View the Original Article: https://theamanov.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-introduction-of-new-religious-view.html
The Introduction of a New Religious/Philosophical View: "Omittoism"
For some time now, I have been contemplating the nature of religion and the concept of God. In the course of this reflection, I have found no compelling truth within the bounds of established, man-made religions. However, the idea of God is not so easily dismissed. With that in mind, I propose the introduction of a new religious and philosophical view: Omittoism, a theosophical approach.
(Keywords: Introduction, New, Religion, Philosophy, Religious, Philosophical, View, Omittoism, God, Human Beings, Belief)
The Verbal Meaning of Omittoism
The term Omittoism is derived from the Latin verb omitto, meaning "to omit," "to leave out," "to neglect," "to disregard," "to abandon," or "to exclude." In German, a comparable term might be unterlassen. The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive doctrine, movement, or theory. Therefore, Omittoism refers to a philosophical and religious viewpoint that emphasizes the rejection or abandonment of divine authority, irrespective of the potential existence of a god or gods.
What Does Omittoism Declare?
At its core, Omittoism is a religious and philosophical stance that centers on one crucial question: the existence of God is of little consequence. Whether God exists or not is immaterial. The critical point is that humans must never permit God to assume superiority over them. The central tenet of Omittoism is to resist subjugation to any divine being, to rebel or act recklessly in accordance with one’s individual nature. Its guiding principle is the protection of human autonomy and human rights.
Should God not exist, there is no emotional turmoil or existential crisis for Omittoists—they remain unaffected, as they would be in a purely atheistic state. In the worst-case scenario, where God exists, Omittoism advocates turning one’s back on God—abandoning, disliking, and rejecting the divine figure. This rejection is rooted in the perception that such a God, given His designs, creations, and moral outlook, is unworthy of reverence. The term Omittoism essentially embodies the stance of being ashamed of having such a creator or creators.
Unlike Atheism, where the existence of God is denied outright, Omittoism acknowledges the potential existence of God or gods, but ultimately refuses to submit to divine authority or divine will. The Omittoist does not subscribe to the notion of servitude, regardless of the existence of a deity. Whether God exists is irrelevant; the Omittoist remains free, unshackled by divine commands.
It is crucial to distinguish Omittoism from Apatheism. Apatheism refers to a passive indifference to the question of God's existence, while Omittoism involves an active rejection and dissatisfaction with the very idea of a deity—should one exist. The two are not interchangeable, as Omittoism is defined by its critical stance toward God.
The distinction between Atheism and Omittoism lies in their approach to God’s existence. Atheism denies God's existence, whereas Omittoism maintains a critical stance even if God exists. For an Omittoist, the concept of a Creator—whether a personal God like the ones described in Abrahamic religions or some other divine entity—is inherently flawed.
What Kind of God(s) Might Exist According to Omittoism?
There are three basic possibilities for the existence of God(s) from the Omittoist perspective:
-
X: A God or gods we already know—those from established religions, such as the God of Christianity or Islam.
-
Y: A God or gods we do not yet know—an unknown deity or deities that might exist but have not revealed themselves.
-
Z: No God exists at all.
Case X: The Known God(s)
If the potential existing God is one we are already familiar with—such as the God described in religious texts (e.g., Jesus in Christianity, Allah in Islam, etc.)—Omittoism does not regard this deity with favor. Omittoism rejects the traditional divine figure, not because of a lack of belief in God, but because the qualities attributed to these deities—such as omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence—are seen as grossly insufficient or contradictory. The Omittoist finds these gods disappointing, particularly due to their perceived negligence and lack of action in the face of human suffering.
Case Y: The Unknown God(s)
If a God exists but is unknown or has not revealed Himself to humanity, the Omittoist holds that this deity would also be deemed a disappointment. If God exists and remains silent, allowing the world to descend into chaos, then such a deity is considered an "Idiot God." A humble or modest God who remains silent in the face of human suffering, failing to intervene, is seen as either negligent or inept. This view rejects the notion that divine silence or detachment is acceptable, labeling such a God as intellectually or morally deficient.
Case Z: The Non-Existence of God
Finally, if no God exists at all, the Omittoist does not feel the need to further engage in this discussion. The absence of a God simply removes the need for theological debate or existential worry.
A Critique of Divine Authority
In summary, Omittoism presents a radical critique of the concept of God. It challenges the traditional theological assumption that God, if He exists, should have authority over humanity. The Omittoist view posits that no divine entity—whether known or unknown—should hold sway over human freedom. All potential deities are deemed disappointments, either for their intellectual and moral deficiencies or their absence from human affairs.
This philosophical stance underscores a profound commitment to human autonomy and human rights, prioritizing these values above any theological imperative. While the existence of God may be acknowledged, it does not alter the Omittoist’s firm refusal to submit to any divine authority. The central tenet of Omittoism is that even if God exists, His presence should not override the inherent rights and freedoms of humanity.
The Concept of Divine Power and Human Power: A Reversal of Hierarchical Norms
In most religious systems, the divine is seen as the highest authority, and human beings are often expected to submit to this divine will. This hierarchical relationship between the divine and human beings forms the foundation of many theistic traditions, where obedience, servitude, and reverence are paramount. Omittoism, however, flips this dynamic. It rejects the idea that God—whether in the form of a traditional deity or an abstract force—should hold any power over the individual. Rather, Omittoism proposes that humans are the ultimate authorities over their own lives, thoughts, and actions. This inversion of power structures is a radical departure from the traditional religious view that positions the divine as the ultimate source of moral and existential direction. By rejecting any form of divine authority, Omittoism empowers the individual to take full responsibility for their own existence, free from divine expectation, judgment, or reward. In this framework, human power is not derived from obedience to God but from the inherent capacity of individuals to shape their own destinies.
Religious Evolution and the Emergence of Omittoism: The Decline of the Divine Narrative
Religions have evolved over millennia, often in response to social, political, and cultural changes. From polytheism to monotheism, from animism to abstract philosophical gods, the idea of God has undergone significant transformation. Early religions, grounded in nature worship and animism, gave way to more structured theologies in which divine beings were anthropomorphized and placed at the center of cosmic and moral order. Over time, as human societies became more complex, so did the religious frameworks that governed them. Omittoism can be seen as the next logical step in the evolution of religious thought, a culmination of the historical development of skepticism and secularism. In a world that increasingly values reason, science, and empirical evidence, the divine narrative no longer seems plausible as the central organizing principle of human life. Omittoism emerges not just as a critique of existing religions but as a recognition that the role of religion—once essential for explaining existence—has diminished in the modern world. The collapse of divine authority signals the rise of human agency as the primary force shaping both individual lives and society at large.
Omittoism and the Problem of Meaning: Absence of God, Presence of Purpose
One of the most profound challenges that Omittoism presents is the issue of meaning in a world without a divine architect. If Omittoism denies the authority and purpose of God, what does that mean for human purpose and meaning? Here, Omittoism takes a stance similar to existentialism, where meaning is not inherent in the universe but is something humans must create for themselves. In a world devoid of divine purpose, individuals are responsible for crafting their own meaning through their actions, relationships, and contributions to the world. This could be seen as both a burden and a liberation. The absence of a divine framework does not necessarily lead to nihilism or despair. Rather, it opens the door to infinite possibilities for meaning-making, grounded in human experience, creativity, and mutual understanding. Omittoism rejects the idea that there is a predetermined meaning to life dictated by a higher power, instead positing that meaning arises from human choice, responsibility, and the connections we forge with one another. In this sense, Omittoism provides a path forward that empowers individuals to find purpose in their existence, independent of divine interference.
Omittoism and the Critique of Sacred Texts: Human Constructs vs. Divine Revelation
Another essential aspect of Omittoism is its critique of sacred texts. In traditional religious systems, holy books are considered to be the ultimate sources of truth, divinely inspired and infallible. However, Omittoism views these texts as human constructs—products of their respective historical, social, and political contexts. For Omittoists, texts like the Bible, the Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita are valuable primarily as cultural and historical documents that reflect the values, struggles, and myths of the societies that produced them, but they are not divine revelations. This stance calls into question the validity of religious authority that derives its legitimacy from these texts. By stripping away the notion of divine inspiration, Omittoism challenges the reverence afforded to these texts and encourages a more critical, secular approach to moral and existential questions. Instead of relying on the commandments of a deity recorded in ancient scriptures, Omittoism encourages individuals to build their own ethical frameworks based on reason, empathy, and social cooperation.
The Future of Religion: Post-Theistic Worldviews and Omittoism’s Role
As global society becomes more secular and scientific understanding continues to expand, Omittoism can be viewed as part of a larger trend toward post-theistic worldviews. The decline of traditional religious belief—especially in more developed, secularized societies—suggests a future where divine authority is no longer the central guiding force in human life. Omittoism offers an alternative to traditional religion, one that acknowledges the historical and cultural importance of religion but rejects its continued dominance over human existence. In this post-theistic world, human beings must find meaning and purpose without the crutch of divine explanations. Omittoism is not merely a rejection of religion but a philosophical stance that invites a rethinking of what it means to be human in a universe without gods. It proposes a future where human responsibility, moral autonomy, and the pursuit of knowledge and happiness are paramount, unencumbered by the constraints of divine expectations.
Omittoism and the Rejection of Metaphysical Dualism: A Materialist and Naturalistic Approach
A further important philosophical stance in Omittoism is its rejection of metaphysical dualism—the idea that there is a sharp distinction between the physical world and the realm of the divine or supernatural. Many religions have promoted a dualistic view of reality, where the material world is seen as inferior or temporary compared to the eternal, spiritual realm. Omittoism adopts a materialist and naturalistic perspective, viewing the physical universe and its processes as sufficient for understanding existence. There is no need for an immaterial, transcendent realm to explain human consciousness, morality, or existence. Instead, Omittoism encourages an embrace of the physical world as the only reality we can know and understand. This view aligns with the scientific worldview, where the natural world is studied through observation, experimentation, and reason, and where meaning and purpose are seen as human constructions rather than metaphysical truths imposed by a divine force.
Further Exploration (To Be Continued...)
As this exploration of Omittoism progresses, further attention will be given to its practical implications and how it relates to contemporary discussions on morality, freedom, and the nature of divinity. Future writings will explore how Omittoism interacts with secular humanism, existentialism, and other philosophical traditions, as well as the ways in which this new view might reshape our understanding of divinity and human responsibility.
Omittoism and Humanism share a devotion to human autonomy, dignity, and reason — but they diverge in tone, foundation, and scope. The difference:
ReplyDelete1. Core stance toward God:
Humanism often sidesteps theological debate, focusing instead on human welfare and ethics regardless of religion. Omittoism, however, directly confronts and rejects divine authority. It isn’t neutral—it’s defiant. Even if God exists, Omittoism denies Him moral or existential legitimacy.
2. Relationship to belief:
Humanism can coexist with belief in a benevolent God, as long as human welfare remains central. Omittoism cannot. It refuses worship under any circumstance, asserting that submission itself—no matter to whom—is incompatible with human freedom.
3. Philosophical tone:
Humanism is affirmative, optimistic, and cooperative; it seeks progress through empathy and shared values. Omittoism is critical, rebellious, and emancipatory—it liberates humanity from the very idea of higher rule, interpreting divine dependence as moral regression.
4. Ultimate goal:
Humanism aims to improve life within the human condition. Omittoism seeks to transcend it—reversing the cosmic hierarchy so that humanity, not divinity, holds the highest authority. Where Humanism uplifts the human spirit, Omittoism declares its independence.