What will religion be like in say a couple of hundred years?
We’ve long ago proven that the Sun is just a ball of fire and that Heavan and Hell are not physical places in the sky and earth. In scientific circles, there is no debate about where we (the universe) and we (life) came from. We’re just around the corner of physically proving that the mind is merely a machine and there is no physical existance of a soul.
How much more is there to disprove? Will religion just die off?
Though I’m not a religious person, I suspect that religion will be around for as long as there is conciousness. What do you think?
There is absolutely no meaning to your existence, even if there where a god you sill would have no reason to exist.
Whats the meaning of the god existence?
The universe never “started”
“I shot the sherrif, I shot the deputy too. No, it wasn’t in self defense. They both looked at me cockeyed so I capped 'em. Then I shot the mayor, then the firechief, decapitated the librarian, impaled the dog catcher, used a spoon to remove the groundskeepers eyes and sent the leader of the local KKK in full KKK uniform to downtown Manhattan. Then I made sweet love to the sexy 18 yr old intern, and it was all good.”
Argh!! I dunno how that incomplete post got posted.
Anyway, what I was going to say is that while the actual practice of Christianity (the only religion with which I have a fairly close relationship) may change, evolve, loosen up, whatever, the substance of it is still the same. Most mainline Christian beliefs can be summed up in the Nicene, Apostle’s, and Athanasian Creeds, as well as the Chalcedon Formula, which have all been around for an awfully long time. The only fundamental change has been the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed (which pissed off the Orthodox).
The practical application of religion is ever-chaging, but the core remains the same.
As long as people ask “Why” and not just “How,” there will be religion because science and commoon sense can only answer the latter question.
I suggest you rerad a book by Karen Armstron called The Battle For God. It is a study of fundamentalist movements throughout history, why they arose, and their consequences. She then ties this in with modern fundamentalist movements in America (Protestantism), Israel (Judaism), Egypt and Iraq (Islam).
The book argues that throughout histtory, societies needed both mythos - which is religion, faith, things you did not need evidence for, and logos - which is common sense, logic, science, and things you have evidence for.
Everytime in history that a society tried to do away with one or the other, it led to disaster. In a nutshell, man without mythos becomes lost and fails to find purpose in existance, and man without logos is stagnant and cannot advance at all.
Taking this into consideration, it seems that in the world, the two ideas are batting each other. You see this in the US with the ever-familiar CvE arguments, which mixes up the two as fundies want to apply logical thought to what should be mythos.
If you believe what the book expounds upon, and what Armstrong has commented on in numerous interviews I have heard and read, it seems that we are headed for even more strife as fundamentalists grow more extreme and others get even more liberal. Something will have to give. The big question is what will give…
Her hunch is that people will on the whole realize the futility of this, and that people will for the most part become more liberal in their worship, and that there will be unity amongst very different ideas and theologies. We are seeing this to a degree as religious leaders are reaching out to each other more than ever before in history.
At least I hope it’s that, because if not, I see the Crusades, part two. God help us all…
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, 18 hours, 15 minutes and 45 seconds.
310 cigarettes not smoked, saving $38.80.
Life saved: 1 day, 1 hour, 50 minutes.
Why wouldn’t the universe start? Why wouldn’t you be here? Both have occurred because they are obeying the basic physical laws by which the universe operates. These physical laws are dictated by the existence and properties of their smallest components. This is not to say that we fully understand these laws and properties yet, but it’s safe to say that it’s only a matter of time – as long as we keep looking and don’t just say, “gee, God wanted it that way, so that’s the way it is.”
What Satan said. (Kids, you have no idea how unnerving it is to find myself constantly agreeing with a poster who goes under the moniker, “Satan.”)
There is too much about this universe that cannot be explained rationally. I hate it when people want me to give a logical explanation for my Catholic faith. Actually, the Far Eastern religions make more sense on a logical level, and they openly ask their adherants to suspend logical thought.
I believe that faith is a gift from God. It transcends any logic or scientific knowlege. Also, since I became a believing Catholic, the fact that the Universe refuses to make any kind of sense doesn’t bother me nearly so much.
Seven out, line away, pay the don’ts and last come.
In the Brian Stableford’s novella, “Mortimer Gray’s History of Death,” (Azimov’s Science Fiction, April 1995 and The Year’s Best Science Fiction, 13th Annual Collection)the protagonist argues that Religion is the opening salvo in man’s war with Death. Lacking a scientific basis with with to directly challenge Death, Religion arose to help reconcile ourselves with a millennial struggle; one which most participants would not live to see victory.
An interesting idea, and one that will be proven when and if we do conquer natural death.
Another interesting perspective is in Robert Anton Wilson’s “Prometheus Rising.” In it he describes four mental “circuits”:
[ul][li]First: Survival[/li][li]Second: Dominance[/li][li]Third: Intellectual[/li][li]Fourth: Social/Sexual[/ul][/li]
An interesting metaphysical division, at least. It seems clear that it’s easy to assign most behavior in one of those four categories, and that they increase in sophistication.
It seems clear that the Fundamentalist/Literalist Christian religion belongs to the second category. God is the big Daddy in the sky, and one must sumbit to Him in the most literal way.
Science and reason clearly belong to the third category, almost by definition. I think that “Interpretive Christianity” belongs in this category as well. One could argue that a scientific/interpretive world-view has more sophistication than a submissive world-view.
As Satan noted though, there is another axis to consider. The “circuits” refers to a descriptive/interpretive axis; Satan compels us to also consider the motivational/meaningful axis. It is the “stories” of ourselves that bind a culture together; some bind all humans together. We respond to the mythos directly, not as an interpretation of our world, but as a literal definition of it.
But whether this mythos can be termed a “religion” is open to debate. One of the reasons that the term “mythos” has been coined is to attempt to drop the connotative baggage of “Religion”. Religion, for all too long has stood not for the the stories that bind us together, but the vehicle by which some have justified their inhumanity, oppression and evil. Some are using Religion, even now, to try to hold us back, in the vain effort to deny the evolution of human society and the full expression of our potential.
Keats said, “Poets are the unacknowleged legistlators of the world.” It is the poets, the novelists, the painters and artists, not the priests, the pundits or the politicians, who create the mythos.
I think the days of Religion being thrust down the peoples’ throats by threat of damnation and force of arms is soon coming to an end. It may, sadly, be a bloody end. Regardless, of that sort of Religion I will not be unhappy to se the end.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Oddly enough, this was an idea I had about religion when I was in High School - so either it’s a crackpot idea, or I was way ahead of the times for a change.
I worded it in a bit more simplistic jargon, though. I said that cave dudes realized that other cave dudes stopped moving. However, this was usually because of some large animal eating them or similar catastrophy. SO they decided that avoiding catastrophy was good.
Then some cave dudes were able to avoid being killed by something in their surroundings, only to be found not moving for no good reason at all! Then they started smelling badly. Then they turned ugly! Finally, if the cave dudes weren’t grossed out at this point, they saw their cave dude friend vanish.
Now, this scared the cave dudes! I mean, who wants to life knowing that one day, you will just stop, and no avoidance of catastrophy will change this? Well, there MUST be something more! There MUST be a purpose!
The only problem with this theory is why did people in the old Pagan religions need a God for everything that they simply couldn’t explain? Why did it take so long for momotheistic religions to come to us? If I recall correctly, monotheistic religions were quite rare until relatively recently in our theologicval evolution as a species.
**
Well, it wasn’t always LIKE that, you no doubt know. Look at the story of Issac Luria (1534-72), a Ashkenazie Jew who, it was believed by Jews exiled from Spain at the time, was a prophet. A Jewish sect still bears his name, in fact.
His main story was a retelling of the creation. His recounting was totally unlike Genesis. While the story in Genesis was a peaceful, ordered borth, Luria told of great volcanos, destruction, storms, and trial and error while God tried to get it right.
In spite of the fact that his story was a 100% deviation from what was written in Genesis, the story of his tale spread throughout the Jews of the world, all of whom believed it!
Why? Because it was during a particularly hard time to be a Jew. Many countries were kicking them out if they didn’t convert to other faiths. All of the race became displaced, and they related to Luria’s story - and in fact NEEDED it - because it showed them that the strife in their lives was natural, and that things would get better thanks to God.
Now, imagine someone rewriting Genesis today and saying it was inspired… Well, one could argue that science is rewriting Genesis - at least that’s what the fundies think!
What’s ironic is that these people who believe in everything int he Bible to the letter is literal, had they been around during Jesus’ time, would probably said something along the lines of, “He’s a nice guy and all, but the prophesies have not come true, and not only that, he says we should do away with Levitical Law? The word of God is infallable! This Jesus MUST be a blasphemer!”
**
And thus, you hit the nail on the head. Yes, many folks from the Crusades )and before) to whatever extremist Islamic group blows up an airplane in the name of Allah next have used religion to justify their means. I used to blame God for this. I don’t anymore, I blame assholes who didn’t really know Him now, but that’s just my opinion.
I believe we are on the same page with this thought, SingleDad. Please do get the book I recommended above. It’s a fascinating read.
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, one day, 22 hours, 41 minutes and 1 second.
357 cigarettes not smoked, saving $44.73.
Life saved: 1 day, 5 hours, 45 minutes.
I don’t think religion neccessarily is based on a fear of death. Many religions do not have a well ordered concept of an afterlife. Judaism did not until fairly recently. Buddhism in some forms does not. The Ancient Greeks viewed the afterlife as a dismal and depressing place, if Homer is any guide. ( I think Cecil did a column about this but I am to lazy to look it up.)
I think religion comes from two sources. First is the need for meaning and Second is the need for Social Order. Since niether need is going away anytime soon, we will always have religions.
I believe that as we grow more sophisticated, religion will become more abstract. this is the trend of history. We don’t believe that lightning is the thunderbolts of Zeus, but we could believe that God underlies the physical laws which cause, among other things, electricity.
The other possibility is a fundamentalist, anti-scientific revolution. Given trends in Afghanistan and Kansas, this is a grim possibility.
billehunt claimed that science has done away
with the soul. Actually, to the contrary, scientists are discovering the scientific mechanism for the soul, proving that what’s going on with you emotionally and spiritually has a definite effect on your physical health and well-being.
The segregation between soul and science has a historical basis - when the Church realized that it was losing the battle with the heretics who insisted that the earth revolved around the sun and other provable facts, they called a truce. By this truce the Church owns the knowledge of the soul, and Science owns the knowledge of physics and chemistry. This truce is crumbling as scientists are using the scientific method to discover the mechansims by which neurotransmitters etc cause our emotions, and simultaneously are showing how our emotions affect our bodies.
Does the soul live on after the body perishes? Science has not been able to measure it if it does. But for a long time we were ignorant fo X-rays too. Then again, perhaps the soul lives on and is measured in the works that the deceased leave behind - art, architecture, writings, estates, etc. Cold comfort to those facing the loss of a loved one, if your religion is where you seek shelter from the certainty of death. And that, IMHO, is the big attraction to religion. At least, it’s the big attraction to Christianity.
Apparently, the Hebrew word for “prophet” was also used to refer to poets, musicians, and storytellers. In anciet societies, historians, poets, and priests were often the same person.
I don’t know where you heard this, but it’s 100% wrong. Prophet is “Navi”, sometimes “Chozeh” (which means “seer”) is used by a prophet. Musician is “Meshorer” (from the root “Shir,” song), or “Menagen” (from the root “Niggun,” tune). Storyteller is “Maggid” (“teller”). Not sure of a Hebrew word for poet, but I highly doubt it would be “prophet,” unless it’s a prophetic poem to begin with.
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
I’ve read (In A History of God, I beleive) that primitive man started out as a monotheist, then went to polytheism, then to monotheism, etc. I suspect both have their appeal; with polytheism you get specialists, with monotheism the One Big Boss. There’s also animism, which can go either way; either everything has a piece of the same big spirit, or they’re all a bunch of separate little spirits.
OOHH! OOHH! ME! ME! I’m going to post a response to this in the thread I started. That deals more with the why of religious situations currently, this is more the which direction will religons go in the future. http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001762.html
