Religion's Future or Lack of it

[Altfish]

Can you expand?

You really don't know the difference between 'science' and 'liberal/communist ideology' ?

 

[ChristineM]

Some religions are increasing in the number of adherents, particularly Islam. However the world population is increasing much faster so in real terms the numbers of religious people is declining.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You really don't know the difference between 'science' and 'liberal/communist ideology' ?

Yes, but the idea that science is directly connected to the decline of religion is that. An idea.
And it could be a multi causal process and not just a single one, i.e. science.

 

[Altfish]

Yes, but the idea that science is directly connected to the decline of religion is that. An idea.
And it could be a multi causal process and not just a single one, i.e. science.

Science caused me to leave religion. I know one anecdote does not make a fact, but I'm sure I am not the only one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science caused me to leave religion. I know one anecdote does not make a fact, but I'm sure I am not the only one.

Yeah, and a society which aloowed that.

 

[Madsaac]

It depends on how you define religion whether or not it's on decline. If you define it via history, they of course it's on decline. As nearly everything from the past is always waning. But if you bother to understand what religion is in terms of why people engage in it, you will see that it's just changing, not waning. It's becoming a more individualized practice as opposed to an organized collective practice as in the past.

Yes you are probably right, more individualised, along with a more individualised society, in a way. A breaking down of ‘barriers’

 

[Augustus]

This kind of narrow view is typical of religious thought. Some people do that, some people don't. Not everyone requires some kind meta explanation to find meaning or purpose in life.

I’m not religious and never have been (in the traditional sense anyway).

The idea that people “see things as they are” and don’t rely on complex sets of interlocking narratives that create a system of meaning is just a conceit though.

We are all a product of our cultural conditioning and all of us create meaning where none exists.

Bit of an outdated idea, again, this reveals a mind trapped by dogma. Your thinking suits the early 20th C, but not the contemporary world.

What dogma is that? That humans are predictable, hubristic and have short memories and don’t learn from their mistakes for very long?

I’d say the outdated idea is that history has a direction and we “outgrow” ways of thinking.

Utopian and extreme ideologies have emerged again and again over the past few millennia across diverse cultures. These you refer to were just the 20th c iterations.

Nothing magical about it. There's no reason why humans shouldn't move beyond the idea of religion and extreme ideologies, eventually, or why those shouldn't be replaced with ways of organising society that don't involve putting up artificial barriers. What the religious fear in that is a loss of identity, or sense of purpose perhaps, but it would be a natural development in the evolution of human societies

A perfect example of religious thinking.

A common humanity only divided by “artificial barriers” that can be broken down and deliver us unto salvation.

It’s no more plausible in secular myth than Christian or Islamic.

(It’s just the secularised Christianity of the Enlightenment that has consistently failed to emerge as predicted for the last 3 centuries)

The barriers aren’t artificial unfortunately. Really what unites diverse unrelated people into fictive groups is artificial.

If we accept humans are just animals, expecting us to transcend our biological limitations is magical thinking.

Division is intrinsically linked to our evolved cognition.

 

[Madsaac]

There are more adherents of the traditional religions now than at any time in history.

I wouldn’t start celebrating its demise quite yet…

Anyway, the culture of religion is to adapt and mutate as it always has done.

People don’t “lose” religion they replace it with something functionally identical.

We’ll probably see the rise of utopian or extreme ideologies as people seek alternative sources of meaning.

Less tradition just means more transient and faddish ideological fashions, many of these will be problematic as they are the product of the flaws of human nature.

If a decline in traditional religion happens, whatever things replace it will manifest the same problems just in slightly different forms.

If religions are man made, the problems inherent are simply a reflection of human nature.

The only thing I’m certain of is whatever replaces it will not lead to the magical appearance of a united, tolerant, rational and altruistic humanity.

It might even be better the devil you know…

Well I think humanity is becoming more and more accepting of each other, on the whole.

At the same time as a decline in religion, coincidence?

 

[LuisDantas]

What's the future for religion? It's a big question but it looks like it's on the decline, especially in west.

What are the reasons for the decline?
- Decline of the Patriarchal society
- Acceptance of diverse cultural and societal issues like same sex marriage, gender, abortion, IVF, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and contraception. (Wow)
- Public morality being determined by law and not religion
- Hypocrisies of religion
- Society can see that countries that are less religious actually tend to be less corrupt and have lower murder rates than religious ones
- Individual critical thinking
- Any more?

And how long has religion got? A few hundred years or less?

Here are just a couple of the hundreds of articles on the subject.

Why is religion suddenly declining?

An analysis of religious trends from 1981 to 2007 in 49 countries containing 60% of the world’s population did not find a global resurgence of religion—most high-income countries were becoming less religious—however, it did show that in 33 of the 49 countries studied, people had become more...

blog.oup.com

A surprising explanation for the global decline of religion

Since the year 2000, there has been a global decline of religion. In a recent paper, scientists suggest automation could be the cause.

bigthink.com

If that is religion, I can't say I regret its passing.

But that is definitely not how I define the term.

 

[PureX]

Science is only a factor in the decline of superstitious religiosity. But that certainly does not represent religion as a whole, as much of religion is not superstition based.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

People don’t “lose” religion they replace it with something functionally identical.

This kind of narrow view is typical of religious thought. Some people do that, some people don't. Not everyone requires some kind meta explanation to find meaning or purpose in life.

Sadly, however, it requires at least a small modicum of truly reflective thought (call it "philosophy" if you like) to find meaning and purpose without a meta explanation. That is why religion exists in the first place -- everybody can just accept the convenient story, written long ago, and it doesn't require much effort in the way of philosophy.

 

[PureX]

Yes you are probably right, more individualised, along with a more individualised society, in a way. A breaking down of ‘barriers’

I, personally, applaud this change, theologically. Even though it does tend to create the "Tower of Babble effect".

 

[Madsaac]

Science caused me to leave religion. I know one anecdote does not make a fact, but I'm sure I am not the only one.

No you are right, science would definitely have an effect on the decline of religion, especially when explaining the once unexplainable

 

[loverofhumanity]

What's the future for religion? It's a big question but it looks like it's on the decline, especially in west.

What are the reasons for the decline?
- Decline of the Patriarchal society
- Acceptance of diverse cultural and societal issues like same sex marriage, gender, abortion, IVF, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and contraception. (Wow)
- Public morality being determined by law and not religion
- Hypocrisies of religion
- Society can see that countries that are less religious actually tend to be less corrupt and have lower murder rates than religious ones
- Individual critical thinking
- Any more?

And how long has religion got? A few hundred years or less?

Here are just a couple of the hundreds of articles on the subject.

Why is religion suddenly declining?

An analysis of religious trends from 1981 to 2007 in 49 countries containing 60% of the world’s population did not find a global resurgence of religion—most high-income countries were becoming less religious—however, it did show that in 33 of the 49 countries studied, people had become more...

blog.oup.com

A surprising explanation for the global decline of religion

Since the year 2000, there has been a global decline of religion. In a recent paper, scientists suggest automation could be the cause.

bigthink.com

Materialism mostly.

 

[Tomef]

The idea that people “see things as they are” and don’t rely on complex sets of interlocking narratives that create a system of meaning is just a conceit though

‘Things as they are’ means something interlocking systems, as with actor-network theory. The difference between ways of think is defined by ‘does it fit what I already know/can I make it fit that’ and thought characterised by openness and adaptability. Meaning defines itself, or it doesn’t.

Utopian and extreme ideologies have emerged again and again over the past few millennia across diverse cultures. These you refer to were just the 20th c iterations.

Sure, and so does openess of thought. New ways of seeing the world bloom like mushrooms in an open society, as they have in brief periods of liberty in Europe and The US. Imagining some stolid interpretation of the past requires repetition by definition doesn’t define ‘human nature’.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

‘Things as they are’ means something interlocking systems, as with actor-network theory. The difference between ways of think is defined by ‘does it fit what I already know/can I make it fit that’ and thought characterised by openness and adaptability. Meaning defines itself, or it doesn’t.

Sure, and so does openess of thought. New ways of seeing the world bloom like mushrooms in an open society, as they have in brief periods of liberty in Europe and The US. Imagining some stolid interpretation of the past requires repetition by definition doesn’t define ‘human nature’.

Well, the end result of the bold one is in a sense cognitive, cultural and moral relativism as there is no objective, universal meanning. Is that your point or do you have another?

 

[Augustus]

Well I think humanity is becoming more and more accepting of each other, on the whole.

Based on what metrics?

We are more familiar with more diverse cultures, but familiarity is a double edged sword.

It’s possible we are into a cycle of this familiarity breeding increasing hostility

At the same time as a decline in religion, coincidence?

Outside the west religion is as strong as ever.

And I’m not too confident that the west is entering an era of prosperity and enlightened tolerance either.

Declining societies aren’t always pretty, and it is likely much of the west will comparatively decline.

Humans aren’t rational so I wouldn’t hold much faith in reason saving us from ourselves.

 

[Madsaac]

This post religious world without barriers sounds exactly like one of the utopian ideologies we supposedly left behind in the 20th Century

Surely breaking down barriers is a path to a happier world?

And are religions are just another barrier?

 

[Tomef]

Well, to me it is in the end an unknown.
But for now, I have never seen an actual objctive rational moral/value system.
The close I have observed are inter-subjective subjective morals/values based on beliefs without evidence without any standard religious claims.

I.e. e.g. humans have positive value because we believe in that and act based on it.

Who says there’s any sort of objective or rational moral/value system? Most societies come up with similar rules, religion is just one way of codifying that. You don’t need the religion to have the values, the values lead to the codification. The Paraña demonstrate that, no creation story, no gods, but a social structure that is more or less the same. That there is something more or less universal behind that is demonstrated by the ubiquity of similar social norms, that doesn’t mean there’s some sort of objective standard as such, any more than dog behaviour is ‘objective’.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who says there’s any sort of objective or rational moral/value system? Most societies come up with similar rules, religion is just one way of codifying that. You don’t need the religion to have the values, the values lead to the codification. The Paraña demonstrate that, no creation story, no gods, but a social structure that is more or less the same.

Okay, what is religion to you?