A Reasonable Religion

[David Sklansky]

Here is an outline of a set of religious beliefs that I would find hard to argue with.

1. God created the three dimenional universe, via the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.

2. God set up physical constants, laws of physics, and quarks that incorporated inherent randomness (a necessary feature to allow free will).

3. God realized that with these initial "axioms", the laws of logic, which even he can't break, would eventually produce conscious beings here and there. He liked that.

4. The question as to whether God is totally omnipotent is irrelevant to this religion. So is where he came from, has he always existed, or whether some super God created him. Even if there was a super god, only this God cares about his conscious creations and wants them to be happy.

5. Because he wants his conscious creations to be happy, he needs for there to be consequences to people who are not good to each other. That is the only reason he wants people to believe in him. It is not about his ego. It is that to get around Prisoner Dilemma problems, to keep polluters from polluting, etc. etc. some may need to worry about divine consequences and won't if they are atheists.

6. The consequences may not need God's hands on approach. He might have set it up in advance. Knowing the specifics is completely unnecessary.

7. These consequences are solely related to how good you are. How often and how badly you break the Golden Rule. And how often you go above and beyond the call of duty. They are utterly unrelated to your religion. If you do good without believing in this God, that is fine with him. Your rewards will be equal to those who believe.

8. On the other hand if you do bad you are facing consequences. Who knows what. But there is a way out. Namely by doing extra credit good to make up for the bad. Do enough and you wipe the slate clean. Do less and you mitigate the punishment. (Notice that this would be a disaster for those who have done terribly in the past or for those who know that can't stop doing bad. It seems like a lot of the fervent believers I know fit one of these two categories which I don't think is a coincidence. They get to say that we are ALL horrible sinners because of Adam and Eve and that in spite of this, believing in Jesus gets us into heaven. How convenient if you spent half your life as a thief, whore or scoundrel, or if you know you have no will power.)

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was only a matter of time.

[Wally Weeks]

Great, sounds like my kind of religion. The only problem is getting people to believe the initial assumption: there is, or was, a God. Other than that, it's golden.

Also, what percentage of income should go to the Church of Sklansky? 10%? Will there be "missions" to go on like the Mormons?

Wally

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, what percentage of income should go to the Church of Sklansky? 10%? Will there be "missions" to go on like the Mormons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting an oppositional religion called the Free Masons. Yo Malmuth, you in? There's a funny hat in it for you if you say 'yes'.

[GOODBEATGUY2001]

And with the widespread popularity of religion among the uninformed & misinformed, Sklanskynity should be a long-term positive expectation. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[goofball]

1. The universe is at least 4 dimensions.

2. Did you mean quirks or were you referring to the elementary particls?

3. Does he believe they will eventually produce conscious beings or does he know?

4-5. He wants us to be happy? You don't explicitly say if he can or does interfer with the natural course of events. If he does, why didn't he stop the plague? If he is sophisticated enough to setup the universe why didn't he merely setup a universe that created conscious beings who weren't bad to each other?

6-8. Are the rewards/consequences set up for an eternity in a timelike dimension we know, or do they exist outside such a dimension? Is someone who lives a life of pure evil subject to only punishment, or will they eventually have "done their time?"

[David Sklansky]

1. OK 4

2. Quarks

3. He knows it is a big favorite.

4. Maybe because setting up the universe is doable but the other is not. Remember he may not be omnipotent.

5. I don't know. One possibility that I thought of is that the last few second of life seem like an eternity. An eternity to reflect on your misdeeds. Of course that answer wouldn't provide much punishment for psychopaths.

Meanwhile you are asking for details and I specifically said that it is not necessary to know them. Anything not logically inconsistent that fits the general outline is OK.

[goofball]

Mundane details are pointless i agree, (how logn didit take him, or something). Even pointing out 4 or more dimensions was slightly nitpicky of me (to be accurate i think a 'he designed the universe as we know it' would suffice, because the number of dimensions in th euniverse in unknown)

However, you stipluate that there is some kind of post or near death reward punishment system and that strikes me as non trivial because it has to fall within the laws of physics. Changing ones perception of time as death nears is within the laws of physics but has the problems you mention. A physical heaven or hell where people are pehaps taken runs into the problem of us finding it. Several other systems I've thought of seem implausible too (him physically transporting you to a place in his universe). The biggest problem with a post/near death system, is that we don't know it exists. Sure some people think it does, but I for one don't. I base my behavior on many things but the afterlife is not one of them, and if I didn't have other reasons not to behave badly I would with little to no fear of a postmortem punishment.

Beyond all of this though, I have a hard time seeing why he would even care if we are happy. There seems to be no logical reason for you to include this among your stipulations. Of all the reasons I can think of for the god you describe to create a universe like ours more have him being indifferent to what happens to us than not.

Saying "god wants us to be happy" strikes me as introducing unnecesary complexities to the system, and we all know waht William of Ockham said about that.

[mindflayer]

your title gives implies
a belief in a religion is unreasonable.

religion is based on faith, not probabliities and logic.

If there WERE a religion based on these two things, it would be called POKER, not Sklanskanity and you David, would be the pope.
I would be a member and people of outside religions would ridicule us and tell us we have Sklanskyitis instead of calling us Sklanskyians, or Sklanskyites.
Instead of one big payoff in the end called Heaven, you would promise us small rewards now of 5-6BB pots as long as we followed your bible (HEPFAP) Those who followed other heathen books such as PPLTPs would be considered animals, mice,elephants, mice, eagles, jakals and monkeys or as i like to call some players ja-monkeys.
ahahahah [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile you are asking for details and I specifically said that it is not necessary to know them. Anything not logically inconsistent that fits the general outline is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congratulations,
You sound just like that guy who wrote Dianetics.
X