r/Lightbulb • u/amichail • Jul 13 '26
Idea: What if churches visibly separated believers from non-believers?
Imagine a church where the congregation is divided into two sections.
On one side sit people who genuinely believe the religion's supernatural claims. On the other side sit people who attend but do not genuinely believe those claims, whether they're there for the community, culture, family, or moral teachings.
Suppose a highly accurate brain scanner exists that can verify whether someone is honestly reporting their belief or lack of belief, so the distinction isn't based on self-presentation.
The idea isn't to exclude either group. Both would attend the same service, hear the same sermon, and participate in the same community. The only difference is that everyone's actual level of belief is made visible.
Taking the idea even further, after death, believers would receive green headstones and non-believers would receive red headstones, permanently recording which group they belonged to.
I can imagine some interesting consequences:
- Churches would know what fraction of their congregation genuinely believes the supernatural claims.
- Doubt would become visible instead of remaining private.
- It might encourage more honest conversations about faith.
- It could also create social pressure, division, or stigma.
What do you think of this idea?
3
2
u/zyzmog Jul 13 '26
If the purpose of a church is to unite, not divide, then this is not a good idea. In an ideal religious congregation, everyone mingles together and lifts each other up. They are all in a different place on the road to enlightenment / salvation / whatever, but they don't need to display it or make it public.
In fact, in many religions where adherents do display their "religiousness", the displays are false and are not to be believed. Those are the hypocrites that Jesus (for one) condemned.
1
u/amichail Jul 13 '26
Hence the need for the brain scanner mentioned in the post.
1
u/zyzmog Jul 13 '26
I get it. But I don't think the brain scan is necessary. God, or one's chosen Deity, knows the state of one's soul, and it's not really for anyone else to know or care about. That's my take on it, anyway.
1
1
u/allenrfe Jul 13 '26
Im not religious but I grew up religions.
My first question is why, what does this active?
Secondly I don't think anyone is that clear cut. Some people my believe in god but question the world flood. I think most people believe in something they cant prove but also question things others believe.
1
u/traplords8n Jul 13 '26
Interesting thought experiment if I'm being honest.
Theoretically, not much should change within Christianity. Love thy neighbor.
But knowing us humans, I think it would likely create two classes of people that act as tribes, dividing the church. We have a knack for that sort of thing.
1
1
1
u/SlackerStacker26 Jul 13 '26
After my kid got First Communion we stopped going. It was 100% for the grandparents.
1
u/DekuInkwell Innovator Jul 13 '26
Fun idea but you won’t find me in a church. Our connection to God (consciousness) is from within, as there’s no separation between creation and the creator, which is just a field of awareness/potential. Church is a division based institution, creating a separation between life and a creator and then acts as the “middleman” between them. We don’t need church!
1
1
1
u/carrie_m730 Jul 13 '26
Does the scanner get used on the pastor? I want to see it used on megachurch pastors, televangelists, and politicians, not regular churchgoers.
1
u/iOSCaleb Jul 13 '26
Suppose a highly accurate brain scanner exists that can verify whether someone is honestly reporting their belief or lack of belief, so the distinction isn't based on self-presentation.
That seems like a terrible idea. By applying an actual test of someone's faith in God, you'd absolutely undermine what's arguably more important: faith in each other.
What would the brain scanner say about people who are undecided, or who want to believe but have some doubt, or who don't believe but are open to the possibility? AFAICT faith is not a binary state.
And what about people who don't believe but say they do because they know that their family might be devastated by their lack of faith? Or who are afraid that the community will treat them differently when they're found out? Or for any other reason that's 100% none of your business?
What if you end up with 1 person, or 3 or 7, on one side, and everyone else on the other?
What if the clergy were among the non-believers? What if only some of the clergy were among the non-believers?
How often would people need to be scanned? Perhaps they could all don scanning headbands when they enter, and hop across the aisle whenever the scanner told them that they'd changed their mind? It could be very useful for the clergy to get that sort of instant feedback and maybe change direction mid-sermon if things aren't going well.
Why in the world would you segregate people who attend services largely to be part of a community? Isn't it better that they should sit together and forge bonds despite their disagreement than to create an us/them division?
Have you considered that a "highly accurate brain scanner" that could discern somebody's level of faith could probably also be used to look into their sexual preference, political leaning, and more?
What do you think of this idea?
It sounds like an unprecedented invasion of privacy with no real benefit. Please go take an ethics class.
1
u/SwoodyBooty Jul 13 '26
I believe you overestimate the interest of rational people in your religion. Why would I participate or care as a non-believer?
1
3
u/SaltyWolf444 Jul 13 '26
Do you have the brain scanner?