Fosterfarianism?

F

fosterfarian123

Registered Member
Fosterfarianism is a fairly recent Neo-Religion created by Forest Smith. Though presently its following is remarkably small, it seems to have an incredible potential to grow. It's based on the idea that religion and science can be fused into one belief system. His theory for this is very simple, but utterly brilliant. Here is the direct quote from the FaceBook group's page:
"As we all know, religion and science have had a sordid past. All you have to do is mention the name Darwin, these days, and you might as well brace for an argument. Fosterfariansism is neither pro science, nor anti-science. We believe to achieve perfection, you must bind religion with science. Now, when talking about an afterlife or "heaven" it is widely debated as to if this place exists. Obviously, why would you praise me unless I offered you eternal life in a REAL place? Which is why I'm explaining all of this to you. There is theorem that states that outside of the known universe there are an infinite number of other universes. They're all guided by their own scientific laws. When we die our souls go to another universe and are placed into a new body. There exists a universe in which all things live forever. THis place is the Fosterfarian heaven. And, if you prove yourself worthy, you will get to go there."
 
You make an interesting point. This is true. But if we don't have a soul, do we even have a moral compass? Think about it. What separates us from animals is increased mental function. If we don't use this higher intelligence to determine right from wrong or to enlighten ourselves to the fact that the universe is more than a purely random occurrence, what are we using it for?
 
We actually share most of the same morals as apes. It comes from evolution and a large brain, not some fuzzy supernatural concept of a soul. The soul is an element in a cosmic fairy tale which promises everlasting torture for immoral behavior. I think we can be mature enough to conclude that moral behavior is it's own reward.
 
fosterfarian123 said:
It's based on the idea that religion and science can be fused into one belief system.
Click to expand...
Then he's in the wrong.
There's nothing scientific about religion.

There is theorem that states that outside of the known universe there are an infinite number of other universes. They're all guided by their own scientific laws. When we die our souls go to another universe and are placed into a new body.
Click to expand...
Yes, unfortunately for him the same (speculative) theory also states that IF there are other universes they are totally inaccessible to us.

fosterfarian123 said:
But if we don't have a soul, do we even have a moral compass?
Click to expand...
What does the one have to do with the other?
 
Last edited:
You truly believe that there isn't even the SLIGHTEST possibility that the fact that we exist isn't merely coincidence? Don't you think it seems a bit odd conditions are just so perfect for you to be living here, on this very Earth?
 
spidergoat said:
We actually share most of the same morals as apes. It comes from evolution and a large brain, not some fuzzy supernatural concept of a soul. The soul is an element in a cosmic fairy tale which promises everlasting torture for immoral behavior. I think we can be mature enough to conclude that moral behavior is it's own reward.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is you knowingly choose to act immorally? You don't have any kind of philosophy to govern your lifestyle?
 
"Then he's in the wrong.
There's nothing scientific about religion."

Maybe so, but he advocates a religion that can stand on its merits and is more credible than the other fairytales.
 
fosterfarian123 said:
So what you're saying is you knowingly choose to act immorally? You don't have any kind of philosophy to govern your lifestyle?
Click to expand...

If people act immoral, then yes, it is a choice. There are philosophies that could assist the morally challenged, but I don't believe they are necessary.
 
Following in that train of thought, who says that moral behavior will be rewarded? Perhaps being merely reasonable is all the merit you need. Furthermore, what kind of a God has to resort to petty unverifiable threats to command his subjects? You know you're not a good leader when you rely on a reign of terror.
 
3.14159265358979323 said:
Maybe so, but he advocates a religion that can stand on its merits
Click to expand...
Um, no. He's using (actually abusing) science to foster his "religion". Hardly its "own merit".

and is more credible than the other fairytales.
Click to expand...
Really?
More credible?
Only to the gullible who believe someone telling them "science says this and that" and can't be bothered to check.
In other words he's using "science" instead of "god" as the figurehead. The main difference, of course is that anyone can actually check on science says (as opposed to god not being in the phone book, makes it rather hard to get the word from the horse's mouth, so to speak).
I bet the vast majority of believers will take this guy's word for it on what "science says" - abrogation of intellect...
Oops, much like religion.
 
fosterfarian123 said:
Following in that train of thought, who says that moral behavior will be rewarded?
Click to expand...
Apart from religion?
Or society? (Although society does it in the negative way - behave immorally and you get punished, one way or another).

Furthermore, what kind of a God has to resort to petty unverifiable threats to command his subjects?
Click to expand...
What kind of religious leader has to resort to specious falsifications of what science says?

You know you're not a good leader when you rely on a reign of terror.
Click to expand...
You can tell a bad leader when he lies about the source of his "authority".
 
Dywyddyr: "Um, no. He's using (actually abusing) science to foster his 'religion'. Hardly its "own merit'."

Hmm. I'll accept that I was incorrect.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Um, no. He's using (actually abusing) science to foster his "religion". Hardly its "own merit".


Really?
More credible?
Only to the gullible who believe someone telling them "science says this and that" and can't be bothered to check.
In other words he's using "science" instead of "god" as the figurehead. The main difference, of course is that anyone can actually check on science says (as opposed to god not being in the phone book, makes it rather hard to get the word from the horse's mouth, so to speak).
I bet the vast majority of believers will take this guy's word for it on what "science says" - abrogation of intellect...
Oops, much like religion.
Click to expand...

My, you are really espousing quite a bit of vitriol. Perhaps you are taking this the wrong way? Nobody is using science as some sort of scam device. It's just a theory. Religion is a system of beliefs, nobody has THE answer, that's why there are many religions. Even if you don't agree with his theory, you could examine his philosophy.
 
fosterfarian123 said:
You truly believe that there isn't even the SLIGHTEST possibility that the fact that we exist isn't merely coincidence?
Click to expand...
Where did I say, or imply that?
Actually no, I don't believe that. It could be possible we're not here by coincidence. But there's no evidence that we are.

Don't you think it seems a bit odd conditions are just so perfect for you to be living here, on this very Earth?
Click to expand...
Don't you think that if conditions weren't so perfect* for us as we are we'd be a different sort of creature? We fit our environment, it wasn't tailored to us.

* Of course, that's for a given value of "perfect", bearing in mind the hazards of life on Earth - disease, natural disasters, etc.
 
Once again, I am quoting from his site:
"Most of religion is governed by philosophy of some kind. As a Fosterfarian we have an entirely different take on philosophy. To illustrate this, I bring you the two theories of the universe. The first states that all events are random. Nothing can be predicted, nor can it be altered by a higher power. The other states that all occurrences have been preordained by a god of some kind. Most of us don't go charging into oncoming traffic assuming we will come out alive due to the influence of a higher power. But many of those who call themselves Christians claim God has a plan for everything. So why not?

Fosterfarian philosophy is not one governed by a strict moral code or ancient teachings. It's governed by common sense. What kind of a God saves the life of someone who does something stupid and life-threatening? A God who has no respect for common sense. Let the stupid people remove themselves from this world the way Darwin intended.

Nevertheless, I do not dispute either theory. The universe is both random, and preordained. In my mind, the biggest governing factor of the universe is the choices we make. Think about it, everything we see today is a result of the choices of someone in the past.

Whatever you may believe is up to you."
 
fosterfarian123 said:
My, you are really espousing quite a bit of vitriol.
Click to expand...
You mistake rationality (and knowledge) for vitriol. Your error.

Perhaps you are taking this the wrong way? Nobody is using science as some sort of scam device.
Click to expand...
No?
Let's see:
fosterfarian123 said:
There is theorem that states that outside of the known universe there are an infinite number of other universes. They're all guided by their own scientific laws. When we die our souls go to another universe and are placed into a new body. There exists a universe in which all things live forever. THis place is the Fosterfarian heaven. And, if you prove yourself worthy, you will get to go there."
Click to expand...
Looks like he's misusing what science says (and misrepresenting it) to claim that there is somewhere like "Heaven".

It's just a theory.
Click to expand...
Again, no. He's mentioned that there is a theory (without mentioning the corollary) and then gone on to state as a fact that one of these universes is "Heaven".

Even if you don't agree with his theory, you could examine his philosophy.
Click to expand...
Why? I know he's wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top