Open source religions attempt to employ open source methodologies in the creation of religious belief systems. As such, their systems of beliefs are created through a continuous process of refinement and dialogue among the believers themselves.
Among the first examples of this movement, Yoans (followers of a religion called Yoism) claim that their version of open source religion does not have allegiance to any spiritual guide, rather the sense of authority emerges from the group via consensus.
It seems to me that the issue here revolves notion the idea that "truth" is something that "emerges from the group via consensus." This runs contrary even to our observation of the physical world around us (which Yoans would claim as the basis for truth). The laws upon which the physical world operates are independent of our "consensus" concerning them. The whole scientific establishment is founded on the belief that things like gravity are not dependent on individual (or group) opinions.
To remove the independent source of truth is to remove it's meaning. If truth is something I or we can create ourselves, then it is arbitrary and useless as a guide or standard for behavior. Only the truth I must "discover" not "create" has value. If I must discover truth then it must have been created by something outside of me and more than me.
I come back to what I said earlier, God=Truth. If God is not the source of truth, then I feel no inclination to attempt to abide by truth's dictates.
For more on the topic, check out relativism on C.A.R.M.
4 comments:
How very post-modern. How miserable would it be to live in a world where truth was defined by committee? Most committees I've been in can hardly decide where to have lunch, much less what the infinite essence of the universe is.
Despite what Nietzsche thought, Man didn't, and can't, kill God. Even if every person in the world decided God didn't exist, it would not change the fact the He does. Truth must live outside the realm of our daily whims and fancies. Otherwise it's just opinion.
Then again, maybe I only think that because that's what my own personal Yoastic community has agreed on... Now my brain hurts.
I think having a religion by committee might have its good points. I envision a world where the Blue Collar Comedy guys get to make up the rules. Everytime someone prayed to their committee god(s) explaining a problem from home, you'd get Jeff Foxworthy shaking his head saying "you just might be a redneck". If you were to ask your committe god(s) for guidance about what to do with your life, you'd get Larry the Cable Guy telling you to just "get'er done". Telling your committee god(s) about a time you failed and asking for the strength to continue, Ron White might say, "You can't fix stupid". And when you pray to your committee god(s) asking for forgiveness for doing something wrong, Bill Engvall might just hold out his hand and say "Here's your sign".
And then there's the idea of the Sienfield cast getting to make up the rules....
CB, it's hard to get clear on why we believe what we believe. A lot of people, Christians and non-Christians alike, never really ask themselves that question. They just move from moment to moment reacting to the world without putting any amount of deep thought into why. "Man can't kill God" ... that's the perfect essence of it! We can't simply choose what we want to be true. In the words of one of my favorite people, "Do or do not, there is no try." (OK, so it doesn't quite fit, but it's a really good quote!)
RT, I agree ... religion by committee would be more interesting, probably more fun, and it wouldn't have any of the unpleasantness that the normal kind has. That's exactly why people want to do it that way, because they can make God be and do what they want. Personally, I'd go for Captain Kirk, Spock, and Scotty as my committee. It gives "Beam me up, Scotty" a whole new meaning!
To remove the independent source of truth is to remove it's meaning. If truth is something I or we can create ourselves, then it is arbitrary and useless as a guide or standard for behavior. Only the truth I must "discover" not "create" has value. If I must discover truth then it must have been created by something outside of me and more than me.
This is a very profound observation. I haven't ever heard it put quite that way before. Thanks, Rob.
Post a Comment