Religion After the Big Reveal (Speculation)

InvisibleBison wrote:I'm currently re-reading the Safehold series, and I got to wondering what sort of religions would develop after the truth about the Writ and the Church of God Awaiting is revealed. So far, I've thought up four basic ideas:

1) Some people are going to refuse to accept the truth and continue to hold to the CoGA - probably both in its Temple Loyalist and Reformist forms.

2) Some people are probably going to embrace atheism or agnosticism - we've seen people in the series thinking about this, and to some extend doing it (Dr. Mahklyn, for instance).

3) I expect Maikel Staynair, if he's still alive, or the Brethren of Saint Zherenau more generally, to form their own religion. They've already done so to some extent, after all - they are clearly religious people, but also clearly don't believe in the CoGA. Given Staynair's enormous moral authority and lovedness, a lot of people would probably accept whatever he preaches.

4) This one is the most speculative, but it seems to me that people could both accept the veracity of the Big Reveal while still believing in the CoGA. It works like this: The Holy Writ really is God's word, even though the people who created it thought they were fabricating a false religion. All of history before the "Day of Creation" served to set the scene for the establishment of Safehold and the Church, and the "Day of Creation" is a spiritual creation, not a physical one.

I'm interested in hearing what you all think about my ideas, and if you have any ideas of your own.

I figure the biggest, first division will be between people who take the revelation of the human nature of the Archangels, the history of the Terran Federation, etc. seriously and sincerely (call them "Terra-ists"), and those who don't (call them "Terra-denialists").

Terra-denialists are likely to remain vehement CoGA partisans. Assuming the revelation is associated with Charis, its Church, and reform movements, it's going to be hard but not impossible to be a Reformist Terra-denialist. But it's also likely to be hard over the longer period to remain a Terra-denialist, so even CoGA is likely to mellow out on its historical claims over the long haul.

Terra-ists may opt out of religion entirely or may adjust Reformist or Church of Charis practice to it. It's entirely possible to carry on the activities of a religion while ditching all its supernatural beliefs. (Daniel Dennett, a philosopher who's made some study of religion, calls these "former religions".) Given the role the Church has on Safehold, given all the good sense that got into the Writ, and given that people really, really cherish their communities and the rituals that structure them, I think the CoGA has a bright future as a "former religion" in this sense.

Maikel Staynair has an orientation toward religion that's extraordinary. I'm not at all sure it's the sort of thing that anyone else can actually manage, so I'm skeptical about it as the basis for a religion. He doesn't so much as believe as much as hope without worry of being wrong about God and a just hereafter. I do not see him making up something new and pushing it, or being anything less than honest about the status of the Writ after the revelation.

If he can possibly "teach" or otherwise convey his saintly decency, spiritual fearlessness, and thorough honesty, more power to him. But that's going to be a matter of personal example, not doctrinal teachings. Maybe he will be able to convey that attitude after the revelation to those who will listen within the institution of the Church of Charis as a Terra-ist former religion. It would be very nice, I can't rule it out, it's just hard to believe that many other people will pick up his spiritual high-wire act.

It's just possible that old Terran religions will revive, new ones spring up, or the CoGA go through some sort of revision to get a new and different set of supernatural beliefs behind it (your 4 above). But I don't see any of that happening to many people. Religions tend to get people when they swamp your environment through force, get you while you are young, or get a fairly uncommon convert otherwise. Old Terran religions have nothing behind them to give them a push as a sincere belief system on Safehold. Library records won't have people converting any more than Osiris or Quetzalcoatl are getting lots of new followers on Earth today. And after the reveal, Terra-ists won't have a reason to invent a new supernatural scaffolding to put behind the CoGA to keep it going on those terms. (The question won't even arise for Terra-denialists.)

Not to derail this into an offshoot of the "Does God Exist" free range topic threads...

n7axw wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Why, in a rational world, would a population of people once they were shown to have been deceived into believing their ancestors were magically poofed into existence a few generations back then reasonably start questioning how rational it is exactly to believe the universe was created by a magic-powered super being nobody ever sees or can really explain in any logically consistent manner?


I always have difficulty processing how anyone could really be seriously asking me anything like that... it's a little like a grown adult walking up to you and asking you with a straight face, bewilderment in their tone, why people would doubt the existence of Santa and his flying reindeer.


I mean, besides the obvious?

There are lots of people who think your way. My comment would be that rationality has its limits and is only as good as the presuppositions that underlie it. When those presupositions turn out to be wrong, logic becomes a way of being wrong with confidence. Further, it only deals with a fraction of human experience.

Logic usually isn't how we arrive at our commitments.

You appear to be speaking as if you think rationality and logic are the same thing?


While logic is rational, rationality is not logic.

As for the choice between believing in God or not, my own experience is that it is usually an emotional and always a spiritual choice not to believe,

Well I'm happy to have furnished you with a new experience then, you have just met someone for whom spirituality was totally and completely irrelevant in their not believing in God. And, for that matter, never made any "choice not to believe" at all.


I was not born with a belief in God.

My parents, while they did believe in God, never went out of their way to indoctrinate me in that belief while I was still too young to rationally evaluate it (although they did do the Santa one, go figure).

And since I reached an age where I could think critically about such things, no evidence or argument was ever presented to compel me to acquire a belief that such a thing existed. Not even close. And so I still lack one. It is exactly that simple. I never had to decide not to believe any more than I had to sit down one day and figure out whether I do or I don't believe in gravity elves. It was simply the default position and no reason has been provided to deviate from it.


(And yes, many... many... many people have tried to present such evidence and arguments. It is stunning to me what believers are willing to slap the label "evidence" on in the service of trying to justify believing in a magic super being. They appear to have no concern whatsoever for completely de-valuing the word.)

Tonto Silerheels wrote:When observations were made, however, it was found that the universe was far more uniform than was possible with those theories. If rational people react as you state then they would have to completely throw out the big bang theory and choose some opposite theory.

Ummm, no.


They would have had to (as they did) re-evaluate the evidence with the fresh data in mind and determine what theory now best explained it. not just automatically default to "the opposite". That would be ridiculous.


The point being, if you start at scratch and evaluate said evidence the idea that the universe was created by a magic super being is every bit as absurd as the idea of a faster than light reindeer powered sled carrying a jolly gift giver around the world to break into peoples homes and leave them presents one night a year.


Hence, in a rational world, atheism.


But as I mentioned...humans. They will not start from scratch, at least not many of them. They will cling to what they want to believe already, and make whatever tweaks and modifications to those beliefs that are necessary to sufficiently rationalize retaining them in some form or another. And so we would get "well maybe they were lying about *that* version of God, but look! Here's this other one! We'll just believe in that!"

And voila. Belief in higher being retained, with a little re-branding and a new paint job.

gcomeau wrote:

The point being, if you start at scratch and evaluate said evidence the idea that the universe was created by a magic super being is every bit as absurd as the idea of a faster than light reindeer powered sled carrying a jolly gift giver around the world to break into peoples homes and leave them presents one night a year.

Ah, yes. Absurdity... I can accept your point of view that you do not believe in God. But absurd as a benchmark or value by which a belief in God or lack thereof is judged? Really? It doesn't seem to me like a very reliable standard. What seems sensible to one person can seem completely off the wall to another. So if you wish to label something absurd, you really take the subject at hand off the table for discussion. To that I can only shrug my shoulders.

Don

While I don't personally accept it, Pascal's Wager http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager--which is explicitly brought up by David in this series on several occasions--IS a rational position that can be defended.

gcomeau wrote:

Tonto Silerheels wrote:gcomeau wrote:

In a rational world there would me a massive outbreak of atheism.

Why do you say that?

~Tonto

Why, in a rational world, would a population of people once they were shown to have been deceived into believing their ancestors were magically poofed into existence a few generations back then reasonably start questioning how rational it is exactly to believe the universe was created by a magic-powered super being nobody ever sees or can really explain in any logically consistent manner?


I always have difficulty processing how anyone could really be seriously asking me anything like that... it's a little like a grown adult walking up to you and asking you with a straight face, bewilderment in their tone, why people would doubt the existence of Santa and his flying reindeer.


I mean, besides the obvious?

jgnfld wrote:While I don't personally accept it, Pascal's Wager http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager--which is explicitly brought up by David in this series on several occasions--IS a rational position that can be defended.

Surely you're joking? Pascal's wager is one of the most mocked arguments in favor of believing in God that I am familiar with.

It has a teeny... tiny little flaw. It requires there to only be one possible God to be considered. So, sure, you could consider it a rational argument that could be defended. If you'd never heard of more than one religion and were incapable of comprehending the possibility that there could be more than one.


Otherwise, no. You see you can't just say that if you believe in God and you're wrong nothing happens and therefore you should just believe in God. Because if we're going, for some reason, to actually consider the idea magic deities exist to be a legitimate consideration at all then what happens if you believe in the Christian God and the real god is, say, Odin? Or any one of millions of other theoretically possible gods who might not like the fact that you spent your days worshiping at the feet of the wrong one?


Additionally, it isn't even offering an argument in favor of belief in the first place! It isn't offering evidence or reasoning designed to make you *actually think* God exists. It's just offering an argument why you should say you believe to hedge your bets. As if that would fool an omniscient being anyway!


There is no defending that bit of silliness.




And n7axw: By "absurd" I meant totally lacking in any supporting evidence, flying in the face of everything we know about how the universe operates, and on top of all of that offering no actual explanatory mechanism for the things it is proposed as an explanation of.

("How did the universe get here?"

"God!"

"Well... ok... and he did that how exactly?"

"Ummm uhhh uhhh ummmm.... God did something!"

"Gosh, that explains everything. You sure have all the bases covered. Thanks.")



Benchmarks which do not actually rely on entirely subjective interpretation.

You can say that seems like a reasonable position to some people. I agree, it certainly does. Those people would be wrong.

I'm hardly the one to support it being a more of an atheistic frequentist myself as far as religion and probability go. But the criticisms--mockings--of Pascal's Wager typically rely, as you do, on saying Uguboogoo of the Jungle and the Christian God are completely different entities and that means the wager is false. There is a flaw in this criticism: Staynair, I think, would say the Infinite is singular no matter what part of the Infinite you are capable of understanding is named--Uguboogoo or God. Nimue/Merlin too as we KNOW that Nimue/Merlin truly believes in "God's plan for Safehold" as verified by the Verifier. That is why Staynair continues to rely on the Writ even though he knows it is false: It provides him with a starting basis for his understanding of the Infinite. The assumption that all the names of God are different entities is just that--an assumption--not a fact. And it, of course, can never be more than an assumption.

Additionally, Staynair's explicit position in one conversation is that living in line with his best understanding of the Infinite is the best way to live regardless of the reality of an afterlife or not. This obviates other criticisms of the Wager: Staynair is saying that to follow the dictates of the Infinite is the best way to live regardless of the existence of God as it maximizes cultural good. Of course this means he assumes the Infinite is a generally good influence.

As I said, personally I'm generally on your side. But the typical criticisms of Pascal's Wager are really ill-founded in terms of where David has explicitly taken this series. That is, I am trying to stay inside the Safehold universe as David is constructing it.

As for Safeholdians, I'm not sure how many are capable of Staynair's level of understanding.

gcomeau wrote:

jgnfld wrote:While I don't personally accept it, Pascal's Wager http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager--which is explicitly brought up by David in this series on several occasions--IS a rational position that can be defended.

Surely you're joking? Pascal's wager is one of the most mocked arguments in favor of believing in God that I am familiar with.

It has a teeny... tiny little flaw. It requires there to only be one possible God to be considered. So, sure, you could consider it a rational argument that could be defended. If you'd never heard of more than one religion and were incapable of comprehending the possibility that there could be more than one.


Otherwise, no. You see you can't just say that if you believe in God and you're wrong nothing happens and therefore you should just believe in God. Because if we're going, for some reason, to actually consider the idea magic deities exist to be a legitimate consideration at all then what happens if you believe in the Christian God and the real god is, say, Odin? Or any one of millions of other theoretically possible gods who might not like the fact that you spent your days worshiping at the feet of the wrong one?


Additionally, it isn't even offering an argument in favor of belief in the first place! It isn't offering evidence or reasoning designed to make you *actually think* God exists. It's just offering an argument why you should say you believe to hedge your bets. As if that would fool an omniscient being anyway!


There is no defending that bit of silliness.




And n7axw: By "absurd" I meant totally lacking in any supporting evidence, flying in the face of everything we know about how the universe operates, and on top of all of that offering no actual explanatory mechanism for the things it is proposed as an explanation of.

("How did the universe get here?"

"God!"

"Well... ok... and he did that how exactly?"

"Ummm uhhh uhhh ummmm.... God did something!"

"Gosh, that explains everything. You sure have all the bases covered. Thanks.")



Benchmarks which do not actually rely on entirely subjective interpretation.

You can say that seems like a reasonable position to some people. I agree, it certainly does. Those people would be wrong.

If it maters to the story line MWW will tell us eventually. IF it doesn't matter to the story line, why care?
Cheers
John

OK as for religion on Safehold. First there will be the camp that just continues to believe no matter what. Probably they will be older or they will be fanatics. Regardless of evidence presented they will simply refuse to believe anything contradictory (Those damned Charisian Heretics will say anything)

A second group will follow the reform church of Charis as it slowly rediscovers the older texts of earths faith and reincorporates these documents into its foundations. (God after all can even use the sinners of the Safeholdian founders to get his message through)

Somewhere along I think Nimue mentioned being Catholic, it's possible this might have some influence along with the Gospel teachings if reread from copies of the Bible to recreate a Christian faith.

Some will become agnostics or Zen like philosophers.

And of course some will reject everything and become Atheists. There are always a few weirdos in the bunch! (That should put a twist in a couple of folks knickers)

In short they'll do what humans always do, go off in a dozen different directions based on whatever logic and illogic motivates them. Humans are tribal, not herd animals, so the people on Safehold will splinter and argue, just like we do here.

Alternatively they'll do whatever David decides they should do to carry the story arc along.
(Cynical aren't I)

Larry

gcomeau wrote:

jgnfld wrote:While I don't personally accept it, Pascal's Wager http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager--which is explicitly brought up by David in this series on several occasions--IS a rational position that can be defended.

Surely you're joking? Pascal's wager is one of the most mocked arguments in favor of believing in God that I am familiar with.

It has a teeny... tiny little flaw. It requires there to only be one possible God to be considered. So, sure, you could consider it a rational argument that could be defended. If you'd never heard of more than one religion and were incapable of comprehending the possibility that there could be more than one.


Otherwise, no. You see you can't just say that if you believe in God and you're wrong nothing happens and therefore you should just believe in God. Because if we're going, for some reason, to actually consider the idea magic deities exist to be a legitimate consideration at all then what happens if you believe in the Christian God and the real god is, say, Odin? Or any one of millions of other theoretically possible gods who might not like the fact that you spent your days worshiping at the feet of the wrong one?


Additionally, it isn't even offering an argument in favor of belief in the first place! It isn't offering evidence or reasoning designed to make you *actually think* God exists. It's just offering an argument why you should say you believe to hedge your bets. As if that would fool an omniscient being anyway!


There is no defending that bit of silliness.




And n7axw: By "absurd" I meant totally lacking in any supporting evidence, flying in the face of everything we know about how the universe operates, and on top of all of that offering no actual explanatory mechanism for the things it is proposed as an explanation of.

("How did the universe get here?"

"God!"

"Well... ok... and he did that how exactly?"

"Ummm uhhh uhhh ummmm.... God did something!"

"Gosh, that explains everything. You sure have all the bases covered. Thanks.")



Benchmarks which do not actually rely on entirely subjective interpretation.

You can say that seems like a reasonable position to some people. I agree, it certainly does. Those people would be wrong.

Methinks you are investing a lot of energy in this. Why? You certainly don't need my agreement or approval. You can have your point of view. I'll respect that. I'm going to wish you well upon your journey and withdraw from the discussion.

Don

Larry wrote:In short they'll do what humans always do, go off in a dozen different directions based on whatever logic and illogic motivates them. Humans are tribal, not herd animals, so the people on Safehold will splinter and argue, just like we do here.

Alternatively they'll do whatever David decides they should do to carry the story arc along.
(Cynical aren't I)

Larry

Given the diversity of attitudes among those who have heard the truth - Staynair's cheerful hopefulness combined with ethics that are "safe" from a secular POV or that of any just God; Wave Thunder's tentative atheism; Mahklyn's deism; and Caleb's (and probably most other non-clergy Inner Circle sorts) "I'm going with Maikel, whatever he's thinking" attitude - I figure that Safehold generally will have a similar diversity of responses.

The Inner Circle has been selected for being able to take the revelation, accept it, and keep it to themselves, so it's not a representative sample, and many other responses are likely to crop up among people who get the revelation as sheer public information, whether they are prepared for it or not. Ideally, more people will have attitudes and ways of thinking congenial to it by the time it goes public. But in the very best realistic case, "more people" won't be everyone.