My War with GOD

Alright, so I’m writing a book. In this book there is no religion, crazy, but what/who isnt? now the problem I am having is that I am having trouble deciding what type of government/society my world should have. I was going to go with a Eutopian society, but found to many holes…I was thinking now more along the lines of “Atlantis”, where the society is basically based upon bettering society through technological, sicentific…hell, what ever ways there are to better life. The only thing? Cant every Society claim in one way or another to do the same? how can I make this society unique in so that religion just doesnt matter? cmon people, can there be an almost perfect society without religion?

A high degree of corporal punishment for very small crimes. Death to the elderly. More care of the planet (Because I think that mankind on Earth actually has believed that God is looking to protect our planet.) Less seperation between alien countries, so the planet might become one nation. A book of law that replaces the Bible. Marriages that involve many wives, and husbands, and are easily seperated. Faster advances in science like Perpetual motion machines, because we would have all scientists concentrating only on evolution, and evolution has to start with perpetual motion, so no fuel problems. Space travel would be greatly improved too due to the same situation.

Those are my opinions anyway…
Hmmm, I never thought of all that before.

This reminds me of one of the first posts I wrote on this board: asking what changes in different fields of philosophy there would have to be if there were no God. No one got the idea.

Anyway, I wonder if such a state could be anything but totalitarian on some level. We have seen athiestic Communism, which was totalitarian. I don’t know if with inspiration from Lennon’s inspiring “Imagine” song there could be achieved a humanistic atheistic state…I don’t think we’ve seen that yet. Maybe it is a later, more perfect form of Communism (if you stick with Marx).

What other ways are there to better life? The philosopher Lonergan said we must have acceptance/love from above and innovation from below. I think society can be helped, not only by technology, but by accepting a merciful philosophy. (Which for me is a religious humanism.)

All the best,
mrn

Great idea with the book of Law instead of the Bible. I think you may have wandered into the world of what you would want the world to be with the marriage idea. I ike the one nation idea as well (you copyright these ideas yet?) thanks for your feed back!

Well, as for spinning you back to your first quote, that is one loaded question if you ask me, how many less fields of philosophy would there be…good god, what would we self proclaimed (talking for myself) philosophers do!!!
As for the athiestic question, I figure it null and void, this isnt a world thats doesnt believe, this is a world that never got the chance too, (don’t worry, God is in the book trying to make a late entrance) the way I see it, we have to start from the very beginning, circa B.C. almost (I cant see around the fact that their is some early worship of whatever the hell they worshipped (valhalla, Mount Vesuvius, all that shit), and build from there up. Where would society have went after the Roman empire without a religious figurehead? I know Im forgetting Far Eastern as well as eastern (china, ect) influences, but I beleive Im getting the point across. I need a solid, pausable foundation to build my world on top of. It begins with a government ( I know, I hate to admit it as well).

There will never be a perfect society until you find or create a perfect individual.

Society is corrupt because people are corrupt…

Idealogy is not the answer…

I totally agreed with you until I saw your last stipulation. What else can be an answer, all we have is ideology. The only way we could create an society without it would be if we were all machines, and even then…

but that’s exactly what we are… biological machines…

some are just programmed to run better than others…

if only we could make the programming stick for everyone…

libertarianthought.com/texts/harrison.html

-Imp

This is fast becoming a non-post. Theoretical rubbish aside, we are not equal and never will be. We do not live in a Eutopian society and never will. End of story.

It’s no surprise to me that this thread has become a discusion of Utopia and whether or not it is possible (I think that it is if only because it makes life more interesting and political arguments more fun) but I think that the OPer wanted some advice.

One question - is ‘Eutopian’ a deliberate pun or some spelling of which I’m not aware?

Utopian rule and furtherance by science is something that has been explored and not exactly done to death but certainly covered a lot in the last century or so of literature. If you are writing this book purely for your own interest then don’t worry about what anyone else has written. If you have any intention of getting the book published then I think you should research the genre.

A society without religion - I’ve written a novel (that I’ve still not sent to an agent because I’m still unsure about various elements) that is about a society ruled by artists, or at least where the demand for art (and literature, music and so on) outweighs the supply and everything that is written gets published. It is, predictably, told from the perspective of a playwright.

Alternatively you could write about a world entirely obsessed with sports, a bit like Rollerball but taken to an extreme. I’ve been toying with that idea for a while, though I’ve got another project which is taking up my attention. Something along the lines of a world where the most powerful people are the heads of sporting federations and associations and sports stars are the highest ranked celebrities. There could be some conspiracy whereby some federations grow genetically enhanced competitors whic is uncovered. That’s more a screenplay sort of story than a novel sort of story, but think along those sorts of lines.

Ask yourself ‘what aspects of present day culture could be enhanced to take over the position of religion?’

You could write a tale about a society obsessed with war, like Starship Troopers (the novel is very good). A society which demands regular wars…

I think that the law of two parent marriages is taken from the bible, but I’m not sure, because I find the bible too contreversial to read. I just get angry when I read it.

Well as the Pun goes, Utopia means "Noplace, while Eutopia means “True Place” its neither here nor there. Honestly, the book has nothing to do with the society and government, its just a part of the background, but alot of books read fall apart because the background just isnt solid enough, so I figured I would try to find out what the logical progression of man would have been with out religion killing everyone. I can see that the topic seemed to switch gears, but thankfully you brought it back around. I originally stated that a Utopian society was put to the side, just to many holes…perfection in the individual would have to be reached (to a point, I think) before perfection on the level of Utopia could be acheived. Im looking to see if the combined minds of many (yes, you) can calculate, or hypothesize where we would stand if religion (the major religions) had never gotten off the ground. In this we arent saying “this could never happen” because in the book, it already has. ideas?

Mmm, touche’, and your right, either angry, or deeply depressed.

It would be a non post if that was the goal of the post, but I could give a horses ass about a utopean society (maybe somewhat more for equality) I just want you to erase a few millenia of time and restructure it without religion. thats all.

Religion doesn’t run around killing people, people run around killing people (sometimes in the name of religion).

Personally I think that no world which makes use of notions of individualism can ever be utopic. Individualism as a cultural norm destroys utopian ambition - look at contemporary politics, that standards are so, so low…

Something else would have ‘got off the ground’. Faith is omnipresent. Christianity isn’t the cultural force that it once was and we now have a faith in empiricism and individualism. It’s still faith, it’s no more or less rational than preferring red sauce to brown.

It’s tough to imagine a world without “religion” because, when it comes down to it, religion is whatever people do when they are motivated by any sort of belief. If you are talking about a world without ‘organized religion’, aka the Church, temples, etc… then perhaps you could start by thinking of the roles that these institutions fulfill. IE: shaping of familial bonds, lowering anxiety by providing answers to metaphysical questions, instituting methodologies of self-regulation within the population. Once you find a few of these dimensions of organized religion and remove them from your world, you can imagine how each one is filled. For example, your protagonist could be at a family gathering where which is unique to his family and set against a rival or friendly-but-different family’s customs. Or, it could have been noticed that the structure of our language leads us to many metaphysical confusions and your world’s languages could have been changed such that these problems simply don’t arrise (ie, the word ‘exists’ could be stricken, which it should be.)

So I recommend a process of breaking ‘religion’ down into its components, plucking them out of the world then filling in one piece at a time one scene at a time. This doesn’t have to be done all at once either. if you have an idea for the plot, start writing it and allow the world to reveal itself around the character organically. For example the family thing can lead to the need to explain how different people have such different customs based on different ideas → language thing.

Good luck,
let me know if you need someone to read through a draft,
Dave

Excellent points. Individualism and the notion that science replaces belief (ie is something other than belief) are two of the most prevalent unconscious predjudices today.

The idea that facts replace beliefs without needing any basis for belief themselves is extremely annoying. Beliefs structure our lives no matter what facts we’re told. I recently heard a great Lacanian joke:

A guy walks into a psychiatrist’s office and explains that he is constant in fear. He believes that he is a grain of wheat and a huge chicken is about to eat him. After a long series of sessions, the psychiatrist convinces him that he is indeed not a grain of wheat. The guy leaves ecstatic. The next morning, however, the doctor finds him waiting in his office. He has clearly been up all night. “What’s the matter,” he said, “do you think your are a grain of wheat again?” “No,” says the man, “I know I’m a man but does the chicken know?”

Dave

Excellent points. Individualism and the notion that science replaces belief (ie is something other than belief) are two of the most prevalent unconscious predjudices today.

The idea that facts replace beliefs without needing any basis for belief themselves is extremely annoying. Beliefs structure our lives no matter what facts we’re told. I recently heard a great Lacanian joke:

A guy walks into a psychiatrist’s office and explains that he is constant in fear. He believes that he is a grain of wheat and a huge chicken is about to eat him. After a long series of sessions, the psychiatrist convinces him that he is indeed not a grain of wheat. The guy leaves ecstatic. The next morning, however, the doctor finds him waiting in his office. He has clearly been up all night. “What’s the matter,” he said, “do you think your are a grain of wheat again?” “No,” says the man, “I know I’m a man but does the chicken know?”

Dave

That’s a corker of a joke, I’ve got to remember that one.

A war with God is really only a psychological dissonance experienced while present to various ethical dilemmas created in political settings. A teleological understand of the possibility of “God” is quite reasonable and dare I say rational, so that’s not the real problem for the skeptics and atheists. What has happened is that concepts of God have established themselves in the psyche through language and generation, which has in turn permeated the meanings and metaphors we understand the concept with as ethically significant and valuable. It is inextricably linked to one giant socio-politico-teleological system, and at its lower most rung, the concept of God is nothing more than a device used to justify laws at a meta-level.

When deeds do not match up to the orders of a law, punishment is justified by what is inevitably backed by some set of religious fundamentals. However, those laws which are ‘broken’ are not necessarily moments of disobedience to God, but rather moments of coercion within the language game. Point being, one cannot be angry at “God,” but only at someone else’s interpretation and use of a theology as a means to justify their power over one.

God is laughing at both of them.

Is it strange then that so many people are at ends with God because of all the conflict in the world today? Certainly not. Here’s what is happening.

The wrong political structures are trying to use religious fundamentals to back their ideals, which are in actuality creating the moral dilemmas that they in turn resort to the fundamentals, to justify.

One word: Capitalism

Capitalism is a veritable discreet nihilistic monster which parades itself as a doctrine of individuality and equality. In reality these things do not exist, and civilization is destined to experience the aftermath of such distortions.

(Jesus is rolling over in his cloud right now, bless his soul)

So don’t get mad at God. War is good and there is only the continual expansion and expression of power in all effects. No one gets out alive but no one is ever entirely dead either.

I can tell you no more.