"Success"

The definition of success in the context of religion is tricky. I guess, one of the purposes of religion in general is to define goodness and badness and develop a schema for morality and foster morality in individuals while offering salvation to those who have a sense that they need it for whatever reason.

Perhaps that is the core measure of success in religion- salvation. Like many other concepts in religion, this is a somewhat vague term. Salvation from what? Here, I will develop a list of things we need to be saved from and begin to rank them from most important to least; it is inevitable that avoiding some of these evils will demand embracing some others; helping people make that determination int eh gray area is I think where religion really finds its purpose. The easy questions can be answered by the police and judicial system.

Most Dire- Destructive to Self and Self-Identity

Destruction of Self, psychologically and physically
Destruction of kindred, psychologically and physically

Moderately Destructive/Threatening

Wanton Destruction of others

Slow Poisoning of Self & Kindred

Threat of destruction to self & kindred

Alienation

Just Annoying- Physical Suffering

Hunger

Poverty

Disease

Crime

Pollution 

Violence

Hatred

Religion and Politics

Religion and Politics

I have been recently re-engaged on the topic of religion by a Facebook friend who was disappointing by the charisma and direction of the presidential office in general. He thought what was needed was more charisma and a more spiritual bent to assuage the American public. The issue I take with this is very important separation of state and church in America. I do acknowledge that churches are political bodies and social bodies and the purpose of church and state do frequently coincide or come into conflict.

I do however take issue with having religion come to the forefront of policy or political rhetoric because we are not a theocracy. Articles of faith should not directly form the basis of national direction or policy.

However, herein lies an important strategic point for the success of my new religion. The Christian and Jewish faiths have become very influential political powers on the Right. There is a weak spiritual front on the Left, I think primarily because of the conservative nature of religion in general and because of the association between Communism and Atheism. This leaves a bit of a hole for some religion to step in as a backer of the political Left.

Nietzsche

As my nighttime reading, I've been reading Intro to Nietzsche by Laurence Cane, which is a hardcover comic book about the man and his philosophy. I am almost through with it and have come to the conclusion that Nietzsche is to the Buddha as Darth Sidious is to Yoda. The analogy is closer than you might think... I will have to expound on this once I read more Nietzsche and I am able to better organize my thoughts on the matter... although rationalization and deconstruction of these concepts may tend to pull ones' self toward the Dark Side.

Tao te Ching and Samsara

The second that we can perceive and remember stimulus, we are born into a world that is just as it is. There is nothing except the way and the path. Every step we take as individuals and as a society, the path becomes thicker with stones and bricks and asphalt until it is a veritable freeway. The depth of the ache in our hearts and the volume of our fear is directly proportional to the distance between your feet and the soil you were born upon.

Definitions

Interestingly, if you have faith that your current mental state exists and that your perceptions exist (both of which are interdependent), then you can simply define the existence of an Almighty, All-Knowing, Creator of Everything. All other assumptions about the nature of this Force can be extrapolated from its definition. The existence of a Creator does not have to be an article of faith- unless you try to believe that He is a Santa Claus looking guy who sits on a cloud.

Gee, that was easy.... right?

The huge stumbling block to the acceptance of this is preconception; Our false beliefs about the nature of such a force tend to generate a logically impossible image of God. We would like to believe that our Creator is good and fair; that it can even possess such attributes as goodness and fairness. We would like to believe that our creator listens to us and cares; that it can listen and care as we do. Goodness, fairness, hearing, and caring are traits of fallible beings. An omnipotent being hears everything and generates all sound at the same time. An omnipotent being is everything. There can be only one truly omnipotent being; it is the collection of all matter and energy. It is alive and sentient; its thoughts are the collective thoughts of the sentient beings. People can commune with it in infinite ways; including methodological scientific inquiry as well as thoughtful prayer and meditation. However, this communication, like any communication in which one party is not omnipotent, the quality and accuracy of the conveyed information is... variable.

I suppose that is the ultimate logical error. We would like to believe in a less-than-omnipotent friend-like being so that we might not feel so lonely, so responsible, and so fragile in our existence. This being is the one whose existence is in question, I think.

Faith and the World

To make the leap from my own existence to the existence of everything else requires a very short leap from from Descartes.

I perceive. Ergo those things are.

Actually this is such a short leap that Buddhists would argue that you can't really exist without your perceptions.

This statement is the actual statement of faith, but its limitation is the more philosophically interesting concept: "those things" are only proven to exist as mental constructs. An result of this important clarification means the things you dream exist as well and they have the equal "realness" as "real" things- they have equal effect on your ephemeral ego.

People may be tempted to blow this limitation off, but it is important to realize the vital effect that all different kinds of perceptions have on our present ego.

Also it is imperative to recall the limitations of our starting point since this is an extrapolated point. Namely, it is very likely that the perceptions of our ephemeral ego are likely to be contaminated by untruths and misbeliefs.

Faith and Existence- the starting point

I think. Ergo I am.

Existence is assumed by many people and the idea of non-existence is not routinely brought up by the organizers of religion. Anyhow, I think that faith in our own existence in the Cartesian meaning has to be the starting point for any Faith or any belief for that matter.

Furthermore, Descartes' analysis provides somewhat of an empirical flavor that makes faith in this idea enticing to include in the core principles of my religion.

Just because I am, does not mean that I know anything.

To be explicit, this principle only applies to the current mental state, the present ego. Given the Buddhist realization that this state most likely to be grossly contaminated by false beliefs, false conceptions, and other unsavory untruths, this principle can only serve as an explicit philosophical starting point, not a governing principle. Maybe that's why no religions emphasize existence. It kinda doesn't get you very far.