A Natural Religion

Science is entirely descriptive. It does not say what one ought to do. It says how one could do something that one wants to do.

No … the educators, employers, and politicians do that.

… and whether it is allowed.

As from this;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
which entails some degree of human deliberations and efforts.

I have read Huxley’s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doors_of_Perception
and his other views.

‘Religion’ is a very loose term.
Huxley’s definition of religion is still very loose [not tight] is not much different from William James’ and many of the likes.

Personally Ninian Smart’s definition is very extensive and it is very easy to agree with, thus arrive at a consensus for most.
However one critical element that Smart’s missed in the element of the existential desperation or existential DOOM inherent in all humans that drive the majority [like heat seeking missiles] to cling to a religion.

Aldous Huxley wrote “The Doors of Perception”; his brother Julian wrote “Religion Without Revelation.” The sense of sacredness as addressed in the above quote does not indicate that a majority of humans turn to religion because of “Doom”.

A Parallel Example
Note in the case of romantic love and its infinite expressions by humans since self-awareness emerged.
When a person is in love with another, that person also enters into a state of “sacredness” that drives an impulse of attraction, worshiping, devotion, full attentions, glowing admiration, and the likes directed at the opposite sex.
In such a state of “sacredness” each [of the couple] are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure both are together till eternity and will even risk their lives for that togetherness.
Tons of books, letters, articles, stories, poetry, arts has been written and expressed about being in-love.
The very good and the worst evils had manifested from humans beings in-love and the impulse to maintain such a state.
All the above fancy stuffs [“sacredness”, etc.] about being in-love are merely ‘scams’ by Nature to seduce the opposite sex to get their genitals to fit together with the ultimate purpose of producing the next generation and therefrom the preservation of the species.

From the above example, it is a parallel with the ultimate drive within religion, i.e. dealing with the inevitable DOOM. While being in-love is a short-term state, the DOOM state is constant within the self till the inevitable.
The sense of ‘sacredness’ and whatever that arise, is associated and thrown at religion is nothing more than secondary manifestations of the primary existential drive to address the real state DOOM.

This sense of “sacredness” from religion is equivalent to the “sacredness” of the devotion to the opposite sex during ‘courtship’ and foreplay process of the primary sex drive towards copulation to produce the next generation.

So, ALL humans who turned to religion [as defined] is because of the root cause from that state of existential DOOM either explicitly, implicitly or subliminally.

I think that religion must address the pre-rational, the concept forming cauldron of our soul to catch on to the fire in our heart.
Otherwise it is merely a form of medicine… which is by all accounts healthier, but also less effective…

?

What does that even mean, that dichotomy?
Pre-rational, at least preSocratic!

Religion needs not be based on fear of one’s inevitable demise.
Here’s two quotes from Havelock Ellis (1924)–
Religion, like love, develops and harmonizes our rarest and most extravagant emotions. It exalts us above the commonplace routine of or daily life. But, like love also, it is a little ridiculous to those who are unable to experience it. And, since they can survive without experiencing it, let them be thankful as we are thankful.


Religion, if anything al all, must be a natural organic function, like walking, like eating, better still, like loving.

Why does anyone need religion if he has a natural personal connection with the sacred/divine?

Religion is the social side of spirituality. It involves set dogma, practices and rituals.

Religion can be a reminder of who and what we are–a being who forgets his divinity because of set dogma, practices and rituals.

.

The above by Ellis is merely beating around the bushes.
What is most natural than the fact of inevitable DOOM?

If you have read and have a reasonable understanding of all the main religions you will note the concept of DOOM is the pivot cause for the natural emergence, rise and acceptance of religions.

The central motivation of all the Abrahamic religions is about the DOOM, the fear of an eternal death thus the hope of salvation for an eternal life in Heaven and avoiding Hell.
The main drive of the whole Buddhism is centered on the mother of all sufferings, i.e. the fear of Death, i.e. the Buddha Story of the sick-man, the old man as potential to be a corpse.
The same central theme of the fear of death is represented in Hinduism, Jainism and other religion. Taoism is not very explicitly about death but upon deeper research it is reduced to the fear of death.

The rest of the features in all religions are merely window dressings to the main issue and concern of that DOOM.

I find Buddhism very effective where it identify the problem very specifically and introduced solutions to deal with it directly, effectively and efficiently. Buddhism has its share of the ‘window dressing’ stuffs but the learned Buddhists will understand the central point and leverage of Buddhism is pivoted on the DOOM. Once the DOOM is managed effectively the rest of human life will flow effectively without its major hindrance and constraints.

The fact is the 7 billion or the 100% of humans on Earth are represented by a range of mental inclinations and proclivities, spiritual intelligence, etc. of various degrees from low 1/100 to 99/100 high.

Theistic related dogmas, practices and rituals as in religions are necessary for the majority of humans who only has low levels of spiritual intelligence, say 30% or less.

If fear of death is the current mother of all religions, why could there not be a religion based of Life, on human events in the here and now. Does death define everything we think and feel?
I just thought it would be pleasant to consider a religion not based on rewards and punishments in some afterlife, a religion based instead on what it means to be alive at this very moment.
Is there no religion or idea of a religion that does not owe to imagining the extremes of Doom or pie in the sky?

I think that every religion and every ‘philosophy of life’ has to answer the question of what happens after death.

You gave two examples in the OP - ecosystems and eugenics. Eugenics is so loaded with negative history and associations that it’s a non-starter.
I’m not sure how ecosystems would be used as a basis for religion. In an ecosystem, predators eat prey, there are parasitic animals, there is slavery. Surely, that could be used to create a master-slave religion or a religion where exploitation is justified.

You can say that about Buddhism. Judaism originally had no hell or afterlife.

Epicureans believed that the gods where completely indifferent to humans and that there was no afterlife. The Stoics also did not believe in an afterlife.

The “mother and father” of all religions is the Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT. You see the extremes explicated in the religions because it is by PHT that ALL living creatures guide their behavior (thus the god of the Media). The stronger the PHT involved, the stronger and more enduring is the associated behavior. Heaven and Hell depict the extremes of PHT. That is why they appeared in the religions.

In everyday, “Earthly”, life, there are very few perceptions of hope or threat with which to guide one’s behavior. And without a solid PHT, there is no guidance. Chaos, misery, and death usually follow. Governance methods tend to emphasize the perception of threats (laws, terrorism, reputation,…). Religions more often emphasize the perception of hopes. Both use real, exaggerated, and imaginary perceptions.

Today, the most common perception of hope would be the potential to acquire vast monetary wealth. It is no accident that such is the case. Thus a very few will ever achieve their perception of hope, very many will strive for it, and most will never even come close to achieving it. In the mean time, as the strive, their perception of military or reputation threat is keeping them from going too far astray.

Today, money forms the new-age religion because it is controlled, thus giving power to the Godwannabes. Wealth is the perceived hope, as poverty is the perceived threat of Human Secularism (the new-age Earthly religion).

You really do not know what knowledge is. No wonder: you are not modern. Modern people know that nobody can tell them what happens when they are dead. They want to know it now, but they know that there is no single one who knows it now. As long as there is no knowledge about it, modern people do not care about it.

In addiion, they know that they live and have to live in this world, not in a “world” beyond this world, and so they live according to the conditions and principles of this world …:

Yes. Most of the modern people want to live according to a principle that can guarantee them a wealthy life. They want promises in this world, thus not in a “world” beyond this world, because they know that nobody currently knows whether there is a “world” beyond this world. And they believe that money is the best one of those promises.

A principle of the new religion, Human Secularism, is to emphasize insecurity in the masses causing them to not have confidence in anything other than the most immediately threatening (“clear and present danger”), the governance.

Agreed.

This :

then this :

“Most of the modern people want to live according to a principle that can guarantee then a wealthy life” . If that is true , then you are right … I am not a modern. I don’t think that money is the best ‘good’. Thanks for the compliment. :wink:

Yes, you are not a modern - in any case.

Never mind. :wink: