Religion's Future or Lack of it

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m not arguing with you, I just can’t make any sense of the term. Have a stab at a definition, if you want.

No, it is not about a defintion. It is that it is for now unknown if there is such a thing as ultimate truth. You say it is not unknown, because you know it doesn't exist.
But that you know that runs into the induction problem.

 

[Tomef]

No, it is not about a defintion. It is that it is for now unknown if there is such a thing as ultimate truth. You say it is not unknown, because you know it doesn't exist.
But that you know that runs into the induction problem.

That’s no different to opening my mouth, saying nothing, and then asking if the thing I didn’t say is something that exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

We have been given that definition, it is the Messengers from God that are our ultimate truth about all that we can know.

Only God has the 'ultimate truth.' The Messengers of God reveal truth to humanity in stages, as we are able to comprehend it.
If all of God's truth were to be revealed at once, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 175-177

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am not your we.

I would offer in rerurn, that Like it or not, humanity is one, we all have the same Spirit available, we are all created of the same Spirit.

You do not have to agree and that is a gift of the Spirit.

The Bible offers it is a personal choice ro be born from the flesh into the knowledge of the Spirit.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Only God has the 'ultimate truth.' The Messengers of God reveal truth to humanity in stages, as we are able to comprehend it.
If all of God's truth were to be revealed at once, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 175-177

I offere my comments in the light that God can in no way be comprehended, as such it is a knowledge beyond our capacity and even the Messengers can not know the Essence of God. So the ultimate reality for us is the Word, the Holy Spirit, the Messengers.

They are the "Self of God" given of God as all Knowledge.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I offere my comments in the light that God can in no way be comprehended, as such it is a knowledge beyond our capacity and even the Messengers can not know the Essence of God.

Yes, that is what Baha'u'llah wrote, so I agree.

So the ultimate reality for us is the Word, the Holy Spirit, the Messengers.

I guess it all depends upon how you define ultimate.

ultimate implies the last degree or stage of a long process beyond which further progress or change is impossible.
Ultimate Definition & Meaning

Since further progress and change is always possible, no Messenger is the ultimate reality.

They are the "Self of God" given of God as all Knowledge.

I would say that each one of the Messengers delivers a message with all the knowledge that we are able to comprehend at any given time in history. That is why Jesus said:

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I guess it all depends upon how you define ultimate.

ultimate implies the last degree or stage of a long process beyond which further progress or change is impossible.
Ultimate Definition & Meaning

Since further progress and change is always possible, no Messenger is the ultimate reality.

I consider these two verses, there are also many more.

"The source of all learning is the knowledge of God, exalted be His Glory, and this cannot be attained save through the knowledge of His Divine Manifestation."

Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 156

So all knowledge of God is only via the Manifestations and about the Manifestations Baha'u'llah offers;

"...These sanctified Mirrors, these Daysprings of ancient glory, are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory. They are the Treasuries of Divine knowledge, and the Repositories of celestial wisdom. Through them is transmitted a grace that is infinite, and by them is revealed the Light that can never fade.… These Tabernacles of Holiness, these Primal Mirrors which reflect the light of unfading glory, are but expressions of Him Who is the Invisible of the Invisibles. By the revelation of these Gems of Divine virtue all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy and wisdom, glory, bounty, and grace, are made manifest.

— Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, XIX

So they are the ultimate source of all possible knowledge as "By the revelation of these Gems of Divine virtue all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge...are made manifest".

The Word "Knowledge", is what makes knowledge available to us. There are many writings as to how letter and words are the creative force, which is included in the above quote.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I would say that each one of the Messengers delivers a message with all the knowledge that we are able to comprehend at any given time in history. That is why Jesus said:

Yes I see it is relative to our capacity.

In eaxh age there have been many saints and martyrs that had a much greater capacity of knowledge.

Some had visions of this age and beyond.

Regards Tony

 

[Augustus]

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.

I’d say that we all subscribe to a mythos and almost always this is something we acquire from our cultural environment.

Few people are original thinkers and most just adopt common cultural tropes of one firm or another and fashion a “philosophy” out of them.

I don’t see it as necessarily being more sophisticated than subscribing to a traditional religion.

In many cases, the modern myths are often more shallow.

At least the ancient myths accepted humans are a tragic species who cannot be saved from themselves.

The idea we can transcend our nature has been more harmful than any traditional religion.

If we are simply a bundle of molecules that became sentient by chance and live in a random and purposeless universe yet have a deep psychological need to think other than this, we all live in a world significantly mediated by our assumed mythos.

 

[Augustus]

There’s nothing dark about facing reality.

What is a state of reality?

Can you describe a worldview that is based on reality without adding significant fictions to make it more palatable?

There’s nothing nihilistic about living authentically

What does it mean to live authentically?

What does it mean to live inauthenticity?

 

[Jimmy]

Religion will persist to the end.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Religion will persist to the end.

Humanity has been doing it since 200,000 B.C. so I think it is safe

 

[Augustus]

Even if one grants the already contentious assertion that humanity as a whole has been on an upward trajectory of tolerance, peace, reason, etc., since the Enlightenment, I don't think that says much about the overall dispositions of the species. The Enlightenment was a few centuries ago, which is a drop in the ocean relative to the duration of human history. One might as well use the same logic to suggest that a pleasant day is an indication that a whole year is prosperous and happy.

Instead of threatening each other with pikes, spears, and catapults, empires and hegemons now threaten each other with nukes and other products of the supposed progress of humanity. I think that's just one example among many of how humanity has fundamentally been more or less the same in terms of its nature, heuristics, and overall attitudes.

The Enlightenment certainly led to a lot of people's heads on pikes, which tends to be overlooked by proponents of "Enlightenment values".

Reason is value neutral, it's just a means to an end and humans will always find many different ends to put it too.

As you mention, those proponents of "Enlightenment values" will point out the successes of "science and reason", but 95% of technologies with a positive use also have a negative use.

For me it is the height of folly to expect a species that is demonstrably irrational (in the Enlightenment sense) to think the solution to the world's problems requires them to start behaving rationally.

For me it's a refusal of "scientific rationalists" to fully accept the realities that science has revealed.

Something I found insightful:

A Point of View: Is it ever right to try to create a superior human being?

People have long dreamed of improving humanity through science, but what results might no longer be human.

www.bbc.com

More than 70 years ago, the Oxford linguist, writer of fantasy fiction and theologian CS Lewis wrote:

Man's conquest of nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of some hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men. Each new power won by men is a power over man as well. There neither is nor can be any simple increase of power on Man's side. Each increase leaves him weaker as well as stronger.

Lewis made these observations in a short book which he published in 1943, called The Abolition of Man.

The target of his reflections was the agenda for education being promoted by progressive thinkers at the time, who aimed to debunk traditional values, which they saw as dated, unenlightened and irrational.

But these thinkers, Lewis argued, had no standard of what was to count as progress. They thought of it as meaning the increasing human power over Nature that comes with advancing scientific knowledge.

However, Lewis pointed out, this power is exercised over other human beings as much as the planet. Using the knowledge science has given them, governments and corporations alter the planetary environment to create the world in which future generations must live. The conquest of Nature means, in reality, conquering these future human beings.

Lewis goes on to consider what he describes as the final stage in this process, which comes with the attempt to alter the human species itself.

The scientific planners of Lewis's generation were dissatisfied with existing humankind. Using new techniques, they were convinced, they could design a much improved version of the species...

Today the dream of using science to fashion a new type of human being is, if anything, even more ambitious. There are some, like Trotsky, who see their goal as that of enhancing human abilities, so that larger numbers can achieve what only a few did in the past. But there are also those who want to bring about a mutation in the species itself.

Humans are not intelligent enough to be capable of designing superior versions of themselves. If they acquire the power to remake themselves, the result will be a proliferation of the types of human being that are currently fashionable - today, the super-smart and the preternaturally thin. As Lewis predicted, one generation will be exercising power over future generations by modelling them according to the dictates of ephemeral fads....

If at some unknown point in the future it becomes feasible to remould ourselves according to our dreams, the result can only be an impoverishment of the human world. Going further and enhancing human powers to the point where what results ceases to be recognisably human is, in effect, a project that aims for human extinction - as Lewis put it, the abolition of man.

Those who want to fashion a radically improved version of the human animal end up wanting to leave behind our species as it has always been.

For myself, unregenerate humanity is preferable - the flawed and conflicted creatures we are in fact are much more interesting than the transformed creatures we'd like to be. But I'm sure we're not done with trying. For if anything is peculiarly human, it's the refusal to be what we are.

 

[Heyo]

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?

Higher living standards. Religions thrive in misery. There is a strong negative correlation between the happiness index and religion of countries.

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

I think there will be a baseline of roughly about 20% of people who will be religious for many centuries to come. The speed in which we will reach that baseline depends on the economical and technical development.

 

[Madsaac]

Instead of threatening each other with pikes, spears, and catapults, empires and hegemons now threaten each other with nukes and other products of the supposed progress of humanity. I think that's just one example among many of how humanity has fundamentally been more or less the same in terms of its nature, heuristics, and overall attitudes.

The same? You kidding?

I strongly disagree, there are numerous ways humanity has improved, for example, go ask a gay friend if he would prefer to live now or 300 hundred years a go.

 

[Madsaac]

I think the chance of religion dissipating on a global scale in a few hundred years is equal to the chance that humanity discards the idea of government in that same time frame.

What I do predict happening is that secular portions of humanity may arise and be prominent even. I don't envision religion going away on a global scale in a few hundred years. As others have pointed out on this thread, religion is thriving in many parts of the world currently.

Will religion ever be a thing of the past? We can be optimistic, sure. But realistically, I don't think we are close to that point.

Secular parts of humanity have already happened and I believe our Muslim friends in non secular countries will see the light and think, 'what the hell are we doing'. It won't take that long, hopefully it's already happening.

 

[Sargonski]

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

Religion may evolve to survive .. as the old religious collapse .. new ones will crop up to fill the void .. .nature hates a religious vacuum

At some point a dominant new religion will form .. be as much as a movement as a religion .. and this group will gain political power .. perhaps engage in wealth redistribution .. and the class of civilizations continues.

 

[Madsaac]

I am so tired of opening posts like this. The ignorance folks have about the subject of religion makes the ignorance folks have about the subject of science look like a doctoral degree. Except worse, because while religion is a human universal, science is not. You'd think folks would be more familiar with something that is intrinsic to their nature as a species.

What's science got to do with it? (Well a small part)

I'm talking about the changing landscape of religion and the influence it has on humanity, namely the west, and because of various reasons as stated in the OP, it's dying a slow death

And I'm referring to the big religions.

So I thought this thread would make you happy because Paganism could move on from it's little 'cubbyhole' into something bigger?

 

[Madsaac]

The percentage of non religious PPL is actually declining. More fraction of people will be religious by 2050 than today.
Population of the World's Non-Religious Is on the Decline

Yeah I was talking about the West mainly. However, it won't be long before China and other countries see the 'ball and chain' effect religion can have on a society.

 

[Madsaac]

Higher living standards. Religions thrive in misery. There is a strong negative correlation between the happiness index and religion of countries.

This is true

I think there will be a baseline of roughly about 20% of people who will be religious for many centuries to come. The speed in which we will reach that baseline depends on the economical and technical development.

Yes, you may be right. Let governments make the laws and not religions and you probably will have a stronger, fairer economy.

And, I do wonder about the people who say the are religious actually practice their religion