The traditional religious model is also a top-down one

Why can't religion be common cause?

MUKUL SHARMA The Economic Times TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2007

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 field 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 non-existent 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 hand, the older and more established model is where the code is held invisible and securely 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.