|
|
Believers believe that they have an advantage over non believers. They believe that they have moral certainty. They believe that they can tell right from wrong and that it's black and white. They point to the Bible or the Koran and say that it's God's word and that's what they believe. Everything else is some kind of relative morality. But do believers really have moral certainty? Not by a long shot. Individually they think they do, but every one of them has a different personal opinion of what is right and wrong And their opinion is usually very different than everyone else's in their congregation. The moral certainty is just and illusion. Just because they believe they have it doesn't make it real.
For example, Christians point to the Ten Commandments and declare, "That's GOD'S Law!" But they fail to read the rest of the book that contains those commandments. If you point out that God demands the death penalty for working on the Sabbath and perhaps they should report to the executioner, for some reason they balk at they idea. I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to die for the sin of working on the Sabbath? After all, by repenting of their sins and being executed they can leave the "evil world" behind and be with Jesus. At least if I were morally certain the way they claim that's what I would do. But things are not as morally certain as they appear.
But they say, that's Old Testament. That doesn't apply anymore. Oh Really? What happened to, "I believe every word of the Bible comes from God and it's all true?" Who is to say what part is obsolete? Did God get it wrong? Did God change his mind? How can God change his mind if he can see the future? Surely you can't believe that God didn't know what the New Testament would have in it when he wrote the Old Testament, or did the rules change? If God is changing the rules then maybe the rules have changed again in the last 2000 years? And if God can change his mind then do we still have moral certainty? I don't think so!
Islam has moral certainty. If you're an Infidel you deserve death. Or if you are a woman who has committed a sexual sin, you deserve death. In Muslim controlled Indonesia you can get the death penalty for smoking pot, but if you are a terrorist and kill hundreds of people, you get two years in prison. Scientologist look at the rest of the world as subhuman. To them you can do anything to them because they don't matter. Killing the non believers is common among many religions. If you ask them, most will deny it, but when the Iranian Supreme Court condemns a teenage girl to death for being raped, that doesn't strike me as coming from a place of morality. That sounds like immoral certainty in my way of believing.
Just because you believe that God is on your side and that you read the Bible and go to church on Sunday doesn't make you a moral person. It's the difference between form and substance. It's going through a morality ritual but it isn't morality. Often people use the term morality as a way of asserting their moral superiority, or Moral Masturbation. It is a trick that religions use to keep you plugged in to the Cult Mind, but it is all just an illusion. It's fake morality and it makes you to live the lie.
To us the term "Moral Certainty" mean that it is both moral and certain. Let us focus on the certainty part because we can argue morality forever. If something is certain that means it is clear and without question. To me it mean that everyone who believes a certain way will all agree on what they believe in. For example, all Christians agree on what is moral and you can ask any one of them and they will all say the same thing? See what I mean?
If believers can't agree on what moral certainty is then it isn't certain.
The problem is that if you rely on a fictional deity to tell you what to do, then you have a problem with the deity not being consistent. If the deity tells people the opposite things then you lose certainty and it's anyone's guess which one is moral. In fact this is one of those objective tests that indicate to me if a religion is controlled by an invisible omnipotent deity, or if it's just an illusion. If God exists and if God is talking to people, then these people who God is talking to should get the same message. For example, I am real. When everyone reads this web site they all see the same words. And if you asked someone what they read, it would be fairly consistent. But when you talk to people who converse with God, they all have a different and often conflicting story. This make me think that they are just making it up.
What is being put out as morality and certainty is neither moral nor certain. It is words without substance. When you purify the truth of it, you determine that it is really bullshit. If we can't be certain about moral certainty, then we don't really have moral certainty do we? |
Reality based morality is not so black and white. It takes hard work to figure out what is right and wrong. It would be nice if the world was simple and there was a rule book and the rules were simple and everyone agreed on what the rules are. If only it were so, but it isn't. If you look at "Thou Shalt Not Kill" it seems easy enough to understand on the surface but then you get into the exceptions. For example it is accepted that you can kill in self defense. If someone is coming to kill you and you kill them defending yourself, that's OK. But what about war? Well, if the war is justified and you are defending your good and wholesome society from the evil aggressors, then it's self defense.
But what if the moral justification for the war is questionable? Suppose your country is the aggressor. Suppose your leader lied to get your country into the war and the war is unjust. Are you a murderer if you are in the army of a country that is on the wrong side of moral justification? In the Church of Reality you are. Just because you are a member of a group that does something evil doesn't absolve you from personal responsibility. Our morality is reality based. And there is such thing as right and wrong without an omnipotent rule maker to dictate what that is.
One of the greatest concerns of people of faith is that they think that if there is not God that right and wrong goes away. But it does not. The Basis for Church of Reality Doctrine is that we exist and we want to evolve forward in what we call the Sacred Direction. Our assumption is that we are a society and that we wish to improve ourselves and live happy, healthy, and stable lives. We are all here together on this planet and we want to have peace, be fair, and make progress. To that end we have developed the Sacred Principles which form the basis for which right and wrong are tested. These principles include ideas like Positive Evolution, Exploration, Freedom, Peace, Justice, Inclusiveness, Scrutiny, Humility, Wisdom and Personal Responsibility.
The reality is that life is not simple and life is not black and white. Morality isn't always certain. There are circumstances where something that is generally considered wrong is not wrong depending on the circumstances. A person can steal food to feed their starving family for example. A police officer accidentally makes a mistake and shoots the wrong person. Sometimes things are justifiable under the circumstances. Rules often have exceptions and what is law doesn't cover all circumstances. That is why most nations have juries that have the power to override the law and decided that even though a person broke the letter of the law that they don't feel that justice will be served by applying the law to a particular case.
Two very important sacred principles in the Church of Reality are Scrutiny and Wisdom. Scrutiny involves the Purification of Truth allowing us to correct our mistakes and improve our sense of right and wrong. Wisdom involves putting forth the effort to think things through. What is important in the Church of Reality is accuracy. We want to figure out how to do it right. If we are already doing it right then maybe we can do it even better. We look at what is working and what isn't and try to improve ourselves.
Morality is an important part of the Church of Reality. That's why we ask The Sacred Moral Question so as to make the issue of right and wrong important and that it is considered in processes that involve law and justice. We are not a bunch of selfish heathens who believe that "anything goes" and "do whatever you want, nothing else matters". We believe in a strong society where we all benefit from being part of the community. To be part of society you have rights and freedoms because you respect the rights and freedoms of others. |
Some religions believe that personal freedom breeds immorality. They feel that if people can do whatever they want to, that they will choose a life of sin and debauchery. They believe that without strong rules and punishment that society will break down into anarchy. They believe that everyone will follow their selfish desires without a care as to how it affects the people around them. They believe that it is religion that holds society together and without God society will cease to exist. They believe that people need the reward of Heaven and the fear of Hell to keep them in line. But is this true? Does society come from religion? Does law come from holy books? Will there be anarchy without a belief in God?
We in the Church of Reality don't think so. The reality is that Atheists are as law abiding productive members of society as believers are. Atheists are every bit as honest and moral as religious people. Atheists are perhaps even more moral in real terms that people of faith. Although I'm sure there are people of faith who would disagree with that, they would have to admit that in general that the Atheists who are their friends and neighbors are normal law abiding people. So why is that? Why is it that Atheists aren't all criminals? Why are Atheists good citizens? Why are Atheists generous? Why is there not statistical advantage in being a believer when it comes to social behavior?
The reason that Atheists are law abiding productive members of society is because social structure is part of human evolution.
The reason is because good social behavior is a result of evolution. People are born to be good productive members of society. In the survival of the fittest game, humans rose to the top by their ability to create a mental network of information called the Tree of Knowledge and to organize into societies. We are programmed to speak a language and to listen to language. And language has but a single purpose, to communicate with other people. In order to work together, we have to get along with each other. In order to be safe and respected, we have to not be threatening and show respect to others. We are all here together and on an instinctive level we all understand that. So the reason that Atheists and secular societies don't degenerate into anarchy is because we have an evolved civilization. It is good for people in the real world, without the promises and threats from God, to be good moral people.
Humanism is the science of building a society around the natural laws of a good society. It is the exploration of secular social structure. It is society based on reality. We in the Church of Reality have adopted Secular Humanism as our model for social standards. We put a high importance on personal freedom as well because we are not a monolithic society and it is often our differences and diversity of beliefs that leads to the progress of social evolution. Although a free society might have some greater conflicts in some ways than a monolithic social structure, and it might have a complex social order, it has the advantages of diversity that leads to social evolution and innovation.
Social evolution is a major part of the evolution of the human race. In fact it is the part that is predominate. Physically we are evolving slowly, but socially we are evolving very quickly. We are evolving through the Tree of Knowledge and social technology is a big part of that. Society is made up of lots of individuals. A monolithic society is a society of individuals who are all very similar, often forced to be similar. Because of that, you don't get the diversity of thought that you get in a free culture. If people are punished for being innovative, then they stop being innovative. They just live year to year, century to century, and no significant progress is made. Some people think that is just fine. I suppose that if we already achieved a perfect society and wanted to preserve it, then I might agree, but that hasn't happened.
A free society is necessary for social progress. Social progress is necessary for positive evolution. Positive evolution is necessary for the exploration of reality.
The Church of Reality embraces Positive Evolution. We choose to move forward into a better future. In order to do that we need people to think "outside the box". And in order to get people to think outside the box, we have to allow for individual freedom. People have to be allowed to explore, to try new things, and to make mistakes. This cultural diversity does create some social conflicts, but it is the process of social conflicts and diversity of opinions that lead to social innovation and progress. Our moral truths are purified through scrutiny which allows us to correct mistakes. And new ideas that turn out to be good ideas help enrich the culture for everyone. The gains are worth the price.
Cultural diversity and individual freedom are to social evolution what genetic diversity is to biological evolution. In a restrictive culture, the society suffers from cultural inbreeding and becomes stagnant. They blindly keep making the same mistakes year after year and generation after generation. The Church of Reality is based on growth and our Principle of Freedom is based not only on a sense of fairness, but on our resolve to progress to a better tomorrow. Freedom is necessary to positive Evolution which is necessary for the exploration of reality the way it really is.
We in the Church of Reality challenge faith based religions to think through the issue of personal freedom and ask themselves if a diversity of opinion would help your culture. As a realist I can say for a fact that a huge amount of the doctrine of the Church of Reality is inspired by believers on issues that we both agree with and issues that we disagree with. The believer's perspective has greatly enriched our culture, and we hope to return the favor. We often learn more from people who we do not already agree with than people those we do agree with. Maybe we won't capture and enslave the Christians after all. Hmmmmm .... |
Believers believe that their beliefs lead to moral certainty and gives society a clear set of rules to follow that everyone understands. In fact the opposite is true. Believers accuse realists of having their own individual realities and use their freedoms as a thinly veiled excuse to selfishly commit sin and pursue a life of material wealth. They believe instead that everyone should follow the one, true path to salvation or enlightenment. Sounds like a simple solution except for one little problem. They aren't offering a true path to follow.
Just as realists have personal reality, or rather personal experiences of realities, believers have personal fiction. All believers believe something different. In order to create moral certainty you have to start out with something that is purported to be certain, then you test it to see if it's moral. But believers haven't gotten past the first step of putting some sort of belief system on the table to test.
Before the idea of imposing biblical law can be taken seriously, Christianity has to first agree on what the Bible means.
Christians, for example, put forth the Bible and say that this should be the reference book for moral certainty. But the Bible is extremely self contradictory and imprecise and everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible says. The fact that there are over 10,000 denominations of Christians proves my point. If those who are promoting the Bible can't agree on what it means then how are we heathens going to figure it out?
Believers have a poor record when it comes to morality. Collectively, history is full of atrocities committed in the name of God. These atrocities continue today. Islam is a religion that is far too comfortable with brutal murder. In the Church of Reality it is a moral certainty that stoning people to death is absolutely wrong under all circumstances. The Church of Reality challenges Islam to agree with us. Many religions believe that it is acceptable to murder people who believe what they believe. Many Christians are comfortable with it. We in the Church of Reality assert that it is a moral certainty that killing people because they don't believe what you believe is morally wrong. We challenge believers to agree with us.
If God is telling you to kill someone, you aren't talking to God. Many of the holy books that fiction based religions rely upon are filled to brutal murder that is religiously justified. The "good guys" are doing the murdering. God is depicted as a mass murderer and is glorified for his insanity. And this is the model that we realists are supposed to accept as moral certainty? We don't think so!
We in the Church of Reality challenge believers to make reality part of your quest for moral certainty.
We in the Church of Reality believe that you won't get to the truth by living the lie. We believe that the quest for moral certainty has to be rooted in reality and has to be reality based. We have made it one of our Sacred Missions to ask the sacred moral question which is: what is the right thing to do based on reality. We believe that it is a moral certainty that the exploration of right and wrong and law should be based upon reality as opposed to fiction. We believe that morality should be debated and explored and that reality should be integral to the moral debate. We believe that taking reality into consideration will more likely lead to a better decision about morality than if reality is ignored. We therefore challenge all religions to make the consideration of reality part of their process in the quest for moral certainty.
|
So who has the advantage? Who has the superior moral code? Are Theists more moral than Realists because they have God on their side? Or do Realists have the advantage because our moral standards are based on solid axioms and we have a consistent world view? God vs. Reality - which one is better? That's easy - Realism is better.
"How arrogant", you declare. "Are you saying that you are smarter than God?" The answer is - YES! Because being smarter than God means being smarter than nothing. God doesn't exist! If there was a God, he certainly did not write the holy books. Those books were written by people in the past and they weren't very good writers. The moral codes in the Bible, for example, are highly inconsistent and just plain don't make any sense.
Take the Ten Commandments for example. One of the commandments is "Thou Shalt not Kill." but the Bible is full of killing. In fact if you read just beyond the Ten Commandments you see that the punishment for breaking the other 9 commandments is death. So you are required to kill people for working on the Sabbath, yet killing is prohibited. Not only that but God himself often gets pissed off and slaughters massive quantities of innocent people as in the Noah story. Because Bible based morality is grossly and logically inconsistent, people who follow the Bible can interpret it to mean anything, and they do. When you have a document that can be twisted to say anything, people make it say anything and any kind of behavior can be justified with scripture.
Christians often say that it's not the Bible's fault, it's the sinful nature of man. But that isn't true. It is the Bible because if your axioms don't make any sense, then the results aren't going to make any sense either. If anything, the behavior of Christians is better than what is called for in Scripture because, like everyone else, Christians have to live in the real world and out here in the real world, if you behave like God you go to jail. Thank God for the real world!
The Church of Reality is built on a series of Axioms that are logically consistent. Although the Kernel isn't perfect it is evolving in the direction of perfection. Having a living doctrine is very important because it allows us to fix our mistakes. The Bible can't be edited and for better or worse, Christians are stuck with it as it is. We on the other hand have a doctrine that is growing and evolving and getting better all the time. We have the ability to change and adapt to new challenges and technology.
The Church of Reality has a much richer moral code than the Bible does, or any other holy book. We have a strong set of axioms and our Sacred Principles. They are highly detailed and logically consistent with reality itself. The Church of Reality has a moral code that is based on logic and is a natural extension of the best that human nature aspires to achieve. Our principles take a lot more effort to misinterpret because, when people read them, they are clear and understandable. When you read our sacred principles you don't need the spirit of a deity to help you unlock it's mysteries.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Newsflash |
|
The IRS has approved the 501(C)3 tax exempt status of the Church of Reality. |
|
Please link to us, discuss us in online forums, and blog about us. Every time anyone thinks about reality the world becomes a little smarter.
Spelling and Grammar errors? spelling@churchofreality.org - please identify page and location in the page of the error.
The Church of Reality is a non-prophet organization.
"RealityŽ" and "Church of RealityŽ" are registered trademarks of the Church of Reality.
|
|
|
|
|
