Happy Atheist Forum

I often wonder why we can't have a theism that professes what I will call The Six Words, and admits ignorance with regard to all else.  Here are The Six Words:

God enables reincarnation and enforces karma.

Imagine a faith that consisted of the above, and admitted ignorance with regard to all else.  Query it, and we'd get something like this:

Q: Why is there suffering?

A: Unknown.

Q: Why is there malevolence?

A: Unknown.

Q: Will justice overcome injustice?

A: Yes.

Q: How?

A: Karma.

Q: Why is there karma?

A: Unknown.

Q: Will life overcome death?

A: Yes.

Q: How?

A: Reincarnation.

Q: Why is there reincarnation?

A: Unknown.

Q: Your knowledge seems limited.  What do you know?

A: God enables reincarnation and enforces karma.

Q: What is the use of this knowledge?

A: It guides us.

Q: How?

A: We do practical good and don't do practical evil.

Q: What is the use to the world of your faith?

A: The world receives the practical good we do, and avoids the practical evil we don't do.


For reasons of epistemology the atheist would reject the above - but only for reasons of epistemology.  All the other objections one might have toward religion would evaporate.  Who could strenuously oppose an idea whose only result was to promote practical good and discourage practical evil?
 
If we must have theism, why can't we have a theism of The Six Words?

I agree, it sounds nice, but the tired old criticism of something like this is

"Who decides what is practical good and practical evil"

Religious people today, often feel like they are only doing practical good, but as we well know, this is not the case.

Quote from: "SSY"I agree, it sounds nice, but the tired old criticism of something like this is

"Who decides what is practical good and practical evil"

I don't think it really matters, so long as the adjective practical is retained.  Practical good benefits earthly creatures in earthly ways.  You and I might debate whether our money should go to building a shelter for homeless people, or funding cancer research, or funding conservation efforts, or funding cybernetic prosthesis research, but after we have our debate and reach our compromise, our money will do something beneficial.

QuoteReligious people today, often feel like they are only doing practical good, but as we well know, this is not the case.

Many religious people actually are doing practical good.  This is the positive side of religion, that its apologists like to hold up as the reason religion is to be esteemed.  Where religion goes astray is its emphasis on moral good; for example, such nonsense as celibacy, or other useless chastities, or walking to synagogue on Saturday because driving a car would be immoral, or horrific malevolences, such as 9/11.  The concept of moral good can be perverted into anything the priests or imams want it to be.  Practical good cannot.  Either earthly creatures benefit in earthly ways, or what has occurred isn't practical good.

The above is the underlying insight in such mottos as, "An it harm none, do as ye will," or, in more modern parlance, "We're not hurting anybody, so why are you hassling us?"  When people try to insist that only harm is wrong, what they're groping for is the realization that practical good and evil are what count, not moral good and evil.  If no earthly ill has befallen any earthly creature, then practical evil has not occurred, and no recrimination is in order.  Look away, if our lifestyle discomfits you, but say not a word, for we aren't hurting you nor anyone else.  There is no practical evil here, so shut up and leave us alone.  Such is wisdom!  Or so I say.

People whose only religious guidiance is to get good karma and not get bad karma will spend their religious energies on providing earthly benefits to earthly creatures.  It would be very hard for them to start from that premise and end up in a place grotesque or vile.