IN THE BEGINNING 2

From: Daniel Young <danielyoung4@verizon.net>

Date: September 14, 2011 3:14:02 AM EDT

Subject: Fwd: Design Religion

Audience: atheists, agnostics, people dissatisfied with their existing religions, people following traditional religions for social, familial reasons, without truly believing their fundamental premises.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Daniel Katz" <katzdan1@verizon.net>

Date: April 27, 2011 9:42:43 AM EDT

To: "'Daniel Young'" <danielyoung4@verizon.net>

Subject: Design Religion

I am working on the design of a new religion. For purposes of discussion and "marketing" it is probably best not to call it a religion because that word has become associated with a few ancient irrational, god worshiping systems (even though [gap in original]

So from now on I will call it a fundamental belief system. (I have not followed this naming in the analysis which follows because it is much more convenient to refer to the design as a religion or a "new design." One of the subsidiary questions in the design process is whether it can be called a "religion" without being damaged by the bad reputation of most existing religions.

It is intended to be a system of fundamental beliefs capable of providing life guidance and capable of commanding the societal rights given to other religions. By this definition, there are many secular religions in addition to  those which are considered religions in the traditional sense, Science is a religion as is capitalism, communism and socialism. For some people art can be a religion or sport. All that is needed is for a person to give a particular subject the primary controlling importance in his or her life. For reasons which will become clear I call the new religion Paradoxy.

The new religion tolerates the existence of other religions and religious practices, so long as they do no harm and are themselves tolerant. The new religion does not require belief in or worship of a god or gods. The new religion does not require belief in supernatural powers. The new religion does not require any beliefs inconsistent with the realities of the world.

What should a religion be?
It should be a set of fundamental beliefs which give a person guidance and
help in all the important questions of life. It is a set of beliefs which
takes priority over rules and regulations from other sources when they are in conflict.
When I say "beliefs" I mean things that a person really accepts as
completely true. Belief is not unbased irrationality. Without a true belief in a religion's basic principles a person does not really practice that religion. It is just an act or a
pretense.

9/11/11 What better place to work on the design of a new religion than Jerusalem, a city associated with three of the world's important and most problematic religions? These religions, along with all those that depend on belief in gods giving instructions, are unbelievable. Because they are unbelievable they must depend on irrational "belief". Because they depend on irrational "belief" they justify irrational behavior, the most dangerous of which is violent behavior to follow and enforce religious "beliefs". There is room in life for peaceful irrational "beliefs" and for delusions which may offer comfort for problems and suffering when there are no better solutions. But there should be no tolerance in the world for irrational "belief "which itself is a source of problems and suffering.

One often hears a religious point of view defended as a matter of pure "belief", as if it is a personal choice to be made without any proof, evidence or logic. This is a fundamental mistake which confuses the nature of belief with irrationality. There should be no conflict between belief and rationality. For example, the force of gravity is something everyone believes in. The belief is demonstrated by not acting in defiance of gravity without taking precautions. This does not mean that a person understands the origins and full nature of gravity. A person who believes in gravity does not leave a tall building by way of the window. The behavioral pattern of using stairs or an elevator is a consequence of a rational belief in the existence of a force which we do not fully understand. That is the same sort of belief which should be involved in religion. We may not understand the basic premises of the religion but we know they are real and subject to proof by the most demanding standards used in human affairs.

Ancient humans believed in gods because they believed the gods were real to them, as real as lightening, thunder and fire. They were the best explanation of phenomena and the best way to cope with them and with the unpredictable events of life. That belief was acceptable so long as the reality was not understood in a deeper way. But maintaining that sort of belief in our time is no longer a traditional belief in a believable reality. It has become an irrationality. Irrational religion is no more acceptable than irrational forms of any other human endeavor.

The desirable form for a religion is a paradoxical one. It must be truly believable. Yet it must also have the quality of numinousness or mysterious open-endedness which lets it serve as a balance to the other systems used to govern human life. 

The problem with choosing capitalism, communism or even "science" (in its mistaken characterization as a type of certainty) as the governing system is that they all tend toward becoming intolerant totalitarianism when applied to life as the dominant system.

The fundamental belief of the new religion is that humans cannot know and will never know everything important needed to make life decisions.  Stated differently, the deep knowledge of the operation of the world and human behavior will always be beyond our grasp. Stated still another way, we believe in the eternal existence of a zone of the unknown. In this respect, Daoism comes closest with its concept of the unnamable and unanalysable Dao. Yet another way to put it is that we will never reach total control and prediction of important events in life.

We can call this eternal ignorance.

In the new design, what belief there is centers on the proposition that we can never know enough or control enough to remove important unknowns and important chance events from life. Unlike the unprovable basic beliefs of god-worshippers, this basic premise is provable in the scientific sense. Unlike the basic beliefs of secular religions this has no narrow pre-conceived personal or social objective built into it. There are at least two proofs of the new design's central beliefs i.e., Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem in Physics and Godel's proof in Mathematics. The new design is based on propositions which have been proven to the satisfaction of scientists and mathematicians by the most persuasive methods known, namely, experiment and logic. The beautiful paradox is that they although they are rigorous proofs they are proofs of the limits of our knowledge, otherwise known as our ignorance. This means that our deepest understanding, must, of necessity, involve acknowledgement of our ignorance.

Many religions have design defects. In the line of traditional myth-based religions the defects are obvious. Not many people really believe that a powerful god created the earth, made man in his present form and pulled woman out of man's body. Not many people really believe that a god had a son and sent him to earth to get killed and absorb the sins of
humanity. These sorts of belief are weakening as time goes by because they
are not supported by any proof. 

There is a school of thought which argues that belief is appropriate precisely because a proposition is unbelievable. That is an amusing but dangerous approach because it allows no distinction between good or bad propositions or good or bad designs. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that it would be best if the fundamental beliefs by which one conducted one's life were true rather than illusory.

So the first thing a good design needs is a really believable and provable
set of fundamental beliefs. 

If indeed there is something in the human psyche which demands a measure of
irrational belief regarding the world, (and this may be a healthy balancing component of human nature) that demand will still be somewhat satisfied in the new design. Not because the new design is based on irrationality or prizes irrationality, but because it is premised on a permanent element of uncertainty. This approach does not remove the satisfaction of raw belief or mysticism or ineffability because only a small percentage of people will understand the actual proofs in their full mathematical form. It is sufficient if the experts in such matters agree on their correctness and their consequences are observable in the real world. For the average person, which includes myself, the belief in these fundamentals will resemble the
belief in gods. But there is one big exception, even though we may take it on "faith", it is because we do not fully understand or have not taken the time and effort needed to understand the real proofs - not because we reject the ordinary conduct of life's most important areas by rational means. We know there are those who can prove it by the most rigorous proofs available in our civilization and, given sufficient education, any intelligent person can understand the proof.

The new design is agreed to by members at a time of life when they can knowingly agree with its fundamental principles. It is not imposed on anyone, particularly newborns or children. It is certainly not imposed by force.

For those whose concept of god or gods is not locked into an anthropomorphic caretaker and instruction-giver there will be sufficient room in the new design to consider the zone of the unknown to have godlike qualities. In other words, those people can adopt the new design and still apply the term "god" to the numinous area which is eternally beyond human knowledge and control. That area is not accessible other than by aleatory methods so it is not subject to influence by prayer or sacrifice. 

After one has a belief in the fundamental propositions of a the new design comes the question of how these affect or guide one's actions in the world. How does this new religion act in the world. What does it require of a believer? How does this serve a beneficial role in the advancement of human civilization? How does the new design keep itself going in society? Does it have a "Vatican" or "rabbinate?" Does this new design have rituals or methods for getting in touch with the unknown? Does it have a socializing component/regular meetings or festivals? How is membership indicated? At what age can one join? Does it have "accessories"? and, if so, what are they? Does it produce art?

I will deal with these questions next.

design does not have to generate morality. That can be achieved by logic and reason alone.

Modesty/balancing excesses of other powerful social forces, harmony/encouraging beneficial behavior, caring/dealing with suffering, framing rites of passage, Methods of achieving the deepest spiritual condition or connection with the unknown.(meditation, I-Ching)

The use of aleatory methods to reach decisions will be criticized as inconsistent with rationality. In particular, the linkage of certain linear patterns with ...  The main pupose is to put the consultant in touch with his or her deepest insights after all other attempts to arrive at a logical decision have failed. It is as close as the individual can get to the zone of the unknown.

Membership ID. This touches on the existence of a central administrative body which issues ID's upon receipt of signed (and witnessed?) statements of agreement with the fundamental principles. Is it anything more than an automated record file with the obligation to issue ID when agreement is received. (resembling internet programs which grant access when terms and conditions of a site are agreed to. Query whether membership is a public or private matter - whether a person's membership can be kept confidential. 

Ecological behavior is part of the new design because it is an outgrowth of harmony with natural principles. All industrial, technical and scientific developments are examined to see how far they are from natural processes and how many unknown factors or imponderables they introduce into society (for example, nuclear power versus, steam power, solar power, wind power, water power).

END

IN THE BEGINNING 1

2011 WITH UPDATES IN LATE 2023

[I begin this blog with the oldest material I can find about my design of LUCKISM®. It dates from 2011 at a time when I called it “Paradoxy".” Below I show my original notes and, in bracketed orange type, I add comments in late 2023 when I am opening a website for LUCKISM®.]

The Design of a New Religion – ParadoxySM 

[I see that, early on, I was planning to trademark/servicemark the name, something I later did for LUCKISM® on the theory it would be about the only way to exercise some control over how it was presented to the world.]

[For this project the designer does not avoid the word “religion” even though it has been discredited by its association with irrational beliefs [I am not quite as antagonistic to traditional religion as I was. Presently, I hope to find as much common ground as possible] and may mistakenly be understood to mean god-worship. Used properly, “religion” means a set of fundamental beliefs which are the primary means for dealing with the most important issues of life.  “Religion” need have nothing to do with gods. In the contemporary world, science is a religion; capitalism is a religion, communism is a religion and democracy is a religion. People can also make a religion of their personal thoughts and desires, family traditions or social laws or customs.

Each of these  “religious” beliefs claims a priority over competing beliefs – particularly in those life matters considered most important. The state of the world is proof enough that existing religions are not working well enough. The ancient religions are obsolete. [Not quite. I now accept a continuing role for them.]

Their underlying premises are unbelievable. They continue in existence simply due to institutional maintenance of the product and the inert mental state of the believers. [Not quite. There is a natural human need in many people for something beyond understanding. This does not invalidate its function. LUCKISM® satisfies it in part.]

Paradoxy is a religion designed to provide people with the psychological, intellectual, emotional, social and legal benefits of a religion without the requirement of god-worship and without the stress of forcing oneself to believe the unbelievable. It was designed by Daniel Young in 2011.

Its core beliefs are influenced by basic Daoism and wisdom philosophy (derived from both theistic and atheistic sources.) Like medicine, its first rule is to do no harm.  It starts with the reasonable belief that there are always going to be important limits to human knowledge and that ultimate facts about space, time and consciousness cannot be known. This premise (analogous to Godel's incompleteness theorems in mathematics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in Physics) provides sufficient mystery to give Paradoxy an element of “faith” similar to the faith which many religions have. The credo would be “I do not know everything I need to know in order to function as well as possible in life.” Therefore, I must have some larger, more fundamental principles which I cannot always defend by logic or reason. (This is nothing like the belief that a superior being is giving me specific instructions, orally or in writing, directly or through authorized representatives, on how to behave.)

Let us call this fundamental core belief  “ignorance.” This derives from yin-yang philosophy – the belief that, in any area of interest, our knowledge can only go as far as the two forces whose interaction “creates” the perceptible phenomena under examination. Beyond that is the zone of an imperceptible and unknowable “Dao.” This will hold true in the physically minute (sub-atomic), the physically enormous (universal) and the mental or conscious.

The theoretical corollary of this basis is the proposition that decisions which involve those unknowable levels must always be made on the basis of “religious” principles. [Here is where I ultimately turned to “luck” as a phenomenal manifestation of the unknowable.]

Acknowledging the existence of the endless unknowable is the beginning of the design of a religion. The next step is recognizing the need for a balance to conclusions based on what is known. Stated differently, it is important to recognize the inadequacy of existing knowledge-based or faith-based systems. 

In this manner one proceeds to the design of the religion. In the beginning it is easier to quickly state what the improved religion does not have. It does not believe in a force which consciously controls life, i.e., a god of the traditional type. This is obviously fictional. [If people must have gods the new design prefers systems with multiple gods over monotheistic systems on the ground that, lacking a balance of power at the top, monotheism lends itself more easily to totalitarianism, fanaticism and violent action. And monotheism also is less accurate in reflecting the multiplicity of forces operating in nature. (Here we touch on the delusional search in physics for the one true fundamental law of physics.)

The new design does not believe in life after death, in heavens, paradises or hells and purgatories. It does not place ultimate authority in any person or persons. It does not believe in miracles in the sense of events which violate the laws of nature.

The consolation for death is its universal existence. The consolation for  tragic, untimely death is the comfort of others and the focus on the elimination of the causes and repetition, if possible. The comfort for suffering can be no greater than the attempt to alleviate it.

The designed religion does not have highly specific rules about things like diet (except if they develop from specific knowledge or deeper rules about harmony with nature.) Older religions tended to turn basic ethical rules into irrational detailed behavioral rules – e.g. separation of milk and meat in Judaism. [Here it turned out that reverence for luck did indeed lead to rules regarding food.]

On certain fundamental things the ethical rules of the new design are not different from the traditional. Killing is forbidden. Charity is encouraged.

The new design has ideals or preferences rather than prohibitions in certain areas where ethical issues are subject to finer distinctions and the objective is gradual improvement of behavior. It prefers that people do not kill animals for food or clothing. It prefers that people do not interfere with the development of their offspring in utero except cure. intellectual honesty. [I can’t figure out was was meant by the last four words “except cure.” Perhaps I thought at the time that medical intervention in utero to cure problems was the only permitted intervention. I had not yet thought through the subjects of abortion or killing animals. Now it is clear to me that stating the matter as a “preference” was an equivocation. I have since concluded that interaction with natural luck is the fundamental sign of life. It follows that the unborn fetus does not have such interaction and is therefore part of the female and subject to her personal control. To the extent that an animal has interaction with natural luck, LUCKISM® forbids killing it.]

Certain behavioral rules, such as the prohibition of murder, are self-evident.

The social advantages are the ability to take positions on political, social, moral and ethical issues without having to prove the correctness of the positions by a preponderance of evidence. [I don’t quite understand this last sentence. I think I meant that it will have the immediate weight of being a position taken on a religious basis and therefore given a “presumption of reliability.”]

Blog Post Title Three

Spaced Out

Written By Daniel Young

The glamorization of “intensive care” in the dead zone of space is one of the main achievements of the space program

Here we see someone completely cut off from natural luck - the paradigm of what LUCKISM® sees as the wrong place to be. How is it possible that this is promoted as the right direction for humanity? When life is totally supported by artificial means it is closer to death than life. Perhaps this condition can be justified if one is temporarily exploring the natural world as in scuba diving. But as an ongoing process in lifeless places, particularly with the goal of establishing human colonies on other planets, it is wrong in all respects because it breaks all connection with natural luck.

Move this hospital bed into space and you have the equivalent of someone traveling to colonize Mars.

Blog Post Title Four

It all begins with an idea. Maybe you want to launch a business. Maybe you want to turn a hobby into something more. Or maybe you have a creative project to share with the world. Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Don’t worry about sounding professional. Sound like you. There are over 1.5 billion websites out there, but your story is what’s going to separate this one from the rest. If you read the words back and don’t hear your own voice in your head, that’s a good sign you still have more work to do.

Be clear, be confident and don’t overthink it. The beauty of your story is that it’s going to continue to evolve and your site can evolve with it. Your goal should be to make it feel right for right now. Later will take care of itself. It always does.