The Religion for Everyone

[Bill Van Fleet]

What I am calling attention to, and attempting to promote, is a beginning move of our species away from authoritarian ethics (ultimate ethical principle = "We should do what X wants, X being whoever or whatever is most powerful") toward rational ethics (ultimate ethical principle = REUEP). Authoritarian ethics has caused enormous amounts of PSDED.

REUEP: "We should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species but also as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED) as possible, for everyone, now and in the future."

 

[George-ananda]

is a beginning move of our species away from authoritarian ethics (ultimate ethical principle = "We should do what X wants, X being whoever or whatever is most powerful")

A beginning move from authoritarian ethics? I think we are past that point already. It seems like authoritarian ethics has already gone away in educated western societies. Even those who believe in higher powers present a 'rational' reason for why they follow the ethics of their path. I just don't hear the 'we should do it because that is what God commands us to do' attitude to any extent anymore.

For every ethical rule I follow on my spiritual path, I rationally understand why it is a good rule.

 

[George-ananda]

REUEP: "We should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species but also as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED) as possible, for everyone, now and in the future."

I thought of another issue with REUEP.

I think it shows a materialist viewpoint in that it concerns itself with 'perceived' happiness and not true 'spiritual' happiness. For example, in sexual matters materialist-atheists are generally more open/liberal and traditional Christian/Buddhist/Islamic/Hindu teachings more conservative. A materialist might say, these people are prudish and denying themselves pleasure because of the commands of their authoritarian God and we should be more open/liberal in sexuality as it promotes more joy. But as a Hindu, I believe reduction and control of sensual desires and liberation from our cravings is actually the way to peace, joy and happiness.

Well, then again in defense of REUEP, one could argue that if studies can show more conservative sexual behavior improves long run happiness then conservative sexual behavior is what should be promoted.

Maybe I'm saying REUEP is what we pretty much all intuitively already follow in our ethics and we just disagree on how best to accomplish its goals. I'm wondering if REUEP doesn't say much beyond the obvious.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I thought of another issue with REUEP.

I think it shows a materialist viewpoint in that it concerns itself with 'perceived' happiness and not true 'spiritual' happiness. For example, in sexual matters materialist-atheists are generally more open/liberal and traditional Christian/Buddhist/Islamic/Hindu teachings more conservative. A materialist might say, these people are prudish and denying themselves pleasure because of the commands of their authoritarian God and we should be more open/liberal in sexuality as it promotes more joy. But as a Hindu, I believe reduction and control of sensual desires and liberation from our cravings is actually the way to peace, joy and happiness.

Well, then again in defense of REUEP, one could argue that if studies can show more conservative sexual behavior improves long run happiness then conservative sexual behavior is what should be promoted.

Maybe I'm saying REUEP is what we pretty much all intuitively already follow in our ethics and we just disagree on how best to accomplish its goals. I'm wondering if REUEP doesn't say much beyond the obvious.

I appreciate your thoughtful replies. I believe I understand what you are saying and why. The problem is that it is not easy to convey in a few sentences exactly what my line of thinking is. So where you and I would seem to disagree may actually be an example of us not understanding each other accurately. What I would appreciate your doing, if you are willing, is to take a look at my very best presentation of my ideas, done in as systematic a way as possible, and then letting me know where it seems that we disagree. I make this request so that we will not continue to talk past each other, with no good progress in understanding. My best presentation of my ideas relevant to this current discussion is in the chapter on Ethics in this freely available on-line book:

FOR EVERYONE: Rational-Ethical Living | Ethics

If it seems not to be making sense, I will understand your not reading further. But if so, please quote to me what seems not to make sense. I hope this will improve the value of our discussion.

Again, thanks for your replies!

 

[xkatz]

MUH EDGY POST-MODERN HUMANISM!

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

MUH EDGY POST-MODERN HUMANISM!

I assume you are referring to something I wrote and are classifying it. However, I don't know what you are referring to specifically (a quote would help), what you mean by your terms, and why they would apply. I hope you will give us something to go on.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

George-Ananda,


I worry that my suggestion that you take a look at my most systematic presentation of my ideas was considered inappropriate. I will try to respond to your last two posts, giving you some idea of what I consider to be some of our problems in communication.

I thought of another issue with REUEP.


I think it shows a materialist viewpoint in that it concerns itself with 'perceived' happiness and not true 'spiritual' happiness.

Note that you are introducing the term “happiness” that is not in any of what I have written. I believe it is a more nebulous term than the ones in the REUEP. In the book on Humanianity (book2), I discuss the terms in the REUEP. There is even there some nebulousness, in the overlapping of some of the terms and in the absence of clear lines (e.g, what constitutes “early”). So we will have some degree of that, but if we are trying to communicate, if we use different words, we certainly can be talking past each other, and talking about different things. Also, it is very unclear to me what you mean by “perceived happiness” as opposed to “true spiritual happiness.” These terms have a lot of personal meaning for you, I am sure, but they do not yet have any meaning for me. So we are speaking different languages.

For example, in sexual matters materialist-atheists are generally more open/liberal and traditional Christian/Buddhist/Islamic/Hindu teachings more conservative. A materialist might say, these people are prudish and denying themselves pleasure because of the commands of their authoritarian God and we should be more open/liberal in sexuality as it promotes more joy. But as a Hindu, I believe reduction and control of sensual desires and liberation from our cravings is actually the way to peace, joy and happiness.

So do you mean by “peace, joy and happiness” what I mean by “as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible”?


But let’s assume that they mean the same thing. So you would have a different opinion as to how to achieve this end. Yes, there are different opinions as to how to achieve this end (for everyone, now and in the future, BTW). The commitment to live according to the REUEP does not automatically solve all problems. What I am talking about, however, is that we can do a far, far better job than we have done so far. The news media and even one’s personal experience should make that clear, right?

Well, then again in defense of REUEP, one could argue that if studies can show more conservative sexual behavior improves long run happiness then conservative sexual behavior is what should be promoted.

That would indeed seem reasonable. In book2, there is a chapter on “Sex and Violence,” which I think will indicate that “conservative sexual behavior” is a very global term that refers to very complex ethical matters.

Maybe I'm saying REUEP is what we pretty much all intuitively already follow in our ethics and we just disagree on how best to accomplish its goals. I'm wondering if REUEP doesn't say much beyond the obvious.

Well yes, hopefully it is indeed “obvious.” By that, I mean that I believe that it is an ultimate ethical principle that anyone can accept, given sufficient thought and study. But if we take a look at the news media and at our personal lives, what is impressive is how often it is that we do things that are inconsistent with that ultimate ethical principle. Humanianity is the effort to do something about that very sad fact. So if one just looks at the REUEP and says, “Well, that’s obvious. So there is nothing worthwhile here, so I might as well go do something else,” then one decides to ignore the possibility of helping make things better in this way. But is that sufficient reason to disregard this effort to make things better?

A beginning move from authoritarian ethics? I think we are past that point already. It seems like authoritarian ethics has already gone away in educated western societies. Even those who believe in higher powers present a 'rational' reason for why they follow the ethics of their path. I just don't hear the 'we should do it because that is what God commands us to do' attitude to any extent anymore.

But authoritarian ethics does not mean just legitimization by claiming that God’s wish is the reason for doing things. I am talking about X being parent, leader, group, culture, or deity. So I don’t think that you fully understand what I am meaning by authoritarian ethics. But even so, I do not think that your statement that “obedience to a deity” is no longer considered an ultimate reason for doing things is drastically different from the way things are on this planet. Reference may not be made to a deity, because people are legitimating their ethical beliefs and justifying their behavior using lower level ethical principles and rules of conduct. But if they were asked why they were living by those principles and rules, ultimately they would, I think, very often talk about obedience, and yes, often obedience to a deity.

For every ethical rule I follow on my spiritual path, I rationally understand why it is a good rule.

Remember that the way the brain works, the feeling of certainty is not dependent upon accuracy of belief. Just because I feel that I am being rational (adhering to the rules of logic and the rules of evidence) doesn’t mean that I am. It takes dialogue with others to find the imperfections in one’s own thinking. That’s why dialogue with you is valuable to me.


But each of us must feel that we are understanding the other and feel that the other is understanding us. I don’t believe we have accomplished that yet. And that’s why I thought it would be valuable for you to read my most systematic presentation of my ideas, with your quoting that which you disagree with and stating why you disagree. I have attempted to do that to some extent above. I hope that having done so will facilitate clearer communication between the two of us.

 

[George-ananda]

George-Ananda,


I worry that my suggestion that you take a look at my most systematic presentation of my ideas was considered inappropriate. I will try to respond to your last two posts, giving you some idea of what I consider to be some of our problems in communication.





Note that you are introducing the term “happiness” that is not in any of what I have written. I believe it is a more nebulous term than the ones in the REUEP. In the book on Humanianity (book2), I discuss the terms in the REUEP. There is even there some nebulousness, in the overlapping of some of the terms and in the absence of clear lines (e.g, what constitutes “early”). So we will have some degree of that, but if we are trying to communicate, if we use different words, we certainly can be talking past each other, and talking about different things. Also, it is very unclear to me what you mean by “perceived happiness” as opposed to “true spiritual happiness.” These terms have a lot of personal meaning for you, I am sure, but they do not yet have any meaning for me. So we are speaking different languages.





So do you mean by “peace, joy and happiness” what I mean by “as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible”?


But let’s assume that they mean the same thing. So you would have a different opinion as to how to achieve this end. Yes, there are different opinions as to how to achieve this end (for everyone, now and in the future, BTW). The commitment to live according to the REUEP does not automatically solve all problems. What I am talking about, however, is that we can do a far, far better job than we have done so far. The news media and even one’s personal experience should make that clear, right?





That would indeed seem reasonable. In book2, there is a chapter on “Sex and Violence,” which I think will indicate that “conservative sexual behavior” is a very global term that refers to very complex ethical matters.





Well yes, hopefully it is indeed “obvious.” By that, I mean that I believe that it is an ultimate ethical principle that anyone can accept, given sufficient thought and study. But if we take a look at the news media and at our personal lives, what is impressive is how often it is that we do things that are inconsistent with that ultimate ethical principle. Humanianity is the effort to do something about that very sad fact. So if one just looks at the REUEP and says, “Well, that’s obvious. So there is nothing worthwhile here, so I might as well go do something else,” then one decides to ignore the possibility of helping make things better in this way. But is that sufficient reason to disregard this effort to make things better?





But authoritarian ethics does not mean just legitimization by claiming that God’s wish is the reason for doing things. I am talking about X being parent, leader, group, culture, or deity. So I don’t think that you fully understand what I am meaning by authoritarian ethics. But even so, I do not think that your statement that “obedience to a deity” is no longer considered an ultimate reason for doing things is drastically different from the way things are on this planet. Reference may not be made to a deity, because people are legitimating their ethical beliefs and justifying their behavior using lower level ethical principles and rules of conduct. But if they were asked why they were living by those principles and rules, ultimately they would, I think, very often talk about obedience, and yes, often obedience to a deity.





Remember that the way the brain works, the feeling of certainty is not dependent upon accuracy of belief. Just because I feel that I am being rational (adhering to the rules of logic and the rules of evidence) doesn’t mean that I am. It takes dialogue with others to find the imperfections in one’s own thinking. That’s why dialogue with you is valuable to me.


But each of us must feel that we are understanding the other and feel that the other is understanding us. I don’t believe we have accomplished that yet. And that’s why I thought it would be valuable for you to read my most systematic presentation of my ideas, with your quoting that which you disagree with and stating why you disagree. I have attempted to do that to some extent above. I hope that having done so will facilitate clearer communication between the two of us.

Bill, I like your enthusiasm and calm thinking style. Let me take this in small bites. I'm going to come back to one of my earlier points. How does REUEP differ from common sense. Maybe we can connect better if maybe you can present an example or two of how REUEP would change the differences of opinion among people. It just the conflicts are because different people have different opinions on what is best; not in the resolve to do REUEP. These differences in opinion will still be there even if we all agree to the REUEP religion.

I'm not sure if abortion is a good example, but differences as to what REUEP ethics suggest will persist just as they do now based on if you believe in souls, reincarnation, or a glob of cells without subjective thoughts. Fundamental differences are what seem important, not the resolve to do REUEP.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Bill, I like your enthusiasm and calm thinking style. Let me take this in small bites. I'm going to come back to one of my earlier points. How does REUEP differ from common sense. Maybe we can connect better if maybe you can present an example or two of how REUEP would change the differences of opinion among people. It just the conflicts are because different people have different opinions on what is best; not in the resolve to do REUEP. These differences in opinion will still be there even if we all agree to the REUEP religion.

I'm not sure if abortion is a good example, but differences as to what REUEP ethics suggest will persist just as they do now based on if you believe in souls, reincarnation, or a glob of cells without subjective thoughts. Fundamental differences are what seem important, not the resolve to do REUEP.

See, by "common sense" I believe that you mean that it is hard to imagine that someone would reject it upon considering it. But that is not the point. It is that most people DON'T have this as their ultimate ethical principle. They DON'T actually live by it. They live by the principle of obeying the culture (or subculture), and our (sub-)cultures victimize us terribly.

Commitment to the REUEP is emerging, yes, but we are only about 2% (don't take that literally) of the way. We are a highly unethical species. We are our most feared predator. We do awful, awful things. Our ethical beliefs are disorganized and ambiguous, and the ethical sense (motivation to do what we believe is the right thing to do) is very, very weak.

I'm not talking about every individual, but I am talking about on the average. The news media are filled with the more public examples, but we have all sorts of relationship breakdown and suicidal lifestyles. Our lives are filled with the awful effects of chronic anger. Everywhere we look, we see unnecessary PSDED, caused by what we decide to do.

If we assume that this is inevitable, because currently it is normal, then we will indeed never become "Homo rationalis" (my term for how we may become in the far future when we are indeed living according to the REUEP), because there can be no motivation to work toward something considered impossible to achieve. We have to study together to develop this new ability. We have to have a mechanism for doing so. The Belief Manual is a tool for that purpose. Book2 gives a much more concrete idea of how we can cease to be victims of our cultures, which are a reinforcing reflection of our ethical beliefs.

But we have to believe that it is possible, and we have to have an understanding of how to do it. Working together to create a basic ethical philosophy, with recognition of the existence of general agreement, increases the motivation to be committed to it. (A good bad example is suicide bombers.) I believe your skepticism is based upon your not yet having read enough of what is being proposed to really understand it. That's why I am encouraging you to give it a try, at least until you find something that is obviously incorrect (in the context in which it is written), whereupon hopefully you will quote it with your reason for questioning it.

 

[Avi1001]

Sorry, Bill, but we've been reading this stuff about your new religion for 2 weeks now....and you still have not differentiated it from humanism. How about if we just call it humanism with an extra "an" and leave it at that. But at some point you'll have to think up what the extra "an" stands for.......also forget the alphabet soup....the reueps and other psdeds ust cause confusion...!!

See, by "common sense" I believe that you mean that it is hard to imagine that someone would reject it upon considering it. But that is not the point. It is that most people DON'T have this as their ultimate ethical principle. They DON'T actually live by it. They live by the principle of obeying the culture (or subculture), and our (sub-)cultures victimize us terribly.

Commitment to the REUEP is emerging, yes, but we are only about 2% (don't take that literally) of the way. We are a highly unethical species. We are our most feared predator. We do awful, awful things. Our ethical beliefs are disorganized and ambiguous, and the ethical sense (motivation to do what we believe is the right thing to do) is very, very weak.

I'm not talking about every individual, but I am talking about on the average. The news media are filled with the more public examples, but we have all sorts of relationship breakdown and suicidal lifestyles. Our lives are filled with the awful effects of chronic anger. Everywhere we look, we see unnecessary PSDED, caused by what we decide to do.

If we assume that this is inevitable, because currently it is normal, then we will indeed never become "Homo rationalis" (my term for how we may become in the far future when we are indeed living according to the REUEP), because there can be no motivation to work toward something considered impossible to achieve. We have to study together to develop this new ability. We have to have a mechanism for doing so. The Belief Manual is a tool for that purpose. Book2 gives a much more concrete idea of how we can cease to be victims of our cultures, which are a reinforcing reflection of our ethical beliefs.

But we have to believe that it is possible, and we have to have an understanding of how to do it. Working together to create a basic ethical philosophy, with recognition of the existence of general agreement, increases the motivation to be committed to it. (A good bad example is suicide bombers.) I believe your skepticism is based upon your not yet having read enough of what is being proposed to really understand it. That's why I am encouraging you to give it a try, at least until you find something that is obviously incorrect (in the context in which it is written), whereupon hopefully you will quote it with your reason for questioning it.

 

[George-ananda]

See, by "common sense" I believe that you mean that it is hard to imagine that someone would reject it upon considering it. But that is not the point. It is that most people DON'T have this as their ultimate ethical principle. They DON'T actually live by it. They live by the principle of obeying the culture (or subculture), and our (sub-)cultures victimize us terribly.

Hi, Bill..I also like your calm reaction to the often hostile RF climate. Now, unfortunately you didn't give any specific examples of the above as I had hoped. Sometimes things click after we see a good example. I'm still thinking that when people obey a culture they honestly believe those cultural values are those that support REUEP.

Commitment to the REUEP is emerging, yes, but we are only about 2% (don't take that literally) of the way. We are a highly unethical species. We are our most feared predator. We do awful, awful things. Our ethical beliefs are disorganized and ambiguous, and the ethical sense (motivation to do what we believe is the right thing to do) is very, very weak.

I'm not talking about every individual, but I am talking about on the average. The news media are filled with the more public examples, but we have all sorts of relationship breakdown and suicidal lifestyles. Our lives are filled with the awful effects of chronic anger. Everywhere we look, we see unnecessary PSDED, caused by what we decide to do.

I think the problem is not a logical understanding of what good should be (REUEP); but the human impulses towards self-centeredness and fear of others power which produces anger, ego, violence, etc. I am saying these problems of ego-concerned living and thinking is the real battle. And it's spiritual and emotional; not rational. It is intelligent spirituality that will improve mankind's situation.

(A good bad example is suicide bombers.)

But even suicide bombers would say they are martyring for REUEP like principles. But I would say their thinking has been led astray by leaders who have had their reason hijacked by what I said above; the human impulses of anger. ego, fear of others power. Intelligent spirituality is the cure; it addresses the source of the problem of why REUEP principles are not happening.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm convinced humanism is a danger in its self.

What?!

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Sorry, Bill, but we've been reading this stuff about your new religion for 2 weeks now....and you still have not differentiated it from humanism. How about if we just call it humanism with an extra "an" and leave it at that. But at some point you'll have to think up what the extra "an" stands for.......also forget the alphabet soup....the reueps and other psdeds ust cause confusion...!!

See, I believe that you have not yet understood what this thing is that I am talking about. With regard to distinguishing it from humanism, the two are defined completely differently. If you believe they are the same, then can you quote the two definitions and explain why they mean the same thing? It is you, not I, that is making this statement, despite my statement otherwise. It seems to me that it is your task to demonstrate that what you are saying is true. Regarding the use of REUEP and PSDED, I was doing that to cut down on verbiage so as to make reading and understanding easier. Perhaps that is not wise, but it sure eliminates a lot of repetitive typing.

In the next post, I will give a (hopefully) better presentation that addresses some of the mistaken impressions you have obtained. I welcome feedback as to any part of it that seems unclear.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Explanation of “Humanianity”


Humanianity is not a new religion to take the place of or compete with specific religions. It is a (currently very early) development within Religion generally. As such, it is Religion for everyone, no matter what religion a person identifies with, if any, and commitment to it does not necessitate giving up that person’s specific religious involvement or require such involvement.


“Religion” refers here to our adult study of how best to live our lives, i.e., how to be as ethical as possible, and it may therefore include some activities that are not currently specifically labeled “religious.”


(“Ethical” refers to our beliefs as to what we should and should not do. Our religions, although often having other functions also, have always been our most recognized adult activities in behalf of learning how to be good, i.e., ethical, people, and in this discussion, this function is being used as the defining function of “Religion,” as opposed to, for instance, some set of beliefs about the nature of reality, there being no generally agreed-upon set of such beliefs within the various religions currently and there being a gradual turning over of this function to Science in the modern era, with the idea that Science and Religion should work together.)


Our ethical beliefs motivate us to do things that we might otherwise not do, and motivate us to refrain from doing things that we might otherwise do. (This motivation, produced by the activation of an ethical belief, has been referred to as the “ethical sense,” the wanting to do what one believes is the right thing to do because of believing it to be the right thing to do.)


Our ethical beliefs to some extent are legitimated (shown worthy of being accepted) by being shown to be consistent with increasingly “higher” (more general) ethical beliefs, called “ethical rules of conduct” or “ethical principles.” The highest, or most general, of those principles, with which all other ethical principles, rules of conduct, and beliefs must be consistent in order to be considered thus legitimated, can be labeled as the “ultimate ethical principle.”


(A person’s set of general ethical beliefs, rules of conduct, and principles can be referred to as that person’s “basic ethical philosophy.”)


Our species has as a part of its basic animal nature an ultimate ethical principle that can best be verbalized as that “we should do that which X wants us to, X being whoever or whatever is most powerful (parent, leader, group, culture, or deity). (This ultimate ethical principle, having to do with obedience to authority, can be labeled the “authoritiarian-ethical ultimate ethical principle,” or AEUEP.) For many reasons, this basic ethical philosophy has been associated with much pain, suffering, disability, and early death.


Humanianity is the emergence of a new ultimate ethical principle, namely, that “we should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species but also as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible, for everyone, now and in the future.”


(This wording is just the result of an effort to put into words something that is implied in our gradually changing ethical beliefs, ethical motivation, and behavior, and it could possibly be stated with other words also. But there is value in staying with one set of words so that communication among people regarding the concept will be as unambiguous as possible.)


And the label chosen for this ultimate ethical principle is the “rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle,” or REUEP, to contrast it with the AEUEP, above.


This emergence of Humanianity has been developing over a long period of time, and only very slowly. However, that development may be accelerating, and may become an exponentially accelerating development that will result ultimately in a dramatically better way of life than our species has ever known so far. This is most likely to happen if we become more aware of it, value it, and join in the effort to promote it. Many people have been trying to promote this development in various specific ways, and have made the world a better place by their efforts.


I have been trying to do my part in accelerating the development of Humanianity. My contributions have been my efforts to:

(1)Call attention to, describe, and advocate for its development.

(2)Give the movement a name, along with an associated terminology, so that it can more easily be discussed.

(3)Create a set of tools to aid in its development.


The set of tools has been the development of a website focused on the development of Humanianity.


The website describes the nature and development of the concepts and also provides an opportunity for people to participate in the development of a basic ethical philosophy for our species, one that is not handed down by authority but is participated in by everyone, with the ability of everyone to see how much agreement there is with regard to any of the specific beliefs being contributed for consideration. This tool is the Belief Manual (and an associated Forum).


Each individual can create his or her own Belief Manual, and if he or she is a member of an organization that considers itself to be Humanian (committed to the REUEP), his or her beliefs are contributed to that organization’s Belief Manual. If 90% or more of those people in a Humanian organization expressing an opinion agree with the belief, then that organization is considered to have endorsed the belief. Anyone can then see how many Humanian organizations have endorsed a particular belief, and anyone can compare his or her own beliefs, or those of his or her Humanian organization with the beliefs in any other organization’s Belief Manual. And all individuals can share and compare their beliefs in increasing depth through dialogue in the associated Forum.


The goal of the Belief Manual tool is that of increasing, worldwide agreement with regard to a basic ethical philosophy for our species, but the Belief Manual is always open to revision and improvement produced by the sharing and comparing of our basic ethical philosophies, and therefore welcomes disagreement as an opportunity for further, deeper understanding and even better, more widely agreed-upon ethical beliefs. The Belief Manual thus serves as a study guide for everyone interested in the promotion of ethical living, whether in one’s own personal life, as a part of child rearing and family development, or as a part of small group, political, national, international, or global functioning.


This website will, as participation in it grows, ultimately have to be taken over by Internet technology savvy people who are Humanian and are working for all of us in a transparent way such that the website becomes the property of our species and operates according to Humanian principles, developed by all of us and stated in the Belief Manual itself. The website should never be detracted from by motivations to make money, since we know from long experience that the motivation to make money often conflicts with what we believe to be the right thing to do.


The reader is encouraged to study this set of concepts and activities further, and, if they seem appropriate, then to join the activities. The reader can register with the Belief Manual and create his or her own Belief Manual. Also, the reader can create or join a Humanian organization for further group study and for the creation of and/or contribution to that organization’s Belief Manual. And the reader can discuss with others the ethical issues in the Forum, and also advocate to others that they participate in the process.


The only way we can get to a far better life on this planet is to do our parts in promoting that development.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

So, George-Ananda, does that clarify the nature of Humanianity and help to distinguish it from humanism? Can we not see humanism as one of the manifestations of Humanianity?

And BTW, you have mentioned the hostile environment of the religious forums. Hostility is a part of the phenomenon of dominance and submission that is a part of our basic animal nature. Indeed, there is a natural tendency to try to "win" arguments by engaging in hostile communication, which then is admired by others who regard the successfully hostile person as being more powerful. So this is sort of related to the authoritarian-ethical ultimate ethical principle, having to do with obedience, or submission.

We love to see fights, and we love to fight. But look at how awful that makes our lives. Is it not more consistent with the REUEP that we never be hostile in our discussions of how to make our lives better, but instead try to understand each other as clearly as possible and utilize the rules of logic and rules of evidence as much as possible as we share and compare our ideas to see why they differ?

And do you see evidence of the emergence of Humanianity within Hinduism? Has Hinduism been changing any as it finds itself in the modern world? I don't have the familiarity with Hinduism that I have with Christianity. I do see Humanianity developing within Christianity.

Also, I am interested in what the concept of Brahman is, and how it would be conceptualized in the Tripartite Model that I develop in the book3 on the mind-body problem. MIND-BODY PROBLEM: Introduction

 

[George-ananda]

And BTW, you have mentioned the hostile environment of the religious forums. Hostility is a part of the phenomenon of dominance and submission that is a part of our basic animal nature. Indeed, there is a natural tendency to try to "win" arguments by engaging in hostile communication, which then is admired by others who regard the successfully hostile person as being more powerful. So this is sort of related to the authoritarian-ethical ultimate ethical principle, having to do with obedience, or submission.

We love to see fights, and we love to fight. But look at how awful that makes our lives. Is it not more consistent with the REUEP that we never be hostile in our discussions of how to make our lives better, but instead try to understand each other as clearly as possible and utilize the rules of logic and rules of evidence as much as possible as we share and compare our ideas to see why they differ?

I like that explanation above. Now, the question is how to root out these lower qualities.

And do you see evidence of the emergence of Humanianity within Hinduism? Has Hinduism been changing any as it finds itself in the modern world? I don't have the familiarity with Hinduism that I have with Christianity. I do see Humanianity developing within Christianity.

Yes, I do see REUEP thinking influencing Hinduism. Things like wives being ceremonially burned alive on their husband's death (I'm a westerner and don't know the details) have been outlawed by India, thank God (or thank Humanianity thinking).

Also, I am interested in what the concept of Brahman is, and how it would be conceptualized in the Tripartite Model that I develop in the book3 on the mind-body problem. MIND-BODY PROBLEM: Introduction

Brahman is pure consciousness best describes as sat-chit-ananda (being-bliss-awareness). The universe (with realms of existence physical and above the physical) is a creative emanation of Brahman; a play/drama of the divine. He separates Himself from Himself into finite forms and returns Himself to Himself.

So at the human stage we are working to realize our true nature; Brahman consciousness. So in living this life REUEP concepts certainly make sense. One possible difference between Humanianity and Advaita Hinduism is that in Advaita Hinduism much emphasis is placed on disciplining the mind away from sensory attachments to material things. This detachment allows us to better focus on our true goal of Self-Realization (Brahman-Realization) which is above the physical level. And in working to that end we also experience more peace, love and bliss now. Possibly, and you may correct me, REUEP is more 'this life' centered.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I like that explanation above. Now, the question is how to root out these lower qualities.


Yes, I do see REUEP thinking influencing Hinduism. Things like wives being ceremonially burned alive on their husband's death (I'm a westerner and don't know the details) have been outlawed by India, thank God (or thank Humanianity thinking).


Brahman is pure consciousness best describes as sat-chit-ananda (being-bliss-awareness). The universe (with realms of existence physical and above the physical) is a creative emanation of Brahman; a play/drama of the divine. He separates Himself from Himself into finite forms and returns Himself to Himself.

So at the human stage we are working to realize our true nature; Brahman consciousness. So in living this life REUEP concepts certainly make sense. One possible difference between Humanianity and Advaita Hinduism is that in Advaita Hinduism much emphasis is placed on disciplining the mind away from sensory attachments to material things. This detachment allows us to better focus on our true goal of Self-Realization (Brahman-Realization) which is above the physical level. And in working to that end we also experience more peace, love and bliss now. Possibly, and you may correct me, REUEP is more 'this life' centered.

Where I think we could have useful dialogue has to do with some undefined terms, "true nature," "this life," "material things," "finite forms," etc.

It would be great if you could start reading book3 on the mind-body problem and as soon as you found something that was not easily understood or seemed incorrect, quote it with your comments. The book attempts to deal with this difficult problem with the greatest clarity of concepts as possible. It will be related to these concepts that you are using. I understand that those concepts (examples quoted above) have meaning in your mind, but they don't yet in my mind. We could also proceed with your attempting to define those concepts and my giving feedback as to how the concepts are taking form in my mind, but I really think we can make more progress if you try reading that book and understand most rapidly and clearly how my mind thinks. Basically, we are all dealing with the same things (probably).

 

[Avi1001]

Hi again, Bill,

I am not sure exactly how you've done it....but you've milked this thread for 78 posts........but, as I see it....there are several problems with your "New Religion":

1) It's so boring....that the only ones left on this thread are George and I...

2) No one can keep track of the acronyms...

3) The religion is basically a cross between humanism an atheism...there is really nothing new here.

4) Who would possibly use a "Belief Manual" instead of a sacred text ?

5) How can you write so much....and yet say so little ??...

6) How many "converts" do you have ??

7) I think I'm starting to warm up to this new religion....

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I am not sure exactly how you've done it....but you've milked this thread for 78 posts....

....but, as I see it....there are several problems with your "New Religion":

1) It's so boring....that the only ones left on this thread are George and I...

You’re right. What people are looking for is conflict, which is exciting. And we have suffering/tragedy all over this planet, at all levels of social organization (primary significant relationships to global ones) because of it. This religious movement is away from that way of life, toward harmony and increasing mutual understanding. That is indeed boring.

2) No one can keep track of the acronyms...

REUEP, AEUEP, JCA, and PSDED are the only ones. It is unlikely that this would be beyond the capabilities of most people, especially when they know what they mean.

3) The religion is basically a cross between humanism an atheism...there is really nothing new here.

Definitely not. But you have to understand it more to understand why. Theists can be Humanian. But it is true that the emergence of atheism and humanism is a manifestation of Humanianity.

4) Who would possibly use a "Belief Manual" instead of a sacred text ?

Those who participated in its creation, and those who have an interest in learning from others.

5) How can you write so much....and yet say so little ??...

I believe I say a lot. So we have a difference of opinion. Is it based upon my self-delusion or upon your lack of adequately intensive study, or both?

6) How many "converts" do you have ??

A “convert” is usually someone who converts from (abandons) one ideology to adopt another, with the implication of closure of the mind with regard to the ideology. That would be far different than what is involved in becoming Humanian. But if you mean how many see it as a good thing and wish to participate by participating in the development of the Belief Manual and by advocating to others that they study the concepts, very, very few. This set of concepts is ahead of its time, and it will take a long time for the value of it to become recognized, if indeed there is value. And most everyone will make the initial assumption that there is no value prior to finding out what the concepts actually are.

7) I think I'm starting to warm up to this new religion....

Then I recommend further study, and if and when you become comfortable doing so, participation and advocacy. Also, if you find anything nonoptimal about the website or the concepts or the Belief Manual, I welcome the feedback. But as far as making it exciting by appealing to our awful aggressive tendencies, or by making it otherwise entertaining so that people get a thrill out of it, that can’t happen. The only motivation that will work is the wish to promote not only the survival of our species but also as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible, for everyone, now and in the future. Is that at all appealing to you?

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Hellooooo.... Anyone else around? Am I the only survivor?