a new religion is that more and more people feel less and less happy with traditional religions because of 1 conflict with science, 2 discrimination, and 3 restrictive lifestyle prescriptions. Turing Church (as a church) would be compatible with science, welcome everyone, and stay away from lifestyle prescriptions. Therefore, it could be appealing to those who want to belong to an organized church but don't because of 1-2-3.
The main argument against is that there are already good religious groups that could appeal to this target audience, such the Christian Transhumanist Association, the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and Terasem. In particular, Terasem is independent of established religions, which in this case is a plus.
that is correct. The medieval religions do instead have a listed problems. I will add the other one. So it is four problems: conflict with science and reason, discrimination and intolerance, lifestyle prescription, and fourth is political command ambitions on how to deal with foreign "enemies" and transgressors. The old religions don't just prescribe lifestyle, but also the punishment for violators of the command, not only in the afterlife, but in this life through state. So we need a faith that doesn't attack science, discriminate, stays away from lifestyle prescription, but also from political and legal control of humans under it's jurisdiction. (doesn't mean stay away from politics, but political activities must be limited to protecting rights to practice the belief and supporting secular causes regarded as moral and beneficial to community, but not have laws enforcing the dogma as well as dogma prescribing punishment without critical evaluation of it's appropriateness and effectiveness by neutral party).
So the question is, can traditional religions like Christianity and Islam overcome these four problems? If yes, how can we contribute? If not, do we need new religions?
I don't consider the option of doing without religion because I think some kind of religion-like beliefs or convictions play a useful and indispensable role for persons and societies. But must religion necessarily include revelations and the concept of supernatural?
Can Judaism, Christianity and Islam overcome those four problems? I would think as, do we take books like Bible and Quran, as literal truths and command, or more like Confucians take their texts, like mythology and guidance, and God, who spoke to ancient people as children, rather than equals. If ths first, then the problems will persist, because Bible and Quran contain claims that contradict scientific and history (such as creation story), they contain passages that show utter prejudices and intolerance, have strict mandatory rules regulating lifestyle, that were appropriate for ancient Jews or Arabs, but not for modern people, and have punishments prescribed that were normal at the time but vile for normal people, and legal and political systems, such as the Judges in ancient Hebrews, and Sharia.
However if we adopt view that God for example communicated through superintelligent aliens, who communicated through prophets, who communicated through people they trusted, who established institutions, who wrote those books over time and therefore those books are inspiration and guidance, but not the literal truth and command, then traditional religions can reform.
I consider the Bible and the Quran as mythologies rather than literal truths, and I have the impression that more and more people are adopting this approach. However, I guess the majority of traditional Christians and Muslims consider the Bible and the Quran as literal truths, never to be questioned and worth dying (and killing) for.
So if the trend toward a less literal interpretation of the scriptures continues, then Christianity and Islam can reform, otherwise not.
Or, new religions should emerge for those who call themselves "spiritual but not religious." I emphasize the parallels between my ideas and traditional religions instead of emphasizing the differences, but a case can be made that perhaps emphasizing the differences could reach more people, especially those in the "spiritual but not religions" category. The others (those who follow and firmly believe in their religion) are probably a majority, but they already have a religion that is good for them.
difficult question. on one hand becoming an organized church will give us legal protection of religion against accusations of "selling a pipe dream" that our critics like to accuse us with threats of making laws restricting practices that we promote. On the other hand, becoming officially a religion can turn away some scientifically minded people (due to conflict thesis promoted by media and atheist organizations) and make national academies of sciences reluctant to listen to us and undermine research funding from already marginalized and underfunded research programs. So I have mixed thoughts about the idea
So do I. As I see things, the main argument for launching a new religion is that more and more people feel less and less happy with traditional religions because of 1 conflict with science, 2 discrimination, and 3 restrictive lifestyle prescriptions. Turing Church (as a church) would be compatible with science, welcome everyone, and stay away from lifestyle prescriptions. Therefore, it could be appealing to those who want to belong to an organized church but don't because of 1-2-3.
The main argument against is that there are already good religious groups that could appeal to this target audience, such the Christian Transhumanist Association, the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and Terasem. In particular, Terasem is independent of established religions, which in this case is a plus.
that is correct. The medieval religions do instead have a listed problems. I will add the other one. So it is four problems: conflict with science and reason, discrimination and intolerance, lifestyle prescription, and fourth is political command ambitions on how to deal with foreign "enemies" and transgressors. The old religions don't just prescribe lifestyle, but also the punishment for violators of the command, not only in the afterlife, but in this life through state. So we need a faith that doesn't attack science, discriminate, stays away from lifestyle prescription, but also from political and legal control of humans under it's jurisdiction. (doesn't mean stay away from politics, but political activities must be limited to protecting rights to practice the belief and supporting secular causes regarded as moral and beneficial to community, but not have laws enforcing the dogma as well as dogma prescribing punishment without critical evaluation of it's appropriateness and effectiveness by neutral party).
So the question is, can traditional religions like Christianity and Islam overcome these four problems? If yes, how can we contribute? If not, do we need new religions?
I don't consider the option of doing without religion because I think some kind of religion-like beliefs or convictions play a useful and indispensable role for persons and societies. But must religion necessarily include revelations and the concept of supernatural?
Or is spiritual naturalism enough?
https://turingchurch.net/book-review-believing-in-dawkins-by-eric-steinhart-350de4f07bce
Can Judaism, Christianity and Islam overcome those four problems? I would think as, do we take books like Bible and Quran, as literal truths and command, or more like Confucians take their texts, like mythology and guidance, and God, who spoke to ancient people as children, rather than equals. If ths first, then the problems will persist, because Bible and Quran contain claims that contradict scientific and history (such as creation story), they contain passages that show utter prejudices and intolerance, have strict mandatory rules regulating lifestyle, that were appropriate for ancient Jews or Arabs, but not for modern people, and have punishments prescribed that were normal at the time but vile for normal people, and legal and political systems, such as the Judges in ancient Hebrews, and Sharia.
However if we adopt view that God for example communicated through superintelligent aliens, who communicated through prophets, who communicated through people they trusted, who established institutions, who wrote those books over time and therefore those books are inspiration and guidance, but not the literal truth and command, then traditional religions can reform.
I consider the Bible and the Quran as mythologies rather than literal truths, and I have the impression that more and more people are adopting this approach. However, I guess the majority of traditional Christians and Muslims consider the Bible and the Quran as literal truths, never to be questioned and worth dying (and killing) for.
So if the trend toward a less literal interpretation of the scriptures continues, then Christianity and Islam can reform, otherwise not.
Or, new religions should emerge for those who call themselves "spiritual but not religious." I emphasize the parallels between my ideas and traditional religions instead of emphasizing the differences, but a case can be made that perhaps emphasizing the differences could reach more people, especially those in the "spiritual but not religions" category. The others (those who follow and firmly believe in their religion) are probably a majority, but they already have a religion that is good for them.