|
What can one say about
developing a religion where the ultimate organising principle is not one
derived from divine inspiration but, instead, relies on the wisdom and
contribution of the masses ? That it openly militates against the notion of
an omnipotence? Or, that it tacitly underscores the importance of human
divinity ? In the filed of computer programming the concept is not new. It's
called open source design where the source code of a software is made
available to the general public with either relaxed or nonexistent
intellectual property restrictions. This allows users to create
self-generated content through either individual effort, or collaboration.
The result of this meritocratic system--in one case at least--has been the
operating system called Linux. On the other land, the older and more
established model is where the code is held invisible and sacrosanct by a
handful of program creators residing in the body of an all-powerful
corporate identity which cannot be questioned. Such as the Windows operating
system of Microsoft, for instance. It's a hierarchical system. Similarly,
the traditional religious model is also a top-down one where a body of
clergy gets organised into successive ranks or grades with each level
subordinate to the one above. It's a religious rule by a group of ranked
people.
Alternatively, an open source
religion would aim to make its creed inclusive, amenable to change and
responsive to collective inputs, working on the assumption that every aware,
conscious and sentient spirit is divine and has direct access to truth.
Above all, there would exist no unnecessary authority figure -- the idea
being that groups are often smarter than the smartest people in them. One
example of such a religious movement is Yoism whose followers claim that
their version of open source religion does not owe allegiance to any
spiritual guide, but that rather the sense of authority emerges from the
group via consensus.
Critics object to such a
movement being called a religion on those very grounds itself--namely, that
it doesn't talk about any revelation from the divine. They also say that it
embraces a transitory view of reality which contradicts traditional notions
of religion based on belief in fundamental truths. But what is the truth ?
And how can we be certain about its fundamentality ? In fact, open source
followers aver there always exists the possibility of one day discovering
that all our current truths are wrong. |
