Inspired by this thread on persons confronting atheism, I wondered: could organized religion become a thing of the past? I’m not talking about 10 years, or 100 years, but what are the hopes for organized religion say, 1000 years from now? I’m basing my (atheist-slanted) question upon the fact that we still have no proof to-date. So after an unbelievably increasing number of years, in a growing technological global society, when will the paradigm shift?)
I’d have thought it would have happened already, but apparently ignorance is more tenacious than one might imagine.
Yeah, I’m afraid Q.E.D. is correct. Ignorance is a far more dominant trait than awareness.
I don’t think it would be easy to say since, for instance, even in modern day there’s still people in the world living as hunter gatherers. There’s no saying how much of the modern world will continue to modernize.
And I don’t think it is likely to ever happen since the continued existence and disappearance of religion in modern countries appears to be mostly a matter of fads than any particular enlightenment on the part of the general populace. And if you look at the spread of Scientology, there’s always going to be the contingent who just need to belong and are willing to go along with any nutso thing.
Nitpick: We have significant proof against the existence of deities.
Proving a negative?
Name two…
Nitpick nitpick: What we actually have is a significant lack of evidence for the existence of deities.
there will always be some form of religion(s)…
By that I mean there will always some form of irrational belief system that is commonly held by a large number of people, and in all likelyhood, multitudes of them… (In my father’s ignorance, there are many stupidities)?
I really think that the need to believe in the unprovable is part of the “human condition”. More over, the “NEED” to believe in something more powerful, more majestic than your self is the basis of why religions exist in the first place… It is a cultural meme that humans will be a LONG time shaking off.
88,000 BCE (Tuesday) Thogra the Lame has a dream. He tells the people of his tribe that the dream told him that if they have a big feast in which all the tribe eats, drinks the sour berry juice and has sex, then the mamoth hunt will be succsesfull! Thogra gets his sex, drugs and rock and roll, and the next time there is a mammoth kill, he says “I told you so…!”
The tribe figures that there MUST be a connection, and ritual and religion is born…
3972 AD (Tuesday) Buzknot 17 tells his conettes that his phytom can scoot the bachytob… IF they muster bandwidth for his AI. And sure enough they notice an improvemnt! The otic-clutch senses a connection an authourizes further involvment!
Same shit, different shovel…
FML
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
There’s no way to tell, really. At one extreme, humanity could engineer itself/be replaced by creatures too rational to buy into it. At the other extreme, the believers could forcibly genetically engineer humanity into instinctive religious fanatics, probably destroying civilization in the process. Or in the middle, it could recede into a relatively harmless delusion taken seriously only be a minority
One thing I don’t see is technological civilization surviving in the long term if religion does as a significant force. As technology becomes more powerful, the insanity that is religion becomes ever more likely to drive us to destroy ourselves or our civilization, one way or another.
I have a feeling that every time a cataclysmic event happens, human created (war) or natural (an earthquake), people begin to cling closer to their religion because it makes them feel safe, or at least at ease that all those people are “in a better place.” (or in contrast, that some faceless propagandized enemy “got what they deserved.”) As such I think as long as cataclysm is abundant (or abundant ENOUGH) there will be a good multitude of people with religious or quasi-religious beliefs.
Sure.
Look at the recent thread about the magic staircase. According to legend, it’s put together in a mystical way and defies physics. If I can show that it doesn’t defy physics and that it sure doesn’t seem to be put together in anything other than a fairly standard method, isn’t that a pretty darn good proof that the staircase isn’t magical?
In regards to deities, it can be shown that:
-
People are taught by their parents to believe in a deity or lack thereof. (95% of people believe the same thing as their parents, Christian, Buddhist, or atheist)
-
The sole thing which makes people continue to believe in deities, “divine experiences”, are replicable exactly via drugs.
-
Groups who have stronger “divine experiences” like the Pentecostalists (speaking in tongues and being struck by god/falling down in the pews) don’t attract more people even though theoretically this should be evidence that they are more in tune with their deity than other orders. But then, if this divine experience is correct, then how does one explain that other religions have groups which experience these same phenomena.
-
The invention of deities by man is fully explainable, via the expansion of fairy tales and pure conmanship by the leading classes.
-
Similarly, ritualisation and superstition of things by mankind are fully explainable given that we are extravagant pattern matching machines.
-
People who are more intelligent are less likely to be religious. But people who are more intelligent are more likely to prosper and more likely to be happy. Deities, according to tradition, are meant to help people who have greater faith–at exact odds to what should be expected according to tradition.
-
Prayer, similarly, does not appear to have any effect.
-
Creation does not need a deity for explanation. Adding one makes the process more complex than it does simplify it.
And so on.
So we have good evidence that deities need not exist and if anything it takes more effort for them to exist, we have evidence that they’re made up, that the supposed evidence for them to exist is either taught to small children, chemical, unlinked to any particular tradition nor even unexplanable in itself and is ignored by most believers when it comes down to it, and that what deities are meant to do for us, they don’t.
So again I say that there isn’t just a lack of proof for the existence of gods, there is significant evidence that they don’t, to a sufficient extent that it’s worth saying it’s proved that deities are just as much flim flam as psychics and homeopathy till evidence shows otherwise.
All you have to do is show that the stated/generally believed properties of said deity/ies are logically inconsistent with each other, or properties of the universe in general.
E.G. an omnimax god and the existence of evil
or just an omniscient god and free will…
Read more at infidels and Wiki
See…I don’t get this. How could religion make a person feel safe if they just suffered a cataclysmic event? Isn’t that proof that their belief in an all-powerful and caring god is errant?
Religion in some form goes back to early man. There has always been some kind of religion practiced in the world, so I see no chance religion will ever disappear.
Maybe the practice of spirituality would be a better word. I think religion will change, has changed over the years, and that the masses will always honor a higher intelligence than themselves. For them the evidence is apparent and real.
Are you saying that only matters that have been proven are worth believing? Do you really believe that? And if so, where’s your proof?
I’m not trying to be snarky here, Leaffan. I just think that the lack of proof is not automatically a good reason for discarding a belief. I don’t know any epistemologist who would claim that only beliefs that are proven are worth holding on to.
Only if you believe that God’s highest goal is for man to be happy and safe on earth. That’s the infamous “problem of evil” argument; namely, "How can a loving God allow suffering on earth?"
This argument used to carry a lot more weight. In contrast, modern philosophers recognize that in a world where humans can act with volition (loosely speaking, “free will”), there is no inherent contradiction between having temporary human suffering and a loving God – not if the loving God has a higher purpose in mind. (This is obviously an overly brief reply, and it’s not my intent to present an exhaustive answer. Suffice to say that in the scholarly literature, modern philosophers seldom, if ever, claim that these two must be mutually exclusive. I say this based on comments made by some philosophy PhDs of my acquaintance who specialize in this field.)
I’ll answer, flippantly, in-line. There’s obviously books that can be written both in support and against your points.
Look at the recent thread about the magic staircase. According to legend, it’s put together in a mystical way and defies physics. If I can show that it doesn’t defy physics and that it sure doesn’t seem to be put together in anything other than a fairly standard method, isn’t that a pretty darn good proof that the staircase isn’t magical?
It means that people have a tendency to apply theist explanations to things that don’t require it. Seeing Madonna’s in window film and Jesus on a slice of toast are demonstrations of many people’s need to prove the existence of God. That rational explanations exist for people’s incorrect explanations doesn’t act a proof that God doesn’t exist. I guess that most believers are rolling their eyes every time someone professes that God “proves” his existence in the cracks of an overpass, in mold on an orange, or, (the latest I’ve seen) in a sonogram.
In regards to deities, it can be shown that:
- People are taught by their parents to believe in a deity or lack thereof. (95% of people believe the same thing as their parents, Christian, Buddhist, or atheist)
True, but immaterial. Atheists raise atheists, too.
- The sole thing which makes people continue to believe in deities, “divine experiences”, are replicable exactly via drugs.
Immaterial again. I’ve never used drugs stronger than alcohol. I don’t get religious on alcohol. Religious experiences and drug-induced experiences are perhaps similar because man was involved in both. Religion does not equal belief. Man made religion.
- Groups who have stronger “divine experiences” like the Pentecostalists (speaking in tongues and being struck by god/falling down in the pews) don’t attract more people even though theoretically this should be evidence that they are more in tune with their deity than other orders. But then, if this divine experience is correct, then how does one explain that other religions have groups which experience these same phenomena.
Again, religious acts, the demonstrations of faith, are man made. Personally I think that that over-the-top demonstrations of faith, as shown by the Pentecostals, are mostly poseurs fooling the members of the congregation, and perhaps themselves.
- The invention of deities by man is fully explainable, via the expansion of fairy tales and pure conmanship by the leading classes.
*Which came first?
Using religion to control the masses is a time-honored misuse of faith.*
- Similarly, ritualisation and superstition of things by mankind are fully explainable given that we are extravagant pattern matching machines.
That doesn’t mean that every rationalization is, in fact, wrong. IMO, it’s a correct conclusion to a rational analysis that a deity is involved.
- People who are more intelligent are less likely to be religious. But people who are more intelligent are more likely to prosper and more likely to be happy. Deities, according to tradition, are meant to help people who have greater faith–at exact odds to what should be expected according to tradition.
There’s a long-held belief that science pushes out God. I’d argue that science can demonstrate the complex machinery of God. Intelligent people are on both sides of the God issue. If a majority of intelligensia thinks God doesn’t exist, that doesn’t make it right. Once a majority of intelligent people believed in spontaneous generation, geocentric solar systems, & only four elements. You cannot vote on the nature of reality.
- Prayer, similarly, does not appear to have any effect.
Many Christians believe that prayers are answered. One mistake in measuring prayer is that it’s often measuring man’s desires and not God’s. A favorite line from a book is “God sends strength, not taxi-cabs.” I often find myself praying for my will to be done and not God’s. It’s a mistake to equate the two.
- Creation does not need a deity for explanation. Adding one makes the process more complex than it does simplify it.
Creation via random interaction is very difficult. Demonstration: Take a dozen or so Legos and make a simple airplane. Take the airplane apart and drop the pieces in a Tupperware container & seal it. You may now roll, shake, bobble, & do whatever to bang those pieces together. Let me know when you get that airplane reassembled. Next, put a million pieces of four colors in a big box & start shaking. Let me know when you get a DNA molecule assembled.
And so on.
So we have good evidence that deities need not exist and if anything it takes more effort for them to exist, we have evidence that they’re made up, that the supposed evidence for them to exist is either taught to small children, chemical, unlinked to any particular tradition nor even unexplanable in itself and is ignored by most believers when it comes down to it, and that what deities are meant to do for us, they don’t.
So again I say that there isn’t just a lack of proof for the existence of gods, there is significant evidence that they don’t, to a sufficient extent that it’s worth saying it’s proved that deities are just as much flim flam as psychics and homeopathy till evidence shows otherwise.
*I’ll give you a science question:
Last I checked, physicists have traced the origin of the universe backwards to about 1x10[sup]-34[/sup] seconds from zero point. In 20 more years, we may have the -37[sup]th[/sup] power. Doesn’t matter. They’ll never find the zero point, IMO, because it exists outside of the laws of physics.
Where did the “egg”, the proto-matter come from? Collapsed from a previous universe? Where did that universe come from? Physicists abhor an infinity of universes - infinities don’t fit well with science. Something from nothing? Physics doesn’t like that either, conservation of matter & energy & all that. Beekman used the phrase “everything goes someplace” to explain this. Everything had to come from someplace, too, in a godless universe.
I’ll ask another question - do you have free will? If you met me today, could you choose to shake my hand? Could I force you to shake my hand if you didn’t want to? If you’re just a complex state machine, I could construct a scenario in which you had no choice, couldn’t I?*
Your argument suggests that God is inherent in the properties of the universe and must, therefore, be a product of those interactions. If you drew a box around the entire universe with all of Newton’s, Einstein’s, Maxwell’s, Schrodinger’s, & Swartchild’s rules thus contained, I’d argue that you still haven’t place that box around God.
The existence of evil, is, IMO proof that God exists. God permits evil acts to be done because he permits free will. Free will gives you the choice to do things that are against the will of God. Him allowing it does not mean he likes it. If we’re just evolutionary cause-and-effect state machines, and cooperation & love & compassion are benefitial for all of society, wouldn’t the ability to do evil be slowly bred away?
People seem to get more religious after cataclysmic events, in general. The survivors thank God for being spared, those who didn’t survive don’t get a vote. People either say the disaster was punishment, or say it must be for the best, by definition.
Why? What evidence do you have that this is so?
How do you know god permits free will? What evidence do you have?
Why?
First, ‘Evil’ is relative. There are situations where killing, something normally regarded as evil, can be seen as good. It just depends how you define the terms, ie: evil/good for who?
Second, are we reproductively selecting against evil? If not, then evolution is not going to enter into it.