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.”]