Syntheistic philosophy

[DrZoidberg]

If anybody remembers, three years ago me a some friends founded a new religion, Syntheism. We've slowly but steadily grown from from guys in a flat to nearly two thousand members. We've got religious services, festivals and everything. Next week we're signing the contract for the first Syntheist church of Stockholm. They've already got one in Gothemburg. So it's not the first in Sweden. One of our group (who's day job is to be a philosopher) wrote a book on Syntheist philosophy/theology and made it available on-line for free.

http://syntheism.ope.rs/Syntheism/Syntheism.html#ch01

This is a religion for atheists. It's got everything any other religion has except a god, or any claims to be the holders of any kind of ultimate truth. Obviously it's not for all atheists. It's only for those atheists who would like to join a religion, but who, due to their atheism, can't.

Enjoy!

 

[Random Person]

Are there tenets to syntheism? Perhaps a summary?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are there tenets to syntheism? Perhaps a summary?

Not really. Our only real dogma is that there is no god. But that's not so much about us claiming to have any kind of ultimate truth on the matter. It's more about that this is a club for atheists. If you're not an atheist you're not welcome. Theists have plenty of other clubs to join. They also have a tendency to be tedious and evangelising.

Here's an attempt to create a Syntheistic creed.

http://syntheism.org/index.php/2013/06/hello-im-a-syntheist-this-is-what-i-believe/

Here's a Vice article on Syntheism

http://www.vice.com/tag/Syntheism

I think it's safe to say that Syntheism sprang from religion envy. We who founded Syntheism like religious buildings. We like religious ceremonies. We like religious traditions. Why can't atheists have all of that? When did having imaginary invisible friends be a prerequisite for all of this?

There's also a serious spiritual side to this. I like religious devotion and worship. I think all us in Syntheism appreciate the deeper and spiritual side of religion. But when we explore this it's without the woo. We've got a weekly Syntheistic yoga class. It's yoga without the New Age bullshit. The teacher is awesome. He's spent more time studying human physiology and biomechanics than how to align chakras.

 

[PyramidHead]

There's also a serious spiritual side to this. I like religious devotion and worship. I think all us in Syntheism appreciate the deeper and spiritual side of religion. But when we explore this it's without the woo. We've got a weekly Syntheistic yoga class. It's yoga without the New Age bullshit. The teacher is awesome. He's spent more time studying human physiology and biomechanics than how to align chakras.

What is left of religious devotion and worship when you remove the object of both from the equation? What does "the deeper and spiritual side of religion" mean for someone who acknowledges there is no god?

I wish you all the best in your endeavors with this, but it doesn't sit well with my personal temperament. I would even go so far as to say it repulses me, actually much more than theistic religions do. At least when believers get together and praise the lord, their mistaken belief provides a coherent basis for this behavior. When god is gone and one faces the "cold, pitiless indifference" that characterizes the universe we inhabit, I'm having a difficult time grasping why anybody would bow to that. It has taken me some time to come around to understanding this (10 years ago, as a newly liberated atheist, I would have cheerily signed up for Syntheism), but the plain fact about the universe is that we're not wanted here. It makes no effort to accommodate us and every moment hastens our exit. The only reasonable response I can muster, having finally realized the misfortune of my position, is to give a big "fuck you too!" back to the cosmos and go about my business.

People who think they'll be reunited in bliss with their creator after death are surely delusional, which ironically makes their acts of worship more palatable to me as an outsider. But to reject all that as nonsense on the one hand while embracing its incessant thank you's and how glorious thou art's is to miss an obvious truth: worship itself, not belief in god, is the deeper delusion of the two. A believer who refuses to pay respects to his cruel maker is more rational than the atheist who still kneels and kisses the earth. My gut reaction is to say, Duke Leto is smarter than that. But I don't know you, and I may not be smart enough to understand your philosophy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's also a serious spiritual side to this. I like religious devotion and worship. I think all us in Syntheism appreciate the deeper and spiritual side of religion. But when we explore this it's without the woo. We've got a weekly Syntheistic yoga class. It's yoga without the New Age bullshit. The teacher is awesome. He's spent more time studying human physiology and biomechanics than how to align chakras.

What is left of religious devotion and worship when you remove the object of both from the equation? What does "the deeper and spiritual side of religion" mean for someone who acknowledges there is no god?

I've never been a theist. Not even a little bit. So I don't have much to compare with. But there's a pretty banal insight here. All you need to do is establish that theists have some sort of emotional benefit from their religious faith and you're in. The fact that Syntheists understand that our god/gods are purely metaphorical doesn't change a thing. Let me explain this another way. The Christian God is also 100% imaginary and purely metaphorical. The fact that Christians all are delusional about it doesn't change this fact. If a Christian can gain spiritual benefits from worshipping their imaginary god then of course atheists can reap the same benefit worshipping a metaphorical god. For the same reason. I don't think delusions about the existence of God is required.

Humans are primarily emotionally driven entities. Our feelings aren't rational. We can use our rational faculties to fool our emotional ones. That's essentially what faith in God is all about IMHO. Regardless if that faith in God is metaphorical or delusional. If you haven't yet, I recommend you do. It's free and all you need is your own brain and a quiet space to experiment in.

My own journey was that I got interested in yoga and realised that I got better results from the yoga if I bought into all the New Age mumbo jumbo while in class. And then scrubbed my brain clean afterwards. In yoga those better results are measurable. It's measured in range. I couldn't really argue with those results. Once that door was opened I realised what all the worlds religions were about. All religious texts is a gold-mine for anybody seeking any kind of emotional healing. That's what they're all about.

But this lay in the air around 2012. We were a bunch of people who all had been thinking the same thing and all it needed was for somebody to say it for all the bits to come together at once. And they did. This has exploded way faster and bigger than I'd ever dared dream. I would have been happy if it'd only stayed us original eight members. I'm doing this for myself. For my own emotional and spiritual well-being.

edit: I came to think of a funny quote by John Cleese. He said something along the lines of intelligent people think on different levels, and are rarely literal. He doubted whether the authors who wrote the Bible even believed in God. His reasoning went, since only the educated elites could write at that time, the authors belonged to the most intellectual and intelligent group of people of their time. Ergo... the God in the Bible, they were describing, is metaphorical. I think the same logic can probably be applied to all religion.

I wish you all the best in your endeavors with this, but it doesn't sit well with my personal temperament. I would even go so far as to say it repulses me, actually much more than theistic religions do. At least when believers get together and praise the lord, their mistaken belief provides a coherent basis for this behavior. When god is gone and one faces the "cold, pitiless indifference" that characterizes the universe we inhabit, I'm having a difficult time grasping why anybody would bow to that. It has taken me some time to come around to understanding this (10 years ago, as a newly liberated atheist, I would have cheerily signed up for Syntheism), but the plain fact about the universe is that we're not wanted here. It makes no effort to accommodate us and every moment hastens our exit. The only reasonable response I can muster, having finally realized the misfortune of my position, is to give a big "fuck you too!" back to the cosmos and go about my business.

People who think they'll be reunited in bliss with their creator after death are surely delusional, which ironically makes their acts of worship more palatable to me as an outsider. But to reject all that as nonsense on the one hand while embracing its incessant thank you's and how glorious thou art's is to miss an obvious truth: worship itself, not belief in god, is the deeper delusion of the two. A believer who refuses to pay respects to his cruel maker is more rational than the atheist who still kneels and kisses the earth. My gut reaction is to say, Duke Leto is smarter than that. But I don't know you, and I may not be smart enough to understand your philosophy.

I think that last line may apply, because I'm not sure how the rest of it is applicable. Not to anything Syntheism is to me. Anybody who joins us in order to learn the meaning of life will get precious little in return. Syntheism isn't about the search for truth. We've got science and philosophy for that. Syntheism is about all the rest of the human experience. If anything it's more along the lines of learning to cope with not having answers.... if that makes any sense.

 

[PyramidHead]

What is left of religious devotion and worship when you remove the object of both from the equation? What does "the deeper and spiritual side of religion" mean for someone who acknowledges there is no god?

I've never been a theist. Not even a little bit. So I don't have much to compare with. But there's a pretty banal insight here. All you need to do is establish that theists have some sort of emotional benefit from their religious faith and you're in. The fact that Syntheists understand that our god/gods are purely metaphorical doesn't change a thing. Let me explain this another way. The Christian God is also 100% imaginary and purely metaphorical. The fact that Christians all are delusional about it doesn't change this fact. If a Christian can gain spiritual benefits from worshipping their imaginary god then of course atheists can reap the same benefit worshipping a metaphorical god. For the same reason. I don't think delusions about the existence of God is required.

I wouldn't call them spiritual benefits, but emotional ones, maybe. Which brings me to the next point:

Humans are primarily emotionally driven entities. Our feelings aren't rational. We can use our rational faculties to fool our emotional ones. That's essentially what faith in God is all about IMHO. Regardless if that faith in God is metaphorical or delusional. If you haven't yet, I recommend you do. It's free and all you need is your own brain and a quiet space to experiment in.

The bolded part should go the other way, no? Using your emotional faculties to fool your rational faculties, i.e., despite rationally knowing that there is nothing to worship, go through the motions enough and your brain releases endorphins nonetheless. I'm fine with this in theory, but I don't practice it because...

My own journey was that I got interested in yoga and realised that I got better results from the yoga if I bought into all the New Age mumbo jumbo while in class. And then scrubbed my brain clean afterwards. In yoga those better results are measurable. It's measured in range. I couldn't really argue with those results. Once that door was opened I realised what all the worlds religions were about. All religious texts is a gold-mine for anybody seeking any kind of emotional healing. That's what they're all about.

No, that's what art is all about. What you are talking about is intentional mood manipulation through conscious (and temporary) self-deception, or more charitably, suspension of disbelief. If this were the entirety of religion, it would have been discarded as redundant before taking off, as music and fiction accomplish exactly the same thing by exactly the same mechanism. Religion is much more than art, which is why wars have been waged in its name, societies have been organized around its tenets, and generations of people have clung to it for existential security, none of which can be said of art. Yet, what you are describing is, to me, simply the aesthetic experience.

But this lay in the air around 2012. We were a bunch of people who all had been thinking the same thing and all it needed was for somebody to say it for all the bits to come together at once. And they did. This has exploded way faster and bigger than I'd ever dared dream. I would have been happy if it'd only stayed us original eight members. I'm doing this for myself. For my own emotional and spiritual well-being.

edit: I came to think of a funny quote by John Cleese. He said something along the lines of intelligent people think on different levels, and are rarely literal. He doubted whether the authors who wrote the Bible even believed in God. His reasoning went, since only the educated elites could write at that time, the authors belonged to the most intellectual and intelligent group of people of their time. Ergo... the God in the Bible, they were describing, is metaphorical. I think the same logic can probably be applied to all religion.

I don't think there is any such thing as spiritual well-being, unless you define it so that it simply means emotional well-being. How do they differ?

I wish you all the best in your endeavors with this, but it doesn't sit well with my personal temperament. I would even go so far as to say it repulses me, actually much more than theistic religions do. At least when believers get together and praise the lord, their mistaken belief provides a coherent basis for this behavior. When god is gone and one faces the "cold, pitiless indifference" that characterizes the universe we inhabit, I'm having a difficult time grasping why anybody would bow to that. It has taken me some time to come around to understanding this (10 years ago, as a newly liberated atheist, I would have cheerily signed up for Syntheism), but the plain fact about the universe is that we're not wanted here. It makes no effort to accommodate us and every moment hastens our exit. The only reasonable response I can muster, having finally realized the misfortune of my position, is to give a big "fuck you too!" back to the cosmos and go about my business.

People who think they'll be reunited in bliss with their creator after death are surely delusional, which ironically makes their acts of worship more palatable to me as an outsider. But to reject all that as nonsense on the one hand while embracing its incessant thank you's and how glorious thou art's is to miss an obvious truth: worship itself, not belief in god, is the deeper delusion of the two. A believer who refuses to pay respects to his cruel maker is more rational than the atheist who still kneels and kisses the earth. My gut reaction is to say, Duke Leto is smarter than that. But I don't know you, and I may not be smart enough to understand your philosophy.

I think that last line may apply, because I'm not sure how the rest of it is applicable. Not to anything Syntheism is to me. Anybody who joins us in order to learn the meaning of life will get precious little in return. Syntheism isn't about the search for truth. We've got science and philosophy for that. Syntheism is about all the rest of the human experience. If anything it's more along the lines of learning to cope with not having answers.... if that makes any sense.

From what I gather based on your replies, the purpose of religious tradition in Syntheism is basically to have pleasurable experiences by momentarily pretending certain false claims are true. That sounds like reading a novel to me. Why not just have a book club, and not exclude people from it on the basis of their belief in god? In other words, why make it primarily about religion?

 

[PyramidHead]

My gut reaction is to say, Duke Leto is smarter than that.

This may be the source of some confusion: I meant to use your handle, not Duke's. I got my D's mixed up. Not meant to be a sarcastic put-down of Duke (or you) by any means.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've never been a theist. Not even a little bit. So I don't have much to compare with. But there's a pretty banal insight here. All you need to do is establish that theists have some sort of emotional benefit from their religious faith and you're in. The fact that Syntheists understand that our god/gods are purely metaphorical doesn't change a thing. Let me explain this another way. The Christian God is also 100% imaginary and purely metaphorical. The fact that Christians all are delusional about it doesn't change this fact. If a Christian can gain spiritual benefits from worshipping their imaginary god then of course atheists can reap the same benefit worshipping a metaphorical god. For the same reason. I don't think delusions about the existence of God is required.

I wouldn't call them spiritual benefits, but emotional ones, maybe. Which brings me to the next point:

As far as I'm concerned spiritual benefits are purely emotional benefits. But within emotional benefits we also mix in pleasure. Spirituality, is traditionally a term we use when talking about calmness, focus, deep joy. A different kind of joy than laughing at punch-lines when watching a romcom. I don't really know how to explain it better. Yes, spirituality has also been used to talk about magical souls and whatnot. But that's where metaphor comes in. It's not really magic. It never was. That's how I see it.

Humans are primarily emotionally driven entities. Our feelings aren't rational. We can use our rational faculties to fool our emotional ones. That's essentially what faith in God is all about IMHO. Regardless if that faith in God is metaphorical or delusional. If you haven't yet, I recommend you do. It's free and all you need is your own brain and a quiet space to experiment in.

The bolded part should go the other way, no? Using your emotional faculties to fool your rational faculties, i.e., despite rationally knowing that there is nothing to worship, go through the motions enough and your brain releases endorphins nonetheless. I'm fine with this in theory, but I don't practice it because...

Of course it also goes the other way to. But that's just as much true for Syntheists and non-Syntheists. Not being a Syntheist won't protect you one bit. The only defence against it is to be aware of the mechanic. I've been a Syntheist for three years now and I'm just as much a sceptic as I've ever been. I still think belief in an actual god is stupid. Real dumb.

My own journey was that I got interested in yoga and realised that I got better results from the yoga if I bought into all the New Age mumbo jumbo while in class. And then scrubbed my brain clean afterwards. In yoga those better results are measurable. It's measured in range. I couldn't really argue with those results. Once that door was opened I realised what all the worlds religions were about. All religious texts is a gold-mine for anybody seeking any kind of emotional healing. That's what they're all about.

No, that's what art is all about. What you are talking about is intentional mood manipulation through conscious (and temporary) self-deception, or more charitably, suspension of disbelief. If this were the entirety of religion, it would have been discarded as redundant before taking off, as music and fiction accomplish exactly the same thing by exactly the same mechanism. Religion is much more than art, which is why wars have been waged in its name, societies have been organized around its tenets, and generations of people have clung to it for existential security, none of which can be said of art. Yet, what you are describing is, to me, simply the aesthetic experience.

I agree that's what art is about. And religion is the institution why which we teach, spread and institutionalise it. Another way to put it is to say that a church is the library of art, and the priest is the librarian. Art is nothing but guides to the human spirit, but we all could need some navigating. Religion of course isn't the only way. But I think religions exist for a very good and very practical reason. I don't think our world would function as well without religion. I should point out that my definition of religion is very wide. For example, I count the world of sports as a religion.

I don't believe that wars have been fought because of religion. Sure, religion is a source of identity and act to create groups. But religion isn't the only source of group identity. It just seems that religious identity has a way of separating people along socio-economic dividers. For example, rich Northern Irelanders were protestant. Poor Northern Islanders were Catholic. Calling that a religious conflict is ignorant to the extreme. Likewise, historically the first converts to any new religion were always the poorest and most marginalised members of that society. That tells us a lot of what is really going on.

 

[dystopian]

f a Christian can gain spiritual benefits from worshipping their imaginary god then of course atheists can reap the same benefit worshipping a metaphorical god. For the same reason. I don't think delusions about the existence of God is required.

I seriously question the idea that there are specific benefits ('spiritual' or otherwise) that one gets from *worshipping*. Any such purported benefits from religious practice aren't really due to the specifics of the worship but rather due to things like being part of a tight community. In this case, it makes no real sense for an atheist to invent/join a "religion" that "worships" gods it freely admits don't exist. You would get the exact same benefit from joining a hobbyist club or becoming a regular at the local pub.

However, even if there *are* genuine benefits from believing/worshipping, it makes little sense to think this translates in this fashion. After all, the point is that christians genuinely *believe*. It's a placebo effect. They feel better about life because they think there's a plan and a guy watching out for them, and praying to him reinforces that feeling. It doesn't really work when you realize the bit about there being a plan/guy watching out for you is bullshit. It makes the rest of the house of cards collapse in on itself. Therefore I think that any positive effect you and your people get is entirely due to the community you've built; and you don't need for it to be a specifically religious community to get that result.

Humans are primarily emotionally driven entities. Our feelings aren't rational. We can use our rational faculties to fool our emotional ones. That's essentially what faith in God is all about IMHO. Regardless if that faith in God is metaphorical or delusional. If you haven't yet, I recommend you do. It's free and all you need is your own brain and a quiet space to experiment in.

This requires a capacity for self-delusion that I don't think most atheists (at least on here) possess. Sure, I can scare myself with fantasies of spiders hiding under my bed, but I can only do that so long as the possibility remains open; the moment I look under my bed and verify that there are in fact no spiders I immediately stop being scared. The same is true when it comes to positive results: so long as I think that a particular food item I enjoy consuming regularly is really good for me, I'll feel good about myself when I eat it instead of something else. The moment my bubble is burst and I learn that it's not any better for me, I will no longer get that feeling and will probably go back to eating the things I actually like.

I can't intentionally fool myself and my emotions with ideas and concepts I consciously *know* to be nonsense. That only works when I genuinely believe in something or believe that there's a good chance its true.

My own journey was that I got interested in yoga and realised that I got better results from the yoga if I bought into all the New Age mumbo jumbo while in class. And then scrubbed my brain clean afterwards. In yoga those better results are measurable. It's measured in range.

I don't think that's why you get the better results: you get the better results because of positive thinking. New age mumbo jumbo generally imposes positive thinking; and because positive thinking means you will tend to be more productive because you're upbeat, then of course you'll get better results at stuff. But you're making the mistake of attributing that to the nonsense instead of something you could just as easily get *without* resorting to the nonsense. You don't need the mumbo jumbo to motivate yourself.

I don't want to come across as too negative here; whatever floats your boat and all that. But since this is a discussion forum, I feel like it's okay to give my opinion that it just seems completely superfluous to me. It's also a tad frustrating (for many atheists I suspect) because we so often hear the tired old canard of "well atheism is just another religion"; so having a bunch of atheists go and create something that they call a religion (I don't believe that it *can* be a religion, mind) kind of feels like having someone grab the wheel and turn it to the right so you can drive back to the horrible family dinner with the annoying aunt who keeps telling you what's wrong with atheism when what you really want is to take a left turn instead so you can go home where you don't have to listen to her prattle on and on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I seriously question the idea that there are specific benefits ('spiritual' or otherwise) that one gets from *worshipping*. Any such purported benefits from religious practice aren't really due to the specifics of the worship but rather due to things like being part of a tight community. In this case, it makes no real sense for an atheist to invent/join a "religion" that "worships" gods it freely admits don't exist. You would get the exact same benefit from joining a hobbyist club or becoming a regular at the local pub.

If that is the case I recommend you don't join our religion. It clearly isn't your thing. People are different, and need different things at different stages in life. But it works for me right now, so I'm in.

However, even if there *are* genuine benefits from believing/worshipping, it makes little sense to think this translates in this fashion. After all, the point is that christians genuinely *believe*. It's a placebo effect. They feel better about life because they think there's a plan and a guy watching out for them, and praying to him reinforces that feeling. It doesn't really work when you realize the bit about there being a plan/guy watching out for you is bullshit. It makes the rest of the house of cards collapse in on itself. Therefore I think that any positive effect you and your people get is entirely due to the community you've built; and you don't need for it to be a specifically religious community to get that result.

The philosophical concept of god can be a hell of a lot deeper than that. You're attacking stupid religion. Which is fine. Idiocy always deserves to be challenged. As an atheist pretending that there's a god watching out for me is clearly retarded. No Syntheist would do that.... obviously.

This requires a capacity for self-delusion that I don't think most atheists (at least on here) possess. Sure, I can scare myself with fantasies of spiders hiding under my bed, but I can only do that so long as the possibility remains open; the moment I look under my bed and verify that there are in fact no spiders I immediately stop being scared. The same is true when it comes to positive results: so long as I think that a particular food item I enjoy consuming regularly is really good for me, I'll feel good about myself when I eat it instead of something else. The moment my bubble is burst and I learn that it's not any better for me, I will no longer get that feeling and will probably go back to eating the things I actually like.

I can't intentionally fool myself and my emotions with ideas and concepts I consciously *know* to be nonsense. That only works when I genuinely believe in something or believe that there's a good chance its true.

So I take it you never enjoy movies or read books because you know it's all make-believe? I mean... how could a film possibly be exciting if it's not real? Yes, that was sarcasm. I doubt you have any problems using metaphorical and imaginary entities as a tool to create excitement in your life. As a mental tool imaginary entities obviously works for everybody who tries to use them. If you're uncomfortable with the term "god", then call it something else.

My own journey was that I got interested in yoga and realised that I got better results from the yoga if I bought into all the New Age mumbo jumbo while in class. And then scrubbed my brain clean afterwards. In yoga those better results are measurable. It's measured in range.

I don't think that's why you get the better results: you get the better results because of positive thinking. New age mumbo jumbo generally imposes positive thinking; and because positive thinking means you will tend to be more productive because you're upbeat, then of course you'll get better results at stuff. But you're making the mistake of attributing that to the nonsense instead of something you could just as easily get *without* resorting to the nonsense. You don't need the mumbo jumbo to motivate yourself.

I don't want to come across as too negative here; whatever floats your boat and all that. But since this is a discussion forum, I feel like it's okay to give my opinion that it just seems completely superfluous to me.

Perhaps. But this is working for me. I'm a pragmatist. Whatever works is what I'll be doing.

It's also a tad frustrating (for many atheists I suspect) because we so often hear the tired old canard of "well atheism is just another religion"; so having a bunch of atheists go and create something that they call a religion (I don't believe that it *can* be a religion, mind) kind of feels like having someone grab the wheel and turn it to the right so you can drive back to the horrible family dinner with the annoying aunt who keeps telling you what's wrong with atheism when what you really want is to take a left turn instead so you can go home where you don't have to listen to her prattle on and on.

I can't really relate. I'm from Sweden. Theist religion is dead here. Growing up I had zero contact with religion or any believers. I have no clue whether my friends or family are theist or not because it's a non-subject here. Nobody ever discusses god or religion in these parts. It's completely and utterly dead here, and has been since the 1960'ies. Please try to understand that I couldn't even imagine what it must be like living in a country where a majority of the adults have invisible imaginary friends they talk to and have made that into a norm. To me, that sounds terrifying. But also nothing I've had to deal with in life. Not at all. So evangelising for atheism is a non-factor in this. I have zero interest in trying to spread the atheistic gospel. Syntheism is purely about my own mental well-being.

 

[KeepTalking]

Are there tenets to syntheism? Perhaps a summary?

Not really. Our only real dogma is that there is no god. But that's not so much about us claiming to have any kind of ultimate truth on the matter. It's more about that this is a club for atheists. If you're not an atheist you're not welcome. Theists have plenty of other clubs to join. They also have a tendency to be tedious and evangelising.

Here's an attempt to create a Syntheistic creed.

http://syntheism.org/index.php/2013/06/hello-im-a-syntheist-this-is-what-i-believe/

Here's a Vice article on Syntheism

http://www.vice.com/tag/Syntheism

I think it's safe to say that Syntheism sprang from religion envy. We who founded Syntheism like religious buildings. We like religious ceremonies. We like religious traditions. Why can't atheists have all of that? When did having imaginary invisible friends be a prerequisite for all of this?

There's also a serious spiritual side to this. I like religious devotion and worship. I think all us in Syntheism appreciate the deeper and spiritual side of religion. But when we explore this it's without the woo. We've got a weekly Syntheistic yoga class. It's yoga without the New Age bullshit. The teacher is awesome. He's spent more time studying human physiology and biomechanics than how to align chakras.

Interesting. About the only thing I agree with here is your feelings towards religious buildings, from an architectural and artistic standpoint, they can be fascinating and even awe inspiring. Having been raised in religion, however, I can't stand religious ceremonies, and religious traditions, seriously fuck that shit. The only thing I actually liked about religion itself was the fellowship. Feeling you belonged to something was attractive, but only when the others whom you were trying to belong with weren't telling you that you were doing it wrong, and would burn in hell for wearing your hair that way, or wearing those clothes, or dancing, or listening to that music, or this, or that. So yeah, I made a lot of friends, but the only ones that remained friends were the ones that were alienated and ostracized like myself.

There are a ton of other places you can find fellowship without religion, and lasting friendships not based upon mutual delusion can actually be formed in those places. Maybe that is one thing Syntheism has going for it, though. You can share in fellowship without deluding yourselves. For myself, I have learned that just finding people with similar interests works just as well. Our meeting places may not be as awesomely cool from an architectural or artistic perspective, but bars, gaming shops, concert halls, and sporting arenas all have their own charms.

 

[dystopian]

The philosophical concept of god can be a hell of a lot deeper than that.

Oh sure, one can pretend that it's deeper than that. But really it's not. It doesn't matter how complex or 'deep' you make the idea of a god; it still boils down to whether or not you actually believe it's true. If you believe it's true, then it makes perfect sense to worship it and participate in rituals revolving around it. If you don't believe it, then it's all irrelevant and you're just pretending. It doesn't matter if you're pretending to believe in a god that watches out for you personally ala the christian god, or if you're pretending there's some personal value to be had in empty rituals centered on a vaguely god-like concept you made up; it's pretend either way. (And not having the god concept at all but just the rituals makes it worse)

I'm saying that the benefits you think you get from doing it this way are benefits you could get entirely without bringing in the faux-religious elements; whereas it seems like you're saying that it's the faux-religious elements specifically that are to thank. And therein lies the disagreement. Either you think its the faux-religious elements that are to thank, which is absurd; or you don't, in which case syntheism is entirely arbitrary and superfluous.

So I take it you never enjoy movies or read books because you know it's all make-believe? I mean... how could a film possibly be exciting if it's not real? Yes, that was sarcasm. I doubt you have any problems using metaphorical and imaginary entities as a tool to create excitement in your life.

This is not a proper analogy though. I don't enjoy movies because I think "Holy shit, this stuff is totally real!". Suspending one's disbelief in order to enjoy a movie is something very different from trying to create a significant and lasting emotional effect that produces tangible positive benefits in your life by paying lip-service to something you know isn't real.

Perhaps. But this is working for me. I'm a pragmatist. Whatever works is what I'll be doing.

That's kind of an odd way to define pragmatism though; "pretending to believe in this thing I know isn't real gives me a warm tingly feeling, so it's what I'll keep doing." To me, a pragmatist would say; "You know what, this is kind of silly, why don't I go and see if I can cut out the pretending part and find a more efficient way to get that warm tingly feeling?"

A pragmatist doesn't say 'whatever works', he says 'whatever works *best*'.

I can't really relate. I'm from Sweden.

Nonsense, you've been on this forum for years; *of course* you can relate.

Theist religion is dead here. Growing up I had zero contact with religion or any believers. I have no clue whether my friends or family are theist or not because it's a non-subject here. Nobody ever discusses god or religion in these parts. It's completely and utterly dead here, and has been since the 1960'ies. Please try to understand that I couldn't even imagine what it must be like living in a country where a majority of the adults have invisible imaginary friends they talk to and have made that into a norm.

You seem to forget that I'm from the Netherlands; a country just as secular as yours. Your experience is mine. But I also have access to the internet, filled with people from religious countries.

 

[DrZoidberg]

On the topic on why to invent gods I found this excellent quote from a guy at the Syntheist forum:

"I believe that following those lines of thought can make us unearth a sort of metabelief, or a "supreme fiction" to use Simon Critchley's concept. A fiction that we know to be a fiction but that we can believe in nonetheless, because of its real implications and effects. In a way that's a definition of Syntheos. An intersubjective projection on the future which materializes, in part or in full, just like other ideas and visions do."

It might require some unpacking for those of us who aren't used to reading philosophy. But I think this catches what use an imaginary god can have.

 

[PyramidHead]

No, that's what art is all about. What you are talking about is intentional mood manipulation through conscious (and temporary) self-deception, or more charitably, suspension of disbelief. If this were the entirety of religion, it would have been discarded as redundant before taking off, as music and fiction accomplish exactly the same thing by exactly the same mechanism. Religion is much more than art, which is why wars have been waged in its name, societies have been organized around its tenets, and generations of people have clung to it for existential security, none of which can be said of art. Yet, what you are describing is, to me, simply the aesthetic experience.

I agree that's what art is about. And religion is the institution [by] which we teach, spread and institutionalise it. Another way to put it is to say that a church is the library of art, and the priest is the librarian.

I'm smiling as I type this, so don't take it as vindictive, but no sir: art museums, schools, and critics are the means by which art is taught, spread, and institutionalized. A gallery is a library of art, and its curator is the librarian. We have terms for these things already, and they refer to tangible objects in the world. I remain baffled as to why you think your wanton redefining of words should be taken seriously. Religion has sponsored art, and works commissioned by the church are often beautiful, but that doesn't mean religion is primarily about art. If anything, these works are often closer to advertising than art, a sort of "pornography for the soul" to attract and keep patrons.

Art is nothing but guides to the human spirit, but we all could need some navigating. Religion of course isn't the only way. But I think religions exist for a very good and very practical reason. I don't think our world would function as well without religion. I should point out that my definition of religion is very wide. For example, I count the world of sports as a religion.

I don't believe that wars have been fought because of religion. Sure, religion is a source of identity and act to create groups. But religion isn't the only source of group identity. It just seems that religious identity has a way of separating people along socio-economic dividers. For example, rich Northern Irelanders were protestant. Poor Northern Islanders were Catholic. Calling that a religious conflict is ignorant to the extreme. Likewise, historically the first converts to any new religion were always the poorest and most marginalised members of that society. That tells us a lot of what is really going on.

Okay, I think somebody may have put this question to you in another forum and I missed the answer: IF a war were to be fought in the name of religion (a situation you claim has not actually occurred in all of history), what do you expect it would look like? Or are you saying it is logically impossible for wars to be fought because of religion? If the latter, where is the logical contradiction?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

On the topic on why to invent gods I found this excellent quote from a guy at the Syntheist forum:

"I believe that following those lines of thought can make us unearth a sort of metabelief, or a "supreme fiction" to use Simon Critchley's concept. A fiction that we know to be a fiction but that we can believe in nonetheless, because of its real implications and effects. In a way that's a definition of Syntheos. An intersubjective projection on the future which materializes, in part or in full, just like other ideas and visions do."

It might require some unpacking for those of us who aren't used to reading philosophy. But I think this catches what use an imaginary god can have.

Isn't that kind of like taking a sugar pill to treat your depression because you've read about the placebo effect?

There are benefits to the social community and the like provided by the structure of a church, but I don't see how pretending to believe in a god you know is fictional adds any value to the process over having some kind of atheist social club.

 

[PyramidHead]

I hadn't actually read through much of the OP's link until now, and after doing so I think I have to bow out of this discussion. If you haven't checked it out, please do; it is just terrible.

The subject arises as an emergent phenomenon when perception is forced to prioritise in the overwhelming flow of information from the sensory organs – that which the pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce dubs semiosis – in order to give the enormous amount of data an actual utility. It is in this freezing and regulating of the perceptual flow that dividuation occurs; it is then and there that the subject arises as a necessary eternalisation of the body’s mobilist chaos, as an organised contraction rather than a galloping inflation in the mind. The reward for dividuation is that a tangible and manageable world view is immediately produced, with the contentless subject as its fictitious centre. When the subject then contemplates itself as objectively being before itself, it becomes conscious of itself as the empty subject, Atheos.

Best of luck, DrZoidberg, and see you in the politics forum.

 

[dystopian]

I hadn't actually read through much of the OP's link until now, and after doing so I think I have to bow out of this discussion. If you haven't checked it out, please do; it is just terrible.

The subject arises as an emergent phenomenon when perception is forced to prioritise in the overwhelming flow of information from the sensory organs – that which the pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce dubs semiosis – in order to give the enormous amount of data an actual utility. It is in this freezing and regulating of the perceptual flow that dividuation occurs; it is then and there that the subject arises as a necessary eternalisation of the body’s mobilist chaos, as an organised contraction rather than a galloping inflation in the mind. The reward for dividuation is that a tangible and manageable world view is immediately produced, with the contentless subject as its fictitious centre. When the subject then contemplates itself as objectively being before itself, it becomes conscious of itself as the empty subject, Atheos.

 

[PyramidHead]

I hadn't actually read through much of the OP's link until now, and after doing so I think I have to bow out of this discussion. If you haven't checked it out, please do; it is just terrible.

You are reading holy shit that is wholly shit.

It is self-important, long-winded, obscurantist nonsense disguised as profundity. It reeks of Theosophy and the hucksterism of J. G. Bennett and Gurdjieff, where everything needs to have a peculiar definition and set of coordinates in a massive, artificial system of meaningless phrases. Greek and Latin words are thrown out as a smokescreen to make you think something insightful is being conveyed. Everything is anchored by that classic New Age trope: we use 'god' and 'religion' differently so we get to say god is real and religion is everything. You've heard it from Joseph Campbell, the panpsychism people, and our very own StudentofSophia wherever he may be. The sad thing about this latest example is they don't appear to be making any money off it. One gets the sense that the author of "CHAPTER 05 The syntheological pyramid – Atheos, Pantheos, Entheos and Syntheos" really believes what he is writing:

The syntheological pyramid starts with a relational interiority with Atheos at the one end, which shifts to a relational exteriority with Pantheos at the other end. In the world of cosmology this even occurs literally: a black hole absorbs, it happens interiorly, while the Universe expands, it happens exteriorly. Exteriority then continues with Entheos, with its explosions of irreducible differences, multitudes and emergences over time, but shifts back to an interiority with Syntheos, as the utopia, the concentrated point or God for all of humanity’s dreams of the future. Atheos and Syntheos are primarily introvert or absorbing concepts, while Pantheos and Entheos are primarily extrovert or expansive concepts. If we express this relation phenomenologically, we say that an eternalism apprehends a mobilism – it is when Atheos is applied to Pantheos that Pantheos emerges as the One: a mobilism that is augmented in the next step and then switches back to an eternalism. It is for example when Entheos is applied to Syntheos that the agent finds its place within the phenomenon and syntheist activism takes shape as the truth as an act.

It's the postmodernism generator all over again.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Oh sure, one can pretend that it's deeper than that. But really it's not. It doesn't matter how complex or 'deep' you make the idea of a god; it still boils down to whether or not you actually believe it's true. If you believe it's true, then it makes perfect sense to worship it and participate in rituals revolving around it. If you don't believe it, then it's all irrelevant and you're just pretending. It doesn't matter if you're pretending to believe in a god that watches out for you personally ala the christian god, or if you're pretending there's some personal value to be had in empty rituals centered on a vaguely god-like concept you made up; it's pretend either way. (And not having the god concept at all but just the rituals makes it worse)

I'm not sure how to respond to this, since it isn't a question. It's an assertion. So... good luck with that.

I obviously don't agree. I was thinking of you when I posted this quote:

"I believe that following those lines of thought can make us unearth a sort of metabelief, or a "supreme fiction" to use Simon Critchley's concept. A fiction that we know to be a fiction but that we can believe in nonetheless, because of its real implications and effects. In a way that's a definition of Syntheos. An intersubjective projection on the future which materializes, in part or in full, just like other ideas and visions do."

So I take it you never enjoy movies or read books because you know it's all make-believe? I mean... how could a film possibly be exciting if it's not real? Yes, that was sarcasm. I doubt you have any problems using metaphorical and imaginary entities as a tool to create excitement in your life.

This is not a proper analogy though. I don't enjoy movies because I think "Holy shit, this stuff is totally real!". Suspending one's disbelief in order to enjoy a movie is something very different from trying to create a significant and lasting emotional effect that produces tangible positive benefits in your life by paying lip-service to something you know isn't real.

No it isn't. It is EXACTLY the same thing. No different. I think your problem here is that you're using an absolutely idiotic example of theism to compare with. And you're completely blind to the fact that there may be other ways of being theistic. Well.. good for you. But you're not likely to convince me of anything with that attitude.

Perhaps. But this is working for me. I'm a pragmatist. Whatever works is what I'll be doing.

That's kind of an odd way to define pragmatism though; "pretending to believe in this thing I know isn't real gives me a warm tingly feeling, so it's what I'll keep doing." To me, a pragmatist would say; "You know what, this is kind of silly, why don't I go and see if I can cut out the pretending part and find a more efficient way to get that warm tingly feeling?"

A pragmatist doesn't say 'whatever works', he says 'whatever works *best*'.

I don't get a warm tingly feeling feeling from my invented divinities. I want gods that inspire me to do shit. Not turn me passive. It's basically just a tool for conditioning my own brain. This is no different than learning anything. We've all got our foibles and unwanted behaviours and quirks. We've all got stuff to work on. Ritualising the conditioning is a perfect way not to forget it. It's really quite simple. And it works. At least it works for me.

You seem to forget that I'm from the Netherlands; a country just as secular as yours. Your experience is mine. But I also have access to the internet, filled with people from religious countries.

Ok, fine. Nice that you can relate. I can't.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are reading holy shit that is wholly shit.

It is self-important, long-winded, obscurantist nonsense disguised as profundity. It reeks of Theosophy and the hucksterism of J. G. Bennett and Gurdjieff, where everything needs to have a peculiar definition and set of coordinates in a massive, artificial system of meaningless phrases. Greek and Latin words are thrown out as a smokescreen to make you think something insightful is being conveyed. Everything is anchored by that classic New Age trope: we use 'god' and 'religion' differently so we get to say god is real and religion is everything. You've heard it from Joseph Campbell, the panpsychism people, and our very own StudentofSophia wherever he may be. The sad thing about this latest example is they don't appear to be making any money off it. One gets the sense that the author of "CHAPTER 05 The syntheological pyramid – Atheos, Pantheos, Entheos and Syntheos" really believes what he is writing:

The syntheological pyramid starts with a relational interiority with Atheos at the one end, which shifts to a relational exteriority with Pantheos at the other end. In the world of cosmology this even occurs literally: a black hole absorbs, it happens interiorly, while the Universe expands, it happens exteriorly. Exteriority then continues with Entheos, with its explosions of irreducible differences, multitudes and emergences over time, but shifts back to an interiority with Syntheos, as the utopia, the concentrated point or God for all of humanity’s dreams of the future. Atheos and Syntheos are primarily introvert or absorbing concepts, while Pantheos and Entheos are primarily extrovert or expansive concepts. If we express this relation phenomenologically, we say that an eternalism apprehends a mobilism – it is when Atheos is applied to Pantheos that Pantheos emerges as the One: a mobilism that is augmented in the next step and then switches back to an eternalism. It is for example when Entheos is applied to Syntheos that the agent finds its place within the phenomenon and syntheist activism takes shape as the truth as an act.

It's the postmodernism generator all over again.

he he.. well. I have to admit that I mostly agree with you. The book is unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. He makes a hell of a lot more sense when I talk to him in person. But he's writing for an audience of philosophers who expect to read philosophy in a certain form. Continental philosophers like their philosophy convoluted, obscurantist and dense as fuck. That's just a sad fact. But it's a style choice. Rather than evidence of shallowness. A lot of them do have plenty of sensible things to say IMHO. It's a stylistic tradition I find extremely annoying and unhelpful. I'm used to reading philosophy, so I can read it just fine. But I too would prefer it if they made an effort to make it easier to digest.