What hope do you see for humankind's deliverance from organized religion?

[Bellevance]

Is there good reason to believe that the prejudice, superstition, and delusion instilled from childhood in most of the world's people by organized religion will some day afflict only a small minority? If so, what hopeful signs do you see? What social conditions will have to be met? How long will it take before contemporary religious faith becomes as marginalized and frivolous as astrology and the Greek and Norse and Mayan myths are today? Or do you think that the innate need in people for any solace in the face of inevitable suffering and unbearable knowledge is too powerful ever to be broadly overcome?

 

[Pachipro]

Dang you bring up some great questions for debate Bellevance and I would love to comment, but I have to get some sleep and will not be back on for a few days. Suffice it to say, religion is what the majority tell us it is and nothing more.

People are easily swayed as can be seen by the recent election of Obama in the US when his cabinet and line of crooks is nothing different than Bushs' or Clintons' cabinet. Yesterday, he said that the Wall Street executives' bonuses were unwarranted and not right and the mainstream "Bamamedia" screams it out and most people believe he is a man of the people when the truth be told he is just saying what the people want to hear an nothing will change and they will never give up their bonuses.

The same with religion. If tomorrow the mainstream media told us that the bible was a myth and that the greek mythologies and other mythologies were more the truth, and they fabricated stories to back up their claim and held steady with it and it was on NPT and CNN and MSNBC and FOX and in the papers, then the majority would believe it and accept it as "fact" even though those telling it knew it was a falsehood from the beginning.

People are so easily swayed as they (the populace) often say, "If it was the truth then it would be on the evening news." And, when "it" does becomes the "news" people suck it up and believe it as they are too lazy and distracted to do their own independent research and question their "leaders" (i.e masters).

Humans NEED something to believe in and believe in what their leaders tell them whether fact or not. If the leaders say it then it must be so. The same sad truth with religion. Humans are bred to believe that they need to believe in religion and a creator. It's the easiest way of controlling the masses and dividing people.

As I've often said, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" (Wizard of OZ). And the sheeple follow without question. Such is, sad as it may be, the same with religion.

 

[Emoni]

I see(hope) in future that religion will become less of a deciding factor in the "world nation." Religion I view as a method of control along the lines of Pachipro's explanation of the "need to believe." Religion is about "what to do" without the "why do it." Focus on the answers, but little on the questions themselves or forbidding those very questions that oppose the group.

As education increases, I do feel that there will be more of a tenancy to question the "why" and look beyond previous answers that contain no "method to their madness." While I feel that belief will always exist, I feel that it will hopefully become less of a deciding factor in the realm of rational choices in life based on irrational "faith."

I'm on 3 hours sleep so I, like Pachipro, can't give a very good reply that would be fitting of this topic. I expect this will be one interesting heated thread.

 

[bertiefink]

I'm glad you posted this Bellevance. This is more along the lines of my personal viewpoints which I think were out of place in the Science/Creationism thread.
I think it's important to realize that the issue of attacking something which causes fear, can end up doing exactly what it preaches against. As an example, take a look at communism and it's religious intolerance. I don't think we can assume that the originators of the system came right out and said "we are an evil organization, and we are looking forward to persecuting those involved in religion". More than likely, their presentation was that of eliminating and preventing systems that would themselves instill fear, control the minds of people, etc., for the good of the people, just as any nation today would. Religious persecution is practiced by one religion against another. When a government or some form of power believes that the answer to the problem is to remove religions, the very same problem continues on. The humanists, or however they want to refer to themselves end up pushing their belief system, thus instilling things like fear into those they're supposedly attempting to liberate.

 

[Bellevance]

I think it's important to realize that the issue of attacking something which causes fear can end up doing exactly what it preaches against. As an example, take a look at communism and its religious intolerance. I don't think we can assume that the originators of the system came right out and said. "We are an evil organization, and we are looking forward to persecuting those involved in religion."

Attacking religion is nothing I would ever recommend, despite its patent falsity and aggressive irrationality. Religion can be (and is being) undermined by reasoned discourse. But very slowly. Too slowly. Will there ever dawn a post-theistic age? Hard to say. But that's my question.

Karl Marx, the German philosopher who wrote THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (1848) laid the groundwork for the Bolshevist revolution in Russia, as well as for the failed experiments with Communism as an alternative to capitalism in some parts of the world. Those in Russia and China and elsewhere who subscribed to Marxist ideology sought to forbid and destroy organized religion, it's true. Their tactics were crude and ultimately counter-productive. But their ambition, insofar as it was in accord with Marx's philosophy, was right on.

Marx said, "Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand."

He was absolutely right. That's religion's raison d'etre in a single sentence.

He also said, "Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

Attempts to abolish religion, as communist governments have engaged in them, have never been regarded as evil moves (except by believers, naturally). The motives were good ones. It's the tactics that were rotten. In trying to elminate religious influences, communist governments have been inspired by a highly laudable desire to free the people from their Bronze-Age illusions, because, as Marx said, "The abolition of religion...is the demand for their real happiness."

Marx, ideally, would have freed the people from their fears and superstitions, and the idealistic communists would have done the same thing. The trouble was they were way too clumsy and autocratic about it. No cultural change of such magnitude can be accomplished by force and declaration; it cannot be imposed. There must be an organic process by which people gradually come to see that religion is merely a crutch, a crutch they have limped along on all their lives without ever realizing that they didn't need any crutch at all! How sad that most people hobble through all of their days, from kindergarten to the tomb, without ever discovering that they can skip and run.

 

[bertiefink]

Marx, ideally, would have freed the people from their fears and superstitions, and the idealistic communists would have done the same thing. The trouble was they were way too clumsy and autocratic about it. No cultural change of such magnitude can be accomplished by force and declaration; it cannot be imposed. There must be an organic process by which people gradually come to see that religion is merely a crutch, a crutch they have limped along on all their lives without ever realizing that they didn't need any crutch at all! How sad that most people hobble through all of their days, from grad school to the tomb, without ever discovering that they can skip and run.

One of the problems could quite possibly be the definition of religion. Jesus actually addressed the religious in many of His rebukes. Possibly, the majority of His rebukes (as far as in the 4 Gospels). When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus, he dealt with him on a different level than many of His other personal encounters, because Nicodemus was a "man of religion". Jesus' statement to Nicodemus was "you must be born again". Nicodemus, being unenlightened spiritually, completely misunderstood Him. Jesus questioned him at his own level, inquiring as to how it was he couldn't understand something spiritual being one who associated himself to spirituality by being "a man of religion".

A personal/spiritual relationship is not the same as being 'religious'. A personal relationship should remove religion. I say should because as Paul stated later on in the New Testament, religiosity was a type of backsliding. A temptation to fall back into, just like any other type of sin.
However, being a Born-Again believer is dumped into the same category as religion. This is why bullets were shot through the heads of believers in Russia, and why there are Born-Again believers today in prisons in China.

 

[bertiefink]

A bit of irony, albeit on a bit of a side note, China is not so much against organized religion as they are what they perceive as unorganized religion. If Christian worship is practiced within a state run church (3 Self Church) it's relatively ok. It's when they congregate to themselves in some remote village, or from birds eye view of leadership, there's a problem.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

Ah yes. It's the usual suspects on yet another debate to understand the mysteries of theism.

I don't believe that organized religion will ever be abolished and am not so confident that atheists will ever outweight theists. I had hoped that with patches of radical groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church (visit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church if you're curious of who they are and please do not visit their homepage as it will only help promote this ridiculous cult,) religions would inadvertently promote sensibility to the masses that witness such shocking methods. It would seem that religions don't concern themselves with contradicting each other. Most share one thing in common, "Do we all agree in a higher power?" For most people that I've met, answering "yes" to this question is satisfying enough. In this logic, you can debunk religions all you want and there is always going to be those whom choose to believe on principle alone. No proof required.

Out of downright frustration. I do feel a need to just be cruelly candid in my atheist views. To come out and say. "Yeah. I do think theism is stupid. I'm not sorry for saying so either."

 

[bertiefink]

Ah yes. It's the usual suspects on yet another debate to understand the mysteries of theism.
I don't believe that organized religion will ever be abolished and am not so confident that atheists will ever outweight theists. I had hoped that with patches of radical groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church (visit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church if you're curious of who they are and please do not visit their homepage as it will only help promote this ridiculous cult,) religions would inadvertently promote sensibility to the masses that witness such shocking methods. It would seem that religions don't concern themselves with contradicting each other. Most share one thing in common, "Do we all agree in a higher power?"

My take on religious sects, cults, etc.; whenever there's a certain insistence to attain salvation, Heaven, some sort of state of Nirvana, etc. If one has to join an organization to "attain", give money to "attain", do certain works (go door to door, hand out pamphlets, etc.) to "attain".
If one were to say, take a look at the thief on the cross on one side of Jesus who expressed repentance, we can see that he could not do any of those examples. Yet, he was told that he would be with Jesus in Paradise that very day.

 

[Glenski]

Is there good reason to believe that the prejudice, superstition, and delusion instilled from childhood in most of the world's people by organized religion will some day afflict only a small minority?

No.

If so, what hopeful signs do you see? What social conditions will have to be met?

Aliens will have to land on the White House lawn and not disintegrate too much of the population.

Look, religion and superstition (tongue in cheek distinction noted) have been around for thousands of years, perhaps as long as man (in whatever evolutionary stage you desire) has been able to think. Why should it go away in any future, let alone near future, date?

 

[Bellevance]

Look, religion and superstition ... have been around for thousands of years, perhaps as long as man (in whatever evolutionary stage you desire) has been able to think. Why should it go away [on] any future, let alone near future, date?

The origins of religion are, of course, a separate subject, but in short, religions were established to supply satisfying answers to questions that, in earlier ages, humans were unable to answer with facts and truth. Religions were formed to supply solace, to alleviate fear and doubt, and to allow humans to believe they could influence natural events through supernatural intervention. The power structure that developed around the institution of religion in culture after culture, run by the answer-givers, created for itself enormous wealth and influence. In recent years, however, the absolute power of the church or mosque or synagogue has been on the wane across the world. That is surely is a hopeful sign.

To ask why religion should go away is to presuppose that on balance religion is a good thing. It isn't. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1786, "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Million of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." Widespread organized systems of faith in supernatural beings and events are a common viral disease of the human mind. The disease persists because all over the world children are deliberately infected with it before they are able to think for themsleves.

As Professor Steve Bruce has said, "People do not accidentally become religious. Being a Christian is not 'natural'; it is an acquired characteristic. Like a language, it must be learned and, if it is not used in the home, in everyday conversation and in public life, it dies out. As the population that speaks a minority tongue shrinks, decline does not slow; it becomes faster. There is no natural obstacle to the death of a language. I do not see why the fate of a religion should be different."

That's the question here. The question has to do with whether religions are likely diminish significantly in their influences and, if so, how long will that process take.

To assume that because religions "have been around for thousands of years" they somehow must be ineradicable from human society is wrong-headed. Until just 150 years ago, another corrupt institution held sway over human thought and behavior from the dawn of civilization in almost every culture, so much so that its natural social existence was taken for granted and even supported by those men who wrote the bible. Three hundred years ago, very few people would have imagined that it was possible, or even advisable, to end the organized enslavement of other peoples by dominant races. Today, though slavery still exists, it has been marginalized, and intelligent people everywhere view it as wrong.

There is a strong, undeniable correlation between good education and increasingly nontheistic attitudes. As people as a whole learn more, their dependence on (and regard for) religion diminishes. This has been a steady trend now for almost three centuries. Can humans, in time, free themselves from religion's stifling grip? Forced servitude enslaves bodies. Religion enslaves minds. When may we all be free?

 

[Mars Man]

My take, or thoughts, on 'what hope' I would see for humankind's (and I'd beg poetic license of sorts here) freedom from religious belief-systems would more likely not be so involved. I tend to hold the position that any major change would, most unfortunately, be somewhat far into the future.

When the founding fathers of the United States got things going, it was a material break, in a lot of ways, to follow a course of the right of freedom of religion--meaning a person could follow any religious belief-system they so desired. In my humble opinion it was, at the same time, too bad that the corollary had not been taken along with it; viz. 'the right of freedom from religion.'

The conclusion of the inaguration speech was kind of funny to me--god bless America (instead of, for example 'god bless America too' of the likes)--but, again, in my humble opinion, why could the having-just-been-sworn-in president simply have ignored such religious belief-system rhetoric?

I find it a tad lacking, in a practical manner, to entertain too high of a hope for my lifetime (and that of my children's too).





ps. (as a side note here,Aqua Lung san had written, " take a look at the thief on the cross on one side of Jesus who expressed repentance, we can see that he could not do any of those examples. Yet, he was told that he would be with Jesus in Paradise that very day."

Without attempting to judge your purpose for having written that, I simple wish to point out that as far as textual accuracy goes, that line is very uncertain--more likely nothing of the sorts had been in the orginal exemplar. On top of that, such an event most likely did not occur (even taking the historical Yeshua to have been impaled).

 

[Malamis]

Attempts to abolish religion, as communist governments have engaged in them, have never been regarded as evil moves (except by believers, naturally). The motives were good ones.

Sorry, I cant let this one pass uncontested, not least because my family was both directly and indirectly affected.

The one and only reason that both Christian and indigenous organisations were quashed in China, Vietnam (not so much) and indeed the Soviet Bloc was to remove a seperate and independent political infrastructure. In the case of China this was valid as sadly many a missionary society was subversively funded by their parent government, and so casting out the foreign God had a real and legitimate benefit to it. The fact mr Marx gave them a rationalised reason to do so is just a happy coincidence.

It's the tactics that were rotten.

Not necessarily. East Germany very considerately offered to supplant the rites and procedures in direct imitation of (e.g. Lutheran) sectarian doctrine, such as the Jugen zvie so that no-one would miss out. I understand this was a fairly important event ( sort of like a christening but with the full knowledge and participation of the child), with the only changes being the direction of vows to The State instead of to God. This conveniently put the youth in a position where it was co-operate with the state and their peers, or publicly side with "unpatriotic and ignorant" parents.

For an entirely biased look at this, I'd recommend "God's Smuggler" by Brother Andrew.

As for the actual topic at hand, religion, as in "thou shalt and don't ask why" will always be here. Whether it is administered my men in skirts or a nameless and faceless bureaucracy (welfare state anyone?) is a matter for prognosticators with a stake in the future. Me, I'm thinking the latter as the Machine God rises to domination of some future society, but i'm sure some eco-senstitive sorts have their own version, the climatologists their own version and so on.

 

[bertiefink]

Without attempting to judge your purpose for having written that, I simple wish to point out that as far as textual accuracy goes, that line is very uncertain--more likely nothing of the sorts had been in the orginal exemplar. On top of that, such an event most likely did not occur (even taking the historical Yeshua to have been impaled).

Just to take the scripture as is, the reason I posted it was because of an earlier reference by another poster mentioning a cult or cults. I was trying to show a contrast between following rules and guidelines established by a man or organization to attain right standing with God, and merely having a repentant heart. Obviously, it was impossible for that particular individual (the one thief on the cross) to give any money, preach to others, attain membership in an organization, or anything that a cult may claim one needs to do to become right with God, develop through a period of time good karma for a possible reincarnation, etc.
To get back to the issue of organized religion, I will try to use the term on any related spiritual situation, because that's what most people will relate to. I think we really have to question what the angst is towards specifically organized religion. What is the preferred style of religion? Is the poster or anyone with said sentiment requesting chaotic disorganized religion? Probably not. Is it wrong for a group to desire organization? Would one suggest an unorganized government? The more likely desired alternative to organized religion would be a believe what you want, but keep it to yourself form of religion. If a charismatic leader popped up who somehow successfully did away with organized religion, more than likely he would become a god of sorts as we've already seen happen in certain secular societies. This would probably become an organized religion in the governmental sense. One of the terms for religion leaves out divinity, so mere a human, or governmental structure, could be seen as a god. There's also the problem of what to do with Buddhism? There is at least one faction that does not believe in any deities whatsoever. They may be less of a religion than those who worship and idolize certain political leader figures.


From what I can tell; this is a general mind-set to the topic at hand:
1. There has never been a god, but except for an elite few who exist today, man has needed a religious crutch one way or another (except of course for this elite highly advanced few).
2. In a bit more recent history, there have been some that were closer to the elite few who live today who had the right idea (Marx, Lenin, maybe Mao-Tse Tung), but botched things up a bit. A few too many executions, imprisonments (apparently they lost it because those religious folk just wouldn't liberate themselves).
3. Now, we are almost in the prime of manhood because although there are countless humans who still need the crutch of religion; at least there does exist this highly educated elite who could successfully do what Marx, Hitler(?), and maybe Nero and various Roman emperors failed to do. They wouldn't of course stoop to any extreme and questionable method, because somehow there's been this progression that has taken place that places us somehow on a higher level than our predecessors.
Is it possible that those individuals or governments used in my last examples (and others) have failed because they were actually trying to do battle with God? If one actually looked into the number of worldwide conversions to religion, the only secularized answers would have to consist of some very sloppy psychology at best.

 

[Malamis]

Is it possible that those individuals or governments used in my last examples (and others) have failed because they were actually trying to do battle with God? If one actually looked into the number of worldwide conversions to religion, the only secularized answers would have to consist of some very sloppy psychology at best.

You just crowned an already splendid day with a lasting smile.

 

[Bellevance]

To get back to the issue of organized religion, I will try to use the term on any related spiritual situation, because that's what most people will relate to. I think we really have to question what the angst is towards specifically organized religion. What is the preferred style of religion? Is the poster or anyone with said sentiment requesting chaotic disorganized religion?

Again, the vision that I subscribe to--and the vision that my question entertains--has nothing to do with attacks against religion. I am not proposing that any human aggression will, or should, repress or stamp out organized relgion. I don't think that's possible. As I've said, such sweeping change could never be imposed. Yet it can be, as John Lennon said, imagined. And the more of us who can imagine it and hope for it, the closer we may get, bit by bit, to religion's marginalization. (And by organized religion I mean institutionized groups who share the same set of beliefs (dogma) based solely on faith and who adhere to this shared dogma based on some central, inspiring text that's deemed to be somehow "sacred" and ultimately handed down by some invisible imagined deity. I don't mean governments or corporations or any other autocratic authority or cult.)

What I'm talking about is the benign prospect of intellectual evolution. As we humans have become better informed and less superstitious, we have jettisoned many of our absurd supernatural convictions. Just as people no longer believe that the sun god really rides around the earth in a chariot, so will people gradually, naturally, cease to swallow our contemporary religious myths, like heaven and hell and angels and miracles. Some day, the bible and the qur'an and the Morman book and all the rest will all come to be seen merely as works of poetic literature and folk wisdom. How long will it take before most of the world's people will be able to see the world and its phenomena clearly and rationally?

...except for an elite few who exist today, man has needed a religious crutch one way or another (except of course for this elite highly advanced few)

No. The point is that no one needs a crutch. People, however, have been handed a crutch at an early age--a precious, golden crutch--and they have been warned never ever to let it go or they will stumble and fall (and maybe dwell in excruciating hellfire for all eternity). The crutch is a great hoax.

Is it possible that those individuals or governments used in my last examples (and others) have failed because they were actually trying to do battle with God?

No. The reasons they failed are complex, and in some ways, looking back, they are also obvious, but they have little or nothing to do with battling any supposed deity.

 

[Emoni]

I wish I could add something to be honest... but Bellevance is covering almost everything I was going to say in a much better fashion to boot.

I do want to add, that a pull away from religion may very well be seen as an "attack" on religion. Not just from Christians, but Islamic, Buddhist (seriously, lots of money involved there) etc... There does tend to be a very easy path to take of the "victim" against an argument or declaration of having no need for religion or not wanting/being repulsed by the actions of a group religion(s).

Honestly... why not attack religion? To complain against that, is actually a bit silly. We aren't talking about group hate mobs lynching others, decapitating a priest on TV, or even burning symbols of religion here (sound familiar?), we are talking about asking demanding that a religion justify itself and its purpose along with the reason it exists under its own declared self purpose. I think that questioning, and attacking blatant illogical flaws in religion is EXACTLY what should be done. To me, to make "not questioning/not attacking" a holy act, is to literally reinforce stupidity and ignorance as the blind behavior of faith. It is this, if not maybe this alone, that I see as one of the most dangerous behaviors that religion perpetuates. The willing to declare as fact, which you have NO proof of, then force it into reality where it doesn't belong nor has never existed.

It is the break away from this "blind faith" and refusal to question or think rationally, that I wish for the most. This doesn't really exist for those casually religions, but I tend to wonder if that is simply the case because they haven't really looked too hard at it.

 

[Bellevance]

Honestly... why not attack religion? To complain against that, is actually a bit silly. We aren't talking about group hate mobs lynching others, decapitating a priest on TV, or even burning symbols of religion here (sound familiar?), we are talking about asking demanding that a religion justify itself and its purpose along with the reason it exists under its own declared self purpose. I think that questioning, and attacking blatant illogical flaws in religion is EXACTLY what should be done. To me, to make "not questioning/not attacking" a holy act, is to literally reinforce stupidity and ignorance as the blind behavior of faith.

I completely agree with you, Emoni. As Sam Harris has written, "While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about."

The kind of attack I'm objecting to is the kind implied in the above posts, an attack that might be broad-based, repressive, cruelly intolerant, and purgative; the kind imposed by dictators, mobs, and secret police. Individual acts of conscientious dispute and contradiction, however, whether in public settings or within families, are just what rational, thinking people must resort to when they are compelled to take part in, or acquiesce to, rituals of piety or impositions of received dogma.

Those of us who prize reason over superstition must stand up for ourselves and for the supremacy of reason. In fact, I think it's partly in that way that the grip of organized religion upon our other institutions, like government, schools, and the military, may gradually be loosened.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

We aren't talking about group hate mobs lynching others, decapitating a priest on TV, or even burning symbols of religion.

Well. There goes my next subject material.

 

[Emoni]

I do think that it is worth pointing out that while I am atheist in some sense of the word (one member clarified my thoughts fell under "weak atheism"), that I do not see anything wrong about wondering or believing in "something beyond that which we currently perceive." Honestly, I think that if you consider your own sense of consciousness and idea of self, then it leads you to consider the possibility of a "soul" or "ultimate self." There may be things far beyond what we know. Look at the knowledge in general possessed by the human race 1000 years ago compared to now. We have advanced so much in a very short period of time.

As silly as some ideas may be at times, I have no qualms with anyone believing whatever they want to about what may exist beyond the currently perceived world; in fact, I encourage it. I have no problems with people living their life a way that they feel is just for whatever feeling or experiences in life have lead them to believe may be the meaning of life, or what may await them after they die, as long as this doesn't hurt or inflict trouble on others. I DO have a problem when "belief" is changed to "absolute fact" without any supporting evidence, and then this way of thinking is then forcefully applied to all others and questioning this is forbidden.

It is quite one thing to say, "I believe their is a God," and "I know there is a God, anyone who says there is not is a heathen and will suffer in hell." One humbly and intelligently acknowledges that they cannot prove the existence themselves, but believes based on various experiences or reasons they hold true. The other has changed this belief into a self truth that must be enforced, and not questioned, yet ultimately as fragile as a glass house in that it cannot bend, it cannot accept any outside ideas or be flexible in anyway.

The latter is what I have a vehemently oppose, and what I see all too much of.

 

[Glenski]

Again, the vision that I subscribe to--and the vision that my question entertains--has nothing to do with attacks against religion. I am not proposing that any human aggression will, or should, repress or stamp out organized relgion. I don't think that's possible.
(snip)

What I'm talking about is the benign prospect of intellectual evolution. As we humans have become better informed and less superstitious, we have jettisoned many of our absurd supernatural convictions.

Then you have just answered your own question and done nothing except repeat our answers.

It won't happen soon, if at all.

Just as people no longer believe that the sun god really rides around the earth in a chariot, so will people gradually, naturally, cease to swallow our contemporary religious myths, like heaven and hell and angels and miracles.

You cannot possible support that statement with any fact.

No. The point is that no one needs a crutch.

Again, fallacious argument. How old are you, by the way? Some people discover religion at a later stage in life. Others find it in other ways, sometimes by a catastrophic event in their lives.

BTW, I don't know Sam Harris and totally disagree with his statement about prestige. Ever watch a Billy Graham presentation? Ever hear people on the other side of the fence scoff at it? There ya go! Kiss prestige g'bye.



Why do you even care how long it'll take before religion goes away (as if it ever will)? Perhaps this remark you made says some clue:

Those of us who prize reason over superstition must stand up for ourselves and for the supremacy of reason.

I choose to believe what I want, respect others for their beliefs, and only criticize those who flood Internet forums with nonsense about quasi-scientific issues relating science and religion. How about you?

 

[Bellevance]

Then you have just answered your own question and done nothing except repeat our answers.

Sorry, no. My questions are based on a set of valid assumptions, assumptions that you evidently find irritating. My questions are these: "...what hopeful signs do you see? What social conditions will have to be met? How long will it take before contemporary religious faith becomes as marginalized and frivolous as astrology and the Greek and Norse and Mayan myths are today? Or do you think that the innate need in people for any solace in the face of inevitable suffering and unbearable knowledge is too powerful ever to be broadly overcome?"

In other words, Glenski, I am asking what others may think about the future of organized religion based on apprehensible cultural trends. I have no interest in repeating others' answers. I'm interested in knowing, first, what others' thoughts are, and second, how persuasively they may be able to support their thoughts.

I wrote: Just as people no longer believe that the sun god really rides around the earth in a chariot, so will people gradually, naturally, cease to swallow our contemporary religious myths, like heaven and hell and angels and miracles.

Glenski said, You cannot [possibly] support that statement with any fact.

The statement is an extrapolation from fact. Its factual support is integral to the statement. (It's a fact that people no longer believe in a chariot-driving sun god.) What's more, many additional facts are implicit in the proffered example. That's the purpose of a representative example. That is, the belief that a sun god drives a chariot around the earth is only one of thousands of once firmly held and widespread religious beliefs that, with time and enlightenment, people now regard as charming myths. Yet today millions of people still cling to other utterly unproven and unproveable beliefs because a supposedly holy book or holy man tells them they must believe; they must "have faith" in the absolute truth. The unmistakeable trend, in other words, is toward the wholesale discarding of absurd beliefs. Your opinion, however, appears to be that, on the matter of religious faith, most people will always mistrust or ignore their capacity for reason and will forever cling to their absurd, unproveable beliefs.

Again, fallacious argument. How old are you, by the way? Some people discover religion at a later stage in life. Others find it in other ways, sometimes by a catastrophic event in their lives.

I said that no one needs the crutch of religion to confront the challenges we all face in life. You call this a fallacious argument. You're wrong. It's not an argument, nor is it fallacious. Rather it is a statement of conviction. You disagree with it. That's OK. You seem to be answering the last part of my question, as to whether "the innate need in people for any solace in the face of inevitable suffering and unbearable knowledge is too powerful ever to be broadly overcome." You seem to think that people will always need to believe in myths like heaven and the afterlife in order to mitigate their fear of death. This may be so. I think it's a sad thing.

People may indeed "discover religion" later in life. Its delusional comforts are very seductive. They are an effective anodyne to all kinds of pain. Maybe such people suffer so much from psychological weakness and other afflictions that they truly do need religion's crutch.

I am a college professor, by the way. I am 61 years old. I teach rhetoric, contemporary literature, and creative writing. I am also a novelist, essayist, and screenwriter. I make my living as a freelance writer, primarily, and I've done so for 35 years.

BTW, I don't know Sam Harris and totally disagree with his statement about prestige. Ever watch a Billy Graham presentation? Ever hear people on the other side of the fence scoff at it? There ya go! Kiss prestige g'bye.

Your Billy Graham example does nothing to support your claim. Millions and millions of pious people of all faiths the world over, from Popes and bishops and nuns to self-flagellating devotees of Allah, are revered for their extreme piety and prayerfulness. Sam Harris is absolutely right. You could go a long way in furthering your education in these matters by reading Sam Harris's THE END OF FAITH, which won the 2004 PEN/Faulkner Award that year as the best book of nonfiction in America. He has an excellent Web site. Many of his talks and interviews are on YouTube.

Why do you even care how long it'll take before religion goes away (as if it ever will)? Perhaps this remark you made says some clue: "Those of us who prize reason over superstition must stand up for ourselves and for the supremacy of reason."

You misapply my comment. I was addressing Emoni's thoughts about aggressive believers who try to impose their views on other people and to insert them into secular institutions. Such trespasses must be resisted. I care about religion's ultimate marginalization because I regard this issue as perhaps the most profound of our time. The incompatibility of fiercely influential belief systems could easily lead to the end of civilization. This is, for most of the world's people, an intellectual dark age.

I choose to believe what I want, respect others for their beliefs, and only criticize those who flood Internet forums with nonsense about quasi-scientific issues relating science and religion. How about you?

I choose my own beliefs as well, and I respect others regardless of their beliefs, even if my respect may not extend to their beliefs per se. Your own demonstrations of respect in this discussion are pretty threadbare, I must say.

 

[Emoni]

And now is gets good~

 

[Glenski]

Ok, despite the obvious t-ish behavior, I'll make one last attempt:

My questions are these: "...what hopeful signs do you see? What social conditions will have to be met?

I've seen none. I've explained the social conditions (which you have chosen to ignore).

The statement is an extrapolation from fact. Its factual support is integral to the statement. (It's a fact that people no longer believe in a chariot-driving sun god.)

Yeah, and just how many hundreds of years did that take? Hint.

I said that no one needs the crutch of religion to confront the challenges we all face in life. You call this a fallacious argument. You're wrong. It's not an argument, nor is it fallacious. Rather it is a statement of conviction. You disagree with it. That's OK. You seem to be answering the last part of my question, as to whether "the innate need in people for any solace in the face of inevitable suffering and unbearable knowledge is too powerful ever to be broadly overcome." You seem to think that people will always need to believe in myths like heaven and the afterlife in order to mitigate their fear of death. This may be so. I think it's a sad thing.

It's your opinion whether someone needs that crutch. Leave it at that. Again, you are ignoring the reasons people feel they need it.

And, no, I do not think people will always need to believe in such things. Many don't already. But many will, so in that respect we agree. Whether it's sad or not depends on your POV. To some this is comforting, and it can be in various circumstances. Heinlein said it well, "Delusions are functional. They keep mothers from drowning us at birth."

Keep Sam Harris to yourself. My statement was clear and strong enough. Some people think of religion as a prestigious thing, while others (including yourself, so it seems) think otherwise. Point made.

The incompatibility of fiercely influential belief systems could easily lead to the end of civilization. This is, for most of the world's people, an intellectual dark age.

Ah! Now we come to what I think is your prime reason for starting this post. Ok, so you don't want to harp on the delusions of those who think God exists in whatever form. You want to discuss how the various religions oppose each other and that eventually they will destroy us all, perhaps in religious wars. Do I have that about right?

Oh, and to try reasoning as an intellectual task with people and their religious beliefs is futile.

 

[Bellevance]

I've explained the social conditions (which you have chosen to ignore).

As a social condition that might encourage widespread cultural change, aliens landing on the White House lawn and not killing too many people is a facetious extreme that deserves to be ignored. But your boyish sarcasm makes your point.

It's your opinion whether someone needs that crutch. Leave it at that. Again, you are ignoring the reasons people feel they need it.

Not at all. I understand why people may feel they need a crutch. The reasons, in fact, are part of the premise and the question.

Heinlein said it well, "Delusions are functional. They keep mothers from drowning us at birth."

Heinlein's cynical wit notwithstanding, mother love is not a delusion.

Keep Sam Harris to yourself. My statement was clear and strong enough. Some people think of religion as a prestigious thing, while others (including yourself, so it seems) think otherwise.

You misread Harris. And your claim that because some people may mock Billy Graham, extreme religious piety is not broadly held in high regard is false on its face.

You want to discuss how the various religions oppose each other and that eventually they will destroy us all, perhaps in religious wars. Do I have that about right?

Wrong again. If I had wanted to discuss the chances of such a conflagration, that would have been the thrust of the question. Nonetheless, the real possibility that Islamic fundamentalist elements of Pakistan's ISI could one day gain control of that country's nuclear arsenal is well worth everyone's concern.