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

[ShadowSpirit]

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.

I agree with this statement. I'm still annoyed by people who push their dogma onto other people though. Like when someone comes up to me and asks me if I've considered letting god into my heart. Well gee, if I did and still don't go to church, then apparently the answer is no. If I never did take into the consideration of it, then it obviously wasn't important enough to me.

Plus there are changes that need to be made in the spread of religion. If atheists stick with the open-minded philosophy of. "It's fair for them to believe what they will." Then we'll still have religious wars, U.S. presidents being required to have a religion to hold office, and discrimination against atheists.

 

[Bellevance]

I agree with this statement. I'm still annoyed by people who push their dogma onto other people though. Like when someone comes up to me and asks me if I've considered letting god into my heart. Well gee, if I did and still don't go to church, then apparently the answer is no. If I never did take into the consideration of it, then it obviously wasn't important enough to me.

Plus there are changes that need to be made in the spread of religion. If atheists stick with the open-minded philosophy of: "It's fair for them to believe what they will." Then we'll still have religious wars, U.S. presidents being required to have a religion to hold office, and discrimination against atheists.

Fair enough, ShadowSpirit--and I agree with you for the most part. But I don't think that it would be to our advantage for nontheists to insist, "It's not fair for them to believe what they will."

Grave religious conflicts, I believe, are bound to persist into the foreseeable future and beyond. I believe, too, that successful candidates for office in this country, at least, will have to profess and exhibit a faith in one of the mainstream religions. That's not going to change in our lifetime or in our children's lifetimes.

My question to you is when will it change, in your view. How long will it take? What hopeful trends do you see? When will the enlightenment of rationality and reason effectively overcome the stifling influences of Bronze Age dogma so that most people will be free to think for themselves, free of rigid indoctrination and imposed supernatural beliefs?

I ask because I wonder about it and also because I really don't know how to speculate. I see trends. Slavery, after all, which was not long ago an accepted, inviolable, worldwide institution--and one thoroughly endorsed by the bible--has been marginalized. The analogy isn't perfect, but can the marginalization of religion happen as speedily as in that case?

I see that in Sweden and Norway (and in much of the UK and many other countries), most people today have decidedly secular attitudes. And I have the confidence that reason will ultimately win out over dogma and superstition. But in 100 years? In 500? Or will civilization be destroyed in the meantime? Who can say?

 

[Mars Man]

If I may be allowed here, just one more, last 'off topic' comment, please. Glenski くん, I am not quite sure just why it is that you appear to be standing out of your chair, and leaning out over the table on this matter (and I am referring to the point having started with #21), yet wish to offer the suggestion that public education on the emptiness and inaptness of the major religious belief-systems living today to deliver on their long-term tenets, and the ability to educate on and through, and instill, a more empirically shown-to-be-so efficacious, lifestyle-affecting outlook on the universe, is most surely an ideal thing.

As educators, we can know first hand, the value of reason and logic, observation and testing, and scientific method. We can envisage a social fabric which has been emancipated from the shackles and barriers of 'in-group .vs. out-group' mentalities which our ignorant ancestors of millennium ago had forcedly instilled in the minds and hearts of the masses. We can intellectually understand that while the Homo sapien will not alter in so controllable nor desireable a time-scale, we would be prudent to expend effort, energy, and agape to correct the misplaced 'over-focus' that these old, rusty, and oft anti-philanthropic-on-the-universal-scale religious belief-system structures yet push on impressible and innocent brains.

Glenski くん, it could conceivably be that Bellevance san has an axe to grind. It may be, that much of his/her drive so far has been in that direction. However, Bellevance san is new, and would it not be more benign to allow the enthusiasm of newness (if I am correct in my description) to merge in with that more somewhat mellow form, that those of us who have been here longer, on this forum, should more reasonably and dialogically display?

 

[Glenski]

Mars Man,
Thanks for the input. I honestly did not understand your first paragraph at all, though. Sorry.

As for whether Bellevance has an axe to grind, I think that he does, and I am trying to find out just what it is! Will keep your comments in mind, though.

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.

Would you mind restating it then, because you lost me (and probably others as well)?

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.

Let's agree to disagree on this one.

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.

And I have the confidence that reason will ultimately win out over dogma and superstition. But in 100 years? In 500? Or will civilization be destroyed in the meantime? Who can say?

Grave religious conflicts, I believe, are bound to persist into the foreseeable future and beyond. I believe, too, that successful candidates for office in this country, at least, will have to profess and exhibit a faith in one of the mainstream religions. That's not going to change in our lifetime or in our children's lifetimes.

My question to you is when will it change, in your view. How long will it take?

All of the above quotes are quite clear. Nobody can say, other than to say things won't change significantly for a long time. Since it won't likely affect us or our immediate descendants, may I ask you, Bellevance, just why is it that this worries you so much?

 

[Mars Man]

I apologize for the wording and phrasing in that first paragraph, Glenski, and would like to simply clarify that here--solely for the purpose of assuring the previously communicated concept is carried forward, and not so as to extend an otherwise off-topic tangent.

In the mental imagery which my brain put out upon having read your #21, I saw a person in position at a large table, as one might find in a boardroom where discussion is going on, yet slightly raised out of the chair (thus a tad more emotionally involved than simply sitting on the edge of one's chair) and leaning out over the table (hands place flatly upon it so as to support the upper body). In my recall, such is most usually not your style, and so I wondered why it had appeared to have been so in that post--and onward, a bit.

The following portion:

. . .yet wish to offer the suggestion that public education on the emptiness and inaptness of the major religious belief-systems living today to deliver on their long-term tenets, and the ability to educate on and through, and instill, a more empirically shown-to-be-so efficacious, lifestyle-affecting outlook on the universe, is most surely an ideal thing.​

was to stress that what the aged religious belief-systems offer in long-term tenet, is empty in that it is incapable of being delivered on (details of this forthcoming, sooner or later, on another thread of mine). That fact, in turn, is something that the elements of the public education systems can replace with the better 'crutch' (if you will) of a more empirically known-to-be-so understanding of the universe and life and purpose in being a life form.

This knowledge and understanding will not be void of the innate emotion of religiosity that humans and maybe the primates have, yet it will focus on laying the old belief-systems with their databases aside, and bringing us together as a life form among many, in our proper and more evolutionarily natural position.

It is an ideal thing that the public be reached out to on this matter, in as many avenues that open up for such. While it would yet be most fitting and coherent to even work at falsifying this very drive, it would of course be of far greater resolution, to the academic community at large, to do so with the air which more so represents that community at large.

I do hope this explains my intended communication fairly enough; thanks Glenski san.

 

[Glenski]

religiosity that humans and maybe the primates have

Apes believe in God?

 

[Mars Man]

NO..., Glenski san, religiosity is an emotion, it is not a religious belief-system. It is only human created religious belief-systems that have modeled gods, out of the natural awe, reverence, and emotional tendency to admire the 'unknown' element of nature that that emotion leads too.

 

[Glenski]

I'm sorry, but my dictionary defines religiosity as follows:

1. the quality if being religious; piety; devoutness

2. affected or excessive devotion to religion

Can you see how I was confused?

 

[Bellevance]

As for whether Bellevance has an axe to grind, I think that he does, and I am trying to find out just what it is! Will keep your comments in mind, though.

I have no ax to grind. My interest is this proposition ("What hope do you see...?) is sincere and straightforward. I am interested in what others who are inclined to ponder future possibilities based on current trends think about what's likely to happen, when, and why.

Would you mind restating [the reasons people need religion's crutch] then, because you lost me (and probably others as well)?

To turn the last part of my original question around, most people in the world have a powerful, innate need for any solace in the face of inevitable suffering and unbearable knowledge. Human beings know that suffering, grief, and death are inevitable for everyone. We also possess the crushing knowledge that we occupy a vanishingly small speck in the unimaginable vastness of space and time, and in our refusal to accept our infinitesmalness we naturally yearn for ultimate meaning and for a sense of our significance in the face of that incomprehensibility. Religion supplies the crutch of superstition--of belief--that soothes our existential dread with transparent fairy tales, and it also posits the ludicrous notion that we exist at the center of the Universe, that the creator of the Universe not only created us in his image but made everything we see somehow for our use, pleasure, and benefit.

As Baron D'Holbach has written, "If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve its own interests."

"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution," Albert Einstein said, "human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world."

"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear," Bertrand Russell wrote. "It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes." He also said, "Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."

Many astute thinkers have expressed similar views, but as far as I know, none have given themselves to speculating about the time to come when most of the world's people may at last have liberated themselves from self-delusion.

Since [the future marginalization of organized religion] won't likely affect us or our immediate descendants, may I ask you, Bellevance, just why is it that this worries you so much?

It doesn't worry me at all. Because it is one of the most profound questions of our benighted age, it's worth discussing, I think.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I don't think religion will ever disappear. But I do think that religion's domain is shrinking, and will continue to do so. Here's something I posted in the religion discussion group that's relevant here:

I said: "As late as the 1850s, illnesses were treated by referring to the supposed works of the ancient physicians Hippocrates (5th century BCE) and Galen (2nd century CE). It was considered akin to heresy to question these texts. For example, it was forbidden in these texts for a doctor to take a knife to a patient's body, and so doctors didn't perform surgery or dissection.

Inevitably, medical science advanced and people did begin to question these texts. Nowadays, only the barest fragments of their teachings are still adhered to by doctors. They might still swear the Hippocratic Oath, but it only bears the slightest resemblance to the original.

The same thing is happening to religion. More and more people are questioning the relevance of religious texts to today's society, and scientific advance is rendering more of those teachings obsolete. The geocentric universe has been rejected by everyone bar a few cranks. The recent upsurge in creationism is just the last throes of a dying mythology before everyone is forced by the sheer overwhelming weight of evidence to accept evolution. I hope to see the day when the layman will accept that neuroscience has proven the non-existence of the immortal soul.

I hope religion will never disappear completely, because it offers guidance and comfort to many people who need it. But I believe its nature will change. I think its emphasis will shift more and more to considering those questions that Science can't answer alone, i.e., issues of morality and ethics. I think a thousand years from now, people will still follow Jesus' moral teachings, even though they will reject the literal truth of his miracles. We still respect Hippocrates today for his achievements in the field of ancient medicine, while recognising that many of his teachings are now obsolete."

 

[Glenski]

I have no ax to grind. My interest is this proposition ("What hope do you see...?) is sincere and straightforward. I am interested in what others who are inclined to ponder future possibilities based on current trends think about what's likely to happen, when, and why.

Ok. You've seen my view, facetious and boyish as it may be to you. But I don't see anyone else jumping into the fray to say that religion will die out. That ought to be some proof enough for you.

Have a good day "discussing" that.

 

[Bellevance]

Ok. You've seen my view, facetious and boyish as it may be to you. But I don't see anyone else jumping into the fray to say that religion will die out. That ought to be some proof enough for you.
Have a good day "discussing" that.

Thank you, Glenski, but please understand that I have not seen any "proof" that religion is going to "die out," or not going to "die out." Nor am I looking for any. To reiterate, I am simply wondering only to what extent others may see a trend toward religion's marginalization (not toward its dying out). I'm not sure why you have such trouble seeing this. I can only guess that the whole notion is somehow rankling to you.

The thread is young, but so far, you, Emoni, Aqua Lung, Malamis, Tsuyoiko, ShadowSpirit, and Mars Man have weighed in with helpful and interesting comments and ideas.

And believe it or not, I am grateful for the time you have taken to think about this matter as well as for your take on it--which, by the way, I did not characterize as facetious and boyish. Rather, the example you offered in support of your view (a devastating invasion of aliens) was obviously facetious. And I suppose that's what you boyishly intended.

 

[Bellevance]

I don't think religion will ever disappear. But I do think that religion's domain is shrinking, and will continue to do so.

I think you're right, Tsuyoiko. Though religion's dominant influence is clearly on the wane in much of the world, relgion will probably never fade away altogether.

I believe [religion's] nature will change. I think its emphasis will shift more and more to considering those questions that Science can't answer alone, i.e., issues of morality and ethics.

You may be interested to know that in recent years scientists have found that the origins of morality seem to predate religion. Marc Hauser's popular book, MORAL MINDS, is worth reading on this subject.

The physicist Victor Stenger has written: "If human morals and values do not arise out of divine command, then where do they come from? They come from our common humanity. They can be properly called humanistic.

"A considerable literature exists on the possible natural (biological, cultural, evolutionary) origins of morality. Darwin saw the evolutionary advantage of cooperation and altruism. Modern thinkers have elaborated on this observation, showing in detail how our moral sense may have arisen naturally during the development of modern humanity.

"We can even see signs of moral, or proto-moral behavior in animals. Vampire bats share food. Apes and monkeys comfort members of their group who are upset and work together to get food. Dolphins push sick members of a pod to the surface to get air. Whales will put themselves in harm's way to help a wounded member of their group. Elephants try their best to save injured members of their families.

"In these examples we glimpse the beginnings of the morality that advanced to higher levels with human biological and cultural evolution. You may call them instinctive, built into the genes of animals by evolution. But this is a plausible mechanism for the development of human morality as well—a purely natural process, arising out of matter alone. Nothing 'spiritual' is involved because there is no substance separate from matter that we can call 'spirit'.

"It seems likely that this is where we humans have learned our sense of right and wrong. We have taught it to ourselves."

Frans de Waal has written recently in the New York Times:

"Religion can be seen as another special ingredient of human societies, though one that emerged thousands of years after morality. There are clear precursors of morality in nonhuman primates, but no precursors of religion. So it is reasonable to assume that as humans evolved away from chimpanzees, morality emerged first, followed by religion."

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior (Published 2007)

 

[Glenski]

And believe it or not, I am grateful for the time you have taken to think about this matter as well as for your take on it--which, by the way, I did not characterize as facetious and boyish. Rather, the example you offered in support of your view (a devastating invasion of aliens) was obviously facetious. And I suppose that's what you boyishly intended.

What's the difference? Perhaps your background in rhetoric confuses the issue or understanding thereof.

BTW, we are not so different in age that I deserve to be called boyish. Also, I was not being as facetious as you might think.

As for being rankled, that presupposes things, like I might be some religious fanatic, which I'm not. If I'm "rankled" by anything it is the difficulty with which I am struggling to understand your rhetoric.

You are not looking for proof of anything, yet you are looking for trends. As a scientist, to me that says you are looking for proof of something. Let me be more succinct. Your original post was this:

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?

Asking about marginalization was only a fraction of your query. Hence, another easy route to confusion among the masses here. Please excuse us for the difficulty we have in wading through what is written in such voluminous text.

 

[Bellevance]

What's the difference? Perhaps your background in rhetoric confuses the issue or understanding thereof.

If you're unable to see the difference between your essential view's being called facetious and your sarcastic example's being facetious, then there's little point in my trying to make the distinction for you. You seem too eager to take offense. I'm sorry for that.

BTW, we are not so different in age that I deserve to be called boyish. Also, I was not being as facetious as you might think.

Same deal here. I didn't call you boyish. I described your sarcasm as boyish. The distinction is plain and significant. I was not trying to insult you, but really, to bring up aliens landing on the White House lawn "and not disintegrating too many people" is, to put it kindly, a boyish reference. It is also mocking and ineffectual.

You are not looking for proof of anything, yet you are looking for trends. As a scientist, to me that says you are looking for proof of something.

I don't understand why you will not take me at my word. I have said I am not looking for "proof" of anything. What's more, any scientist knows that trends do not constitute proof. I am simply looking for justified speculation. Quite obviously, there is no way to "prove" that some cultural change is going to occur or not going to occur in 100 years or 1,000, if ever.

 

[Glenski]

Same deal here. I didn't call you boyish. I described your sarcasm as boyish. The distinction is plain and significant. I was not trying to insult you, but really, to bring up aliens landing on the White House lawn "and not disintegrating too many people" is, to put it kindly, a boyish reference. It is also mocking and ineffectual.

You started this thread by asking for opinions. That was mine. It was not mocking. See it as ineffectual or not. That's your prerogative, but you asked for it, and I don't see anyone else here providing any other opinion that seems to suit your fancy.

I have said I am not looking for "proof" of anything. What's more, any scientist knows that trends do not constitute proof.

Balderdash.

I am simply looking for justified speculation.

That is called proof in any court of law or science laboratory.

Quite obviously, there is no way to "prove" that some cultural change is going to occur or not going to occur in 100 years or 1,000, if ever.

Then, as I asked earlier, what are you asking for? This last statement pretty much says there is no point in even asking the original question(s).

 

[Bellevance]

Glenski. It seems to me that you're trying to be deliberately contentious. Or else you're constitutionally obtuse. Or both. It doesn't matter, really.

But since you don't approve of the premise or the purpose of my questions, and since you woodenly persist in misinterpreting my comments and in impugning my sincere intentions, let me suggest that you find another discussion more appealing to your ways of thinking, one that won't stir you to such unflattering agitation.

 

[Glenski]

I have broken no rules of this web site. I answered your questions, and I seem to be the only one willing to hold a discussion with you. Not my problem if you don't like the answers...or lack thereof. Nobody in the first half of this thread mentioned any trends that you asked for, just (pardon me for saying this) rhetoric from sociologists on certain values of religion. You've repeatedly said it is either "hard" to determine the answer to your question about a post-theistic society, or it's not possible.

As for "impugning" your sincere intentions, I don't. I just disagree with the way you write that you don't want proof, then want proof. Can't have it both ways. Whether I call it proof or you call it "trends", you have admitted that neither one will affect anyone on this planet for at least the next 2 generations, so I can't fathom why you are so concerned about it, and I have not received a satisfactory answer to that question yet.

I have been civil here and tried to get answers to my own questions based on a convoluted writing style. It's not wooden anything (an attempt at backhanded slapping in my face which I will ignore but point out that misinterpretation still exists only because of a certain writing style to which I am responding. Ironic that I have provided more answers than I've gotten.

Let me suggest that you reexamine the thread:
No one has really given you any "trends" that you called for. If they are afraid of either of us, then for that reason I will stop posting for a while just to let others join in and try to provide what you might want (which I still contend is oxymoronic).

Besides, I have final exams to prepare for and boatloads of homework to correct and two massive proofreading jobs on my shoulders.

Exit, stage right.

 

[Pachipro]

OK. Let me just say that I belive that a person called Jesus Christ existed way back when and he may just have been a "spiritual being" in that he tried to teach mankind that the so-called "god" (as taught by the human rulers of the time) is within us all and that we are god and that god is us. And because of His influence and power he was crucified and done away with as were many of our modern leaders of today. ie Kennedy, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, etc. In effect they were also crucified as too many believed in them and listened to them and threatened their leadership I believe.

In other words He (Jesus) tried to teach us that we have the power within us of healing and saving ourselves from the ills that befall this planet and this life ("My fathers house has many mansions") and that to be a perfect human being and rise to the next spiritual level, so to speak, we must continue to be reborn (ie reincarnation) until we can rid ourselves of the seven deadly sins. This is just my own belief.

Humans, or the fallen angels, seeking to control a created mankind, came up with the concept of a one life and a salvation for all if they accept the teachings of the one and true "god" given through his "son" Jesus. This is the beginnings of the strife we are still suffering today I believe as it is much easier to control a populace if they believe this is their only lifetime. Hogwash, I believe.

They used him (Jesus) to their advantage, against the beliefs of the other half of the world (that the messiah has not yet come) and the world has been in conflict ever since and is still so today which "they" revel in and use to their advantage.

Society today has completely relegated the "myths" of the past to just that. Myths. But if one does any serious independent research, the saying "it is written in stone" has very real meaning as todays society has completely relegated to "myth" the ancient Sumerian texts, that were written in stone, and completely give a history as to the the beginnings of earth and of man in the "Eden" in Africa through cross breeding with the hominids of this planet and how we were actually created as slaves by an ancient civilization (hundreds of thousands of years old. Where they went and why they left is still being investigated.) Some surmise that they are still here and run our governments today. I don't know, but recent actions make one wonder.

Suffice it to say, that until humans today today do their own research into their own past and uncover the falshoods they have been taught and discover their own true beginnings, we, as humans will forever be in conflict and believe whatever our so-called leaders tell us history is and continue fighting against one another for the profits of the rulers.

The Sumerian texts will never be "peer reviewed" as that is what is what the "powers that be" say so. But they are there and are the oldest texts known to mankind. Translations of these texts completely parallel those many passages of the old testament in the so-called Bible.

There is much evidence for what I have said, but it will never come to light in todays society and thinking until enough people do their own research and say "enough of this BS! We want the truth!" as modern science and academia will never allow it. For do do so would completely disrupt contempory thinking and dogma as "they" have taught us.

For as it it is written, the victors and those in control, write history.

Until then people will forever be in conflict and believe that their "god" is the one true "god" based on what their "leaders" tell them when, the truth be told, humans were never meant to understrand the true God which is way above human comprehension and human logic as our human brains are way too young to even comprehend what God really is.

My hope is that the human race will eventually awaken to the lies they have been taught and that religion, as we know it, will be abolished but will retain the basics of the bible such as the "commandments" and the parables and the book of proverbs as there is much to learned.

Unfortunately, our leaders have raped those teachings and have led us down a path of believing that we have only one life and that to follow the ways of the leaders will lead one to true salvation and a life of bliss in the afterworld. To me this is as far from the truth as can be.

For now "they" have the "power" and force their will on a guillible sheeple. Hopefully enough will awaken for if they do not, we are doomed to an existance of conflict for us and for our children and grandchildren, etc, etc, forever.

We are on this planet to suffer and learn and to not succumb to the seven deadly sins and we will continually repeat it, IMO, until we overcome them. Life here is a journey and one step to true salvation as the body may die, but the soul lives on forever in this life or another.

"Schoolhouse Earth" as it is called, is just a step forward to true salvation and "godhood" and until we pass this phase we are doomed to keep on coming back until we stand up for what we believe and not be sheeple to the evil forces that inhabit this planet/plane of existance as "they" will be here forever and canot leave unless they also give up their seven deadly sins. Based on recent news and past history, it seems they will never the greed, gluttony, pride, etc. One look at the politics of the world should convince you of that.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

You may be interested to know that in recent years scientists have found that the origins of morality seem to predate religion. Marc Hauser's popular book, MORAL MINDS, is worth reading on this subject.

Thanks for the recommendation. I enjoyed his book Wild Minds.

As you say, it seems pretty much established that morality predates religion. But I think many people derive, or believe they derive, their morals from their religious beliefs, and I think these people will always feel they need some guidance from authority in matters of morality. Strip away the supernatural from those beliefs, and you're left with a moral code that could be worse. So I think that even after religions are forced to abandon their supernatural beliefs, people will still cling to their moral teachings. Even better if they could ditch those too, and decide for themselves between right and wrong, but I'm not sure if everyone has that ability.

 

[Bellevance]

So I think that even after religions are forced to abandon their supernatural beliefs, people will still cling to their moral teachings. Even better if they could ditch those too, and decide for themselves between right and wrong, but I'm not sure if everyone has that ability.

Our inherited morality has, of course, been comprehensively encoded into civil law in most countries--but I know what you mean. Religions do presume to represent a "higher authority," one whose wisdom and power dwarf that of any merely human agency. Most people of faith, I think, have an innate need to revere that authority, to feel in awe of a Father. And many people do crave such absolving awe--because it absolves them of the scary responsibility of making moral decisions for themselves. Many people believe that if we are not instructed exactly how to behave--and threatened with the worst imaginable suffering if we transgress--we won't know what to do, or Satan's hand will guide us instead of God's.

Yes, strip away belief in the supernatural (though that's religion's beating heart), and the moral instruction might remain in place--but the enforcement mechanism would be gone. People would be left with having to be good for goodness' sake. That's fine, but there it becomes no different from a secular system for doing right, ultimately based on the Golden Rule, the fundamental precept of all human morality.

 

[Revenant]

It's three-ten in the morning, and I haven't read the entire thread, but I believe that humans will believevwhat it is in their best interest to belive, and what they feel best justifies their actions. A lot of people from an objective position are not correct and even if they knew what was correct would still take the opportunity to get one up on some one.

Religion as it is now will change, as it has always changed, and it'll evolve to accept what people want to and can believe. It will be a slow process, but religion will in general become more liberal and accepting.

 

[Bellevance]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I believe that humans will believe what it is in their best interest to believe...

Thanks, Revenant, for these thoughts. I wish I could agree that people will believe in accordance with their best interests, but I don't think that's true at all. People's religious beliefs are commonly imposed upon them through powerful forces of social indoctrination. That's why a person's religion is usually determined by where in the world he was born. A person's "best interests" have little to do with his allegiance to dogma and superstition. We human beings still live in the theistic dark ages, I'm afraid, and we will be a long time emerging into the light of reason.

But in the future, as each culture's need for false religious explanations for natural phenomena (like sickness, storms, earthquakes, and so forth) continues to diminish, the value of organized religion as a social institution will continue to decline.

There is an excellent article on this subject in yesterday's New York Times.

Here is an excerpt:

Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people's lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman's words, ﾂ"rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.ﾂ"

Which is why he insists at some length that what he and his wife and children experienced was quite the opposite: ﾂ"a society ﾂ― a markedly irreligious society ﾂ― that was, above all, moral, stable, humane and deeply good.ﾂ"

Scandinavian Nonbelievers, Which Is Not to Say Atheists (Published 2009)

 

[Bellevance]

A hopeful sign?

*

"People see faith as a personal eccentricityﾂ"

By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, 05 Mar 2009

Mr Blair said he agreed with church leaders that faith is in danger of being seen as a "personal eccentricity" rather than an important influence on the country.

He also criticised the "ludicrous decisions" that have led to worshippers punished for expressing their beliefs, such as Caroline Petrie, the community nurse who was suspended for two months after offering to pray for an elderly patient, and Jennie Cain, the primary school receptionist who still faces the sack after she asked for spiritual support from friends when her daughter was scolded for talking about Hell in the playground.

Mr Blair, in the famous words of his spokesman, Alastair Campbell, did not "do God" while he was in Downing Street. He later admitted that he feared he would be labelled a "nutter" if he spoke publicly about his religious convictions. But he has since converted to Roman Catholicism and set up the Tony Blair Faith Foundation to "promote respect and understanding about the world's major religions".

In an interview published in the Church of England Newspaper, Mr Blair said: "Sometimes I think we as Christians are more sensitive than we should be, although I say that as someone who, when I was in office, was perfectly open about my Christianity, nonetheless kept it within certain boundaries that were restricted in terms of what I said publicly. The position of prime minister puts you in a unique category.

"But in general terms in British society there is a risk that people see faith as a personal eccentricity."

Asked about the threat of disciplinary action now faced by public sector staff who are open about their religion, he said: "I hope and believe that stories of people not being allowed to express their Christianity are exceptional or the result of individual ludicrous decisions. My view is that people should be proud of their Christianity and able to express it as they wish."

He admitted that conflict is "inevitable" between traditional religions and the new liberal doctrine of human rights. But he went on: "The real test of a religion is whether in an age of aggressive secularism it has the confidence to go out and make its case by persuasion."

Mr Blair disclosed, however, that while he was prime minister he believed equality and diversity were more important than religion in the case of the Catholic adoption agencies, who failed in their bid to be exempted from laws requiring them to consider homosexual couples as potential parents.

"I happen to take the gay rights position," he said. "But at the time of the Catholic adoption society dispute I was also concerned that these people who were doing a fantastic job were not put out of business. You have got to try to work your way through these issues."

He also said he believed the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, had been misunderstood when he said it "seems inevitable" that some parts of Islamic law would be enshrined in Britain's legal code. "I thought at the time all this was a lot of fuss over nothing," Mr Blair said.

His comments come just days after his wife, Cherie, told of her disappointment at the apparent "terminal decline" of Christianity in a Channel 4 TV documentary, saying: "Everywhere you look today churches are being closed, Christians are often being marginalised and faith is something few people like to discuss openly."

(Mrs Blair's television comments were part of an article published in the Sunday Telegraph on 1 March 2009 by Alastair Jamieson, entitled ﾂ"Christians in Britain are too afraid to speak outﾂ".

She said: ﾂ"Religion appears to be in terminal decline as it is pushed aside by an increasingly secular society. ﾂ… Christians are being marginalised in societyﾂ… Few believers liked to discuss their faith openly ﾂ… . It's not just the catholic church that appears to be in terminal decline in the West. It's the same for almost all of Western Europe's traditional churches. ﾂ… I can see 10 Downing Street would not want the Prime Minister to say god bless our country, because there is criticism.ﾂ")

 

[Bellevance]

Another hopeful sign?

This, today, excerpted from Fox News:

More Americans Say They Have No Religion

A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506849,00.html