A Secular Humanist Mythology

The current mythologies running our lives are not working. They are either devoid of meaning or are hollowed out from a false metaphysics. The latter are religious tenets which kept societies in line for thousands of years but which are now antiquated and impractical, and the former is what is left in its absence: nothing but continued survival (which in this day and age means continued consumption, shallow materialism and the ethics of capitalism); there is no direction, no goal, no purpose, no theme, no morals, no lesson.

And yet it is these very things which humanity seeks. Religions cannot be counted on to give us moral authority or metaphysical truths, their metaphysical truths wholly debunked by modern science and their holy works riddled with error and contradictions. And yet these outdated and outrageous religions today have more broad appeal, being convenient narratives to live by, than a scientific understanding of the world can offer. Science (and its inherently strict and self-critical inquiries) only addresses the bare bones of the world: it fulfills an intellectual understanding, but it offers nil in regards to an emotional and spiritual understanding.

Mythologies, however, resonate much more strongly than isolated facts. Humans don’t think in facts or from single, isolated bits of information. Our brains automatically group things together into a complicated but cohesive framework, just as it takes single snapshots of information through our retina (about 30 per second) and composes a single continuously moving image we perceive as “real time.” The world around us is channeled through and manipulated by this framework which sends messages to and gets information from all areas of the brain, dealing not exclusively but inclusively to our reasoning faculties, our emotional states, our spiritual side, our intellectual curiosity, our biological necessities and our social practicalism.

Thus a Secular Humanist Mythology would have to encompass the whole of human nature: what we are, where we came from and where we’re going. It has to explain why we exist in the first place and what our relationship is to the other animals of the Earth and in the Cosmos. It has to give us a positive yet practical purpose for our lives. It has to detail a morality that is grounded in our biological nature, views attempted structures of law and authority from past societies as trial and error and learns from them, and takes into account our higher ideals of who we want to be and what we want to become. And most importantly to be simple enough and succinct enough to tell in story-form to our grandchildren, whom can then tell theirs, on and on. It will feature the trials and tribulations of various heroes, real and fictional; the tragedy of those led down false paths; the treachery of the selfish and the destructive; the wisdom of the ages, the hope of the newborn, the dragons, the demons, the jokers, the kings.

It will be one hell of a tale. Imagine what could be accomplished if the whole world were concerned for the betterment of human experience here on Earth, instead of in an afterlife. Where our choices are not only between irrational dogmatic indoctrination or an empty, hollow existence. Each society raises its children in the fashion of its values (the Spartans were bred to be warriors, Slaves bred to toil, Buddhists bred to be in sync with nature, Christians to repent and glorify, Americans to consume and be part of an assembly line), and millions upon millions of good-natured and intelligent people but who are also naturally followers and not inherently critical or skeptical, already devote their energies towards false gods and impractical goals, and not because of any inherent truth, but because that was the predominant cultural theme they were born into. Imagine a world where the children are raised to increase the scope of human experience, to raise the bar of possibility, to promote healthy lifestyles and eradicate needless suffering, to be enlightened to global identities that blur party lines and end tribalism and nationalism, that preaches tolerance over exclusion, reason over dogma, equalities over heirarchies, and the Earth our home to be respected and not viled as a temporary and filthy residence.

And all it will take is a narrative. And time.

It won’t be perfect. In fact it can’t be perfect. But that’s part of the fun, because part of the human story is expanding our horizons to find and conquer the new challenges we encounter.

Be a part of it.

Exquisitely put.

I think such a world, the one you described, can only become a reality if we eventually make contact with extraterrestrial life. Why, you ask? Because in order for a concept, an idea, and, certainly, a myth to exist, it must have contrasts. That is, a black dot on a white surface is defined by its white surroundings in as much as its black interior. So for humanity to, in effect, have any bearing as a legitimate universal, it must be partitioned off from other constructs, notably, extraterrestrial life. Extraterrestrial life would further bolster our unity and homogeneity; the similarities which all of us harbor as human beings will shine more brightly than the petty socially constructed differences and slight genetic variations we have. Our identity as humans will, quite simply, be cemented to our history. Humanity will no longer be a speculative term indicating two-armed, two-legged creatures. It will be us. That’s why the greatest thing that can happen to us is E.T.

Assuming, of course, E.T. doesn’t wish to completely eradicate our species. Then we’d be fucked.

While capitalism is vital, it is amoral, leaving us with moral capatilists as well as the evil. We need people and government to be the watchdogs of the capitalists. But when the government takes over more and more of the function of the capitalists, and the people acquiesce in apathy, who is the watchdog for those government capitalists (socialists)? Those very same government capitalists.

Universal morality is simply derived, yet the churches have failed at it, wantonly adding their self-serving taboos and subjective virtues, thus undermining whatever righteous moral code it had started out with. Government is the new church, legislating morality as is its necessary function; but then succumbing to the same problems of vanity as the churches of the various “revealed” religions.

What an interesting idea, Simulacra. It’s wild, imaginative, and only partly believable - just the kind of ideas I like hearing!

And for a full, unified, whole-hearted and committed conversion, yes, something like that might work. Though there would be many sects who believe the aliens are their particular gods; or, as beings of higher complexity and understanding are gods themselves; or are a threat to our real gods and must be defeated in a holy war, etc. Dogma can still prevail in extremely troubling times. And were there to be such an extreme moment, with millions upon millions looking for a ready-made answer to turn to, I think it’d be convenient to have as many answers prepared as possible. To make the bed before you expect someone to sleep in it.

And in the meantime, any incremental progress towards the narrative gaining exposure and acceptance is a step in the right direction.

Yes, we know.

Welcome to Sockpuppet Heaven.

Well, that’s all assuming that E.T. contact is instigated by E.T. itself and that E.T. is more technologically advanced than us. For all we know, we could be the most advanced civilization in our immediate region of the galaxy–hell, the entire galaxy.

Anyways, all that alienating rubbish aside, I have a question for you. The first question is how do you expect a narrative to exist when there is no end to it–or at least no sign of one? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I’d really like to know your opinion on the matter.

You see, if there’s anything coherent I’ve managed to extrapolate from the writings of Nietzsche, it is that anything without an end is, in truth, nothing at all. That is, death, for Nietzsche, instantly redeems an individual’s life, not because judgments are erected and rewards and punishments are distributed as a result of death, but, instead, because death finalizes and therefore redeems everything that precedes it into something meaningful. In other words, all good stories inevitably taper off to a conclusive end.

This was Nietzsche’s view of death, and it is also mine, contingent upon its applicability to the lives of individuals. It is a guaranteed fact that everyone will die, which, in my opinion, renders this view of death to be quite healthy. However, I diverge from Nietzsche’s thinking on the basis of society (this is where I begin to resemble Schopenhauer). I have yet to be adequately convinced that civilization and society general will also meet the same demise that the individual does. To me, the potential for what our species can do suggests a sort of imminent transcendence the likes of which no one can possibly imagine. Call it transhumanism, call it posthumanism, call it whatever. What matters is that until humanity meets its demise, which isn’t necessarily guaranteed, the discourse of its existence can never be properly thought of as a meaningful narrative. (Mind you, this is a very tentative hypothesis of mine, and I’m hoping you can disprove it.)

According to evolution, the brain has evolved to believe in a God. When someone dies etc… they want some comforting.

Also God/superstition appeals to human nature, people want to understand things, if you have two choices physics or God, most people will understand God quicker. There is also the prospect that God will give their life meaning, I think that science, humanism and UFOs will never do that. God will be around for along time yet. even though Jesus is dead, God is not. So at least the new mythology will need to include some God, like the Greek Gods etc…

Who cares? Isn’t it more important that people are happy? Isn’t that what people want?

Where the hell did you receive that little tidbit? I seriously doubt any significant population of the scientific community accepts what you just said. Please, cite who’s assertions these are; if their yours, make the argument; if they’re assertions of some fringe psuedo-biologist who has pent up nerd-rage against Richard Dawkins, don’t even bother.

You presuppose the God-concept has been around forever; it hasn’t. Before the explosion of the Abrahamic religions, pagans believed in multiple gods, many of which were distant, cold, and far from comforting. Norse mythology is a good example of this; the majority of their gods were self-centered, egomaniacs, who were completely ambivalent to humanity’s wellbeing. The afterlife was only reserved for valiant, able-bodied warriors, which was in itself temporal, and the eternal cycling of Rognarok was the guaranteed fate of all things. Far from comforting notions, I assure you.

God/superstition was the most available and logical heuristics humans had at the time explain the world around them. For being dimwitted cavemen by our standards, they were pretty inventive with they built the world inside of their heads. But now, we have microscopes and telescopes and big rocket ships for spacemen to go up in, so we no longer need these goofy mental shortcuts. Let go of the obsolete.

I think you’re wrong. I’m an atheist, I couldn’t happier, and I couldn’t have anymore feelings of fulfillment in my life because of it. God, for me, stagnates life into a cesspool of trivial idol-worship and lamenting. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t wish the tortures of believing in God upon my worst enemy.

That’s an unfortunate truth. I blame people like you.

Are you seriously suggesting a reversion back to hierarchical ways simply because they offer hierarchy? Such notions of theological regression and neopaganism simply bewilder me with contempt. Do you honestly think such a step backwards would help; do you really believe that people, in light of all the progress and empirical conclusions we’ve achieved thus far, would readily forget it all for some frivolous pantheism?

No; unlike you, some of us realize that happiness, while an enjoyable component of life, is not its purpose. You might as well resort to drugging yourself with opium or live in some blissful virtual reality world if you find the harshness and pain of the world to be so distasteful.

You assume that not believing in God is the same as nihilism; it’s not. If anything, the disbelief in God gives life all that much more meaning and potential for fulfillment. Disbelief means not sitting around, waiting for an afterlife that will never come. Disbelief means reveling in your own existence, and being responsible for narrating the happenings of your own life.

First of all I don’t believe in God.

Dawkins says it himself in one of his documentaries and I read it in Nature or somewhere, I will try and find a link when I have more time.

God has been around since the written word. In one form or another like you just said.

me too, different ideas for different people.

I would like to see God dead, but I understand people too well for that to happen.

but some people want happiness, what good is truth to them? Life is too short.

PS: Remember the context of the OP.

The best I can do with little time.

The nature or whatever was better:

cosmosmagazine.com/news/2194 … us-beliefs

Although we have science, people will always take the road that gives them comfort and not knowledge. Why are so many healers etc… on the rise?

Very true - truth is, we really have no idea. I tend to think much of the extra terrestrial life that’s out there is beyond our mode of recognition.

To me, this is one of the most vital parts of the narrative - that is, it’s fallibilty and recognition of it being merely an answer for a specific situation at a specific point in space-time. Abrahamic religions of today believe their truths to be eternal, outside the confines of space-time - which, to an atheist like myself, is outside of any recognizable reality.

It’s important a narrative is not to be regarded like a religious text, but more like an instructional manual on humanity: our history, our present and our projected future, with input from the greatest thinkers across multiple generations, who often times will disagree with eachother. But it’s in our best interest to put forth a narrative using the best knowledge we have (which is ever-increasing, thus the narrative ever-being tweaked, if not overhauled), while being humbled by the eternal knowledge that we will never know everything. But I see it as a disservice to keep these antiquated, Abrahamic religions around, as practical narratives for peoples lives.

Of course, we can’t underestimate the appeal of a final, authoritative text. I’d guess humanity will exist long enough to go back and forth many times througout its existence - it’d only be natural. The important thing, for today and the near future, is that we have a narrative most applicable to us today, and in the near future.

I don’t see finality as a legitmizing agent. Life is inherently constantly changing, and we mortals with it; the only reason I could see Nietzsche as proposing this was because he understood the flimsy nature of man, and that only until something cannot change what it believes is what it believes to be regarded as final. I oppose this as I accept change as a part of the human condition, and accept nothing as eternal. In fact, I much more accept the zen buddhist view on eternity, which is an escaping of time, not a never-ending endurance of time. This escaping of time is achieved by living in the moment, where constructs are broken down, and something is only meaningful if its apparent in the immediate moment - not in the past or future. By the time someone dies, to whom have their actions become more meaningful to?

I read an excerpt recently of a book that might prove relevant here, called Finite and Infinite Games, by James P. Carse, which can be found here —> amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-G … 123&sr=8-1 , which deals with familiar contests of everyday life - games played in business and politics, in the bedroom, on the battlefield, surely on this very forum. Finite games have winners and losers, a beginning and an end. Finite players try to control the game, predict everything that will happen and se tthe bottom line in advance. They are serious and determined about getting the outcome, and try to fix the future based on the past. Players of infinite games, by contrast, enjoy being surprised. Continuously running into something one didn’t know will ensure that the game will go on forever. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, the infinite for the purpose of continuing to play. Finite players play within the rules, infinite players play with the rules. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is an infinite game. Infinite games are transcendant; they allow you to transcend your boundaries, transcend who you are. By making a fierce intellectual and emotional stance, at any point in your life, you are limiting yourself in what you are capable of being, and believing. From the perspective of an individual, this may not be so bad, as we are genetically engineered to come to maturity and slowly degrade. But for a society to limit its future to only what we know now (a narrative with an end), meaning at some time that society will have as its present only what it knew in the past (what we have with the Abrahamic religions), is to severely cripple that societies potential.

There is no mention of God in that article, and why would it; no mainstream publication would ever equate God to superstition, despite how much you or I might think otherwise. Even so, I’d still argue God and superstition, while synonymous in terms of being irrational beliefs, are by no means the same thing.

God is not in our genes. The amount of positive evidence needed to prove to even a plurality of the scientific community that the belief in God is an evolutionary predisposition would be enormous. Years, even decades, of correlation studies, statistical data, and experimentation would be needed and I doubt you have anything more than a speculative magazine article you read somewhere. Empiricism must be going out of style.

basta da ord: That was a completely satisfactory answer for me; I have no quarrels with it whatsoever. Also, it’s ironic you’d link me that book because I’m currently reading a book called Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga, which is the first effort made to aggregate a “play theory” for nearly all sociological phenomena. I’m definitely going to check out the one you suggested.

Here is the nature article, you must pay to read it though.

The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired Into Our Genes
Michael A Goldman
CONTEXT: …trait that some of us have to a greater or lesser extent than others, and religion or belief in a particular god, which is a culturally transmitted expression of spirituality. It might be that some of that variation in spirituality…
Nature Genetics 36, 1241 - 1241 (01 Dec 2004), doi: 10.1038/ng1204-1241,

news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.as … id=2590462

As a Baha’i I would disagree with this point of view.

‘Religion and science walk hand in hand, and any religion contrary to science is not the truth.’ —‘ABDU’L-BAHÁ, Wisdom of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/b … hlight#gr7

Many scientists have found God through science, and many religious people (me for example) have found science through religion.