With so many seemingly different religions each with its own God(s) (you can't claim to be both catholic, atheist and muslim at the same time, right?), is there a way that big data could determine the right from the wrong? Or maybe that all of these religions are somewhat compatible?
As a co-founder of Mathematology, we are trying to create a highly generic, meta-religion which emcompasses most religious beliefs: a bit like a highly generic, extremely abstract objects designed by computer scientists in the context of Object Oriented Programming, to serve a very large number of purposes across many applicatons.
I'm sure we are not the first to think about this oecumenist concept of unifying religions/philosophies, including atheism and religions with multiple gods - via abstract logical and analytic thinking. We are wondering, with the emergence of big data - that can now provide answers to a number of philosophical questions about the Universe, humankind etc. - and increased anytic IQ from the general public, whether we are moving toward a merging of several religions once thought incompatible. The opposite seems to be happening now, but what about 20 years from now?
Related article: God vs. Analytics
Already, Muslims and Jews are fighting together in Germany against the new circumcision laws. However, this is an issue about old shared traditions, nothing to do with analytics, and maybe nothing to do with religion either.
They/we don't know, they/we have a believe system because they/we don't know, so you could start with nobody truly knows, call that an A object (nobody knows) everybody can have one and that's the link, then superimpose the different belief attached objects with each A object, this way it might get people to respect other peoples point of view even if they/we think we are the right ones. Hopefully some day they/we will relies that it is us who make all this stuff up as we try to go forward or should that be in all directions?
I think the question itself is fundamentally flawed as is the direction. I am not trying to knock you at all, just a little devils advocate and a perspective of my own. Religion or sects of religion flourish or not because of their underlying dogma which creates an aura of exclusivity, your accepted your not. I find the notion of God trivial, in such that, God is a personal thing or can be deemed identical to one's own spirituality. Fundamentally religious sects do not associate with others outside of their own sect unless they are there to proselytize (convert those clicks to purchases of the religion).
Plain spirituality is most likely the only unifying theory of religion, because once the sects are broken down, Jews become wrong in the eyes of Muslims and Muslims become wrong in the eyes of Jews, Catholics are wrong in the eyes of Protestants and so on and so forth for eternity. Secular religion, of which any one 'religion' can be called so, is defiant to the books they preach to their sheep. Religious tomes exalt an accepting nature, something religions refuse to embrace, they do this simply by denouncing other faiths.
Even a generic meta-religion is fundamentally flawed unless there is no dogma to follow, simply enforcing someone to believe in a higher being, or a unifying philosophies is counter productive to a true generic religion, religion == paradox, otherwise it won't survive.
Just my simple view.
Everybody is allowed to their point of view, but I like to start at the beginning.
Is schools for ages 6 to 10 years old, somewhere under the subject human evolution?
teaching the kids that the human minds imagination can create the most believable things e.g. religion,
the old guide book for monkeys that don't understand what to do with all their feelings so lets control whats happening around here or it will be the down fall of all of us, now try convert that kid into believing a religion, if the kid is converted then there should be respect for other beliefs, religiosity or other beliefs.
Religion arose from infancy of human civilization. A grade 10 student today has more knowledge and understanding of the Universe than all the people combined who wrote those holy books. Even before you look at all Gods of different religion, you first have to provide evidence that God exists. And Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief. Anyone who believes in a God is a theist, who does not is an atheist. Calling atheism a religion is like calling not stamp collection a hobby. Do you have a term for people who do not play football?
I would call them agnostic, but in data land I would call them other, you see it's all to do with human knowledge and it's limits, e.g. how do you know for a fact that Religion arose from infancy of human civilization? you don't but you believe it did so if you are an atheist that's your belief or perhaps I understood you wrong and you where only making an assumption that that is the truth?
Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive becuase they talk about different subjects. Agnosticism/Gnosticims talks about knowledge, Theism/Athesim talks about belief. So, one can be an Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist or Gnostic Theist et al. I think this discussion is off topic here. Atheism is not a belief but lack of one. I think my previous statement post explains that. How do I know that Religion arose from the infancy of human civilization? Well, I read some history, not an expert in anyway but that fact that Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam all date back to at least 1400 years, it is fair to make that statement. What did people know 1400 years back compared to what we know today about the origins of Universe and Species?