T O P

Why do most critiques of religion posit that it will disappear in the future, rather than radically change or even be redeemed?

Why do most critiques of religion posit that it will disappear in the future, rather than radically change or even be redeemed?

smedsterwho

My personal thoughts on it are: It used to be that religion was bigger than any one person's world view ("what is thunder?" "God is angry"). Now your average person's worldview is bigger than any religion. I would have believed whatever my village had told me 1,500 years ago (and if I didn't, I wouldn't have any tools against it). Now we're all bombarded by so much information (some good, some bad) that it's harder for religion to have too much ownership over groupthink. And then secondly, most major religions are fairly inflexible, and the world is hopefully on a trend towards a better morality. A religion then has the choice to change (which weakens it's tenets), or be less moral than its worshippers.


sir_schuster1

>most major religions are fairly inflexible People are inflexible, religions are whatever people want them to be.


smedsterwho

Agreed, but I mean over a timescale. If religion X has a decree against homosexuality, and society as a whole moves away from homophobia, then the religion either needs to stand firm, and cause a moral struggle with its followers, or the religion has to adapt, and nowadays the idea that "oh we spoke to God and he changed his mind" would probably not wash so well (as in, it would be challenged). I can see religion always being a part of our lives, but the mainstream ones... Less so.


rj_musics

If history has taught us anything, it’s that religions die out as we learn more about the world and the universe. I think that it’s more likely that new religions will pop up as others fade away to coexist with our continually expanding understanding of the universe.


Anglicanpolitics123

(i)The critiques that you are talking about are a form of secular triumphalism which assumes that the "march of progress" will lead to religion being gone. (ii)The critiques have a very Western and Eurocentric approach to the history and practise of religions. Lets unpack both. People assume that if religion is on the decline in Western countries that automatically means it must be on the decline everywhere. That's false. Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union religion has actually been reviving and increasing in many parts of the world outside of the West. Moreover this secular triumphalism is something that goes all the way back to the Age of the Enlightenment. Voltaire instance believed that institutional religion would go away by 1810. Which was false. After the Russian Revolution people assumed that the Church would just die. In the 1966 Time Magazine ran a cover saying "God is Dead" assuming that religion would die out. Its a self fullfilling false prophecy that keeps failing but people resurrect it for ideological reasons.


spice-hammer

Do you know of any people who have tried to sort of thread the needle there? On the one hand, there are the people saying that religion is mortally wounded and will one day go out like a light. On the other, there are people who claim that they have access to something special which will never change, often despite their own religion changing in pretty major ways even in just the last few thousand years, never mind the next 600,000, in which even our physical and mental nature will change considerably. Do you know of any religious folks (or secular folks!) who have tried to really grapple with the deep future and how it might/will change us and our religion? The only person who I’ve been able to find who seemed to try and get his teeth into it is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, but he can’t be the only one. He was also excommunicated from his church, which I think is a shame. EDIT: I guess you could also include Olaf Stapledon here, for a secular (?) version of this. He was one of the early science fiction authors, whereas de Chardin was a priest. Both also served as medics in WWI, funnily enough.


Whipped_Alcremie

THANK YOU. It is extremely Eurocentric, and that "march of progress" idea is what created the whole white savior complex belief of "well, monotheism is CLEARLY the only enlightened way, people who are polytheistic/animistic are savages we need to civilize via colonization." (We see how that turned out.) It fails to realize that there are so many non-white cultures that have extremely important religious ceremonies as parts of them, and that erasing religion entirely means destroying these cultures and the communities they're in. I also want to add that, as someone dealing with a chronic illness science can't figure out the cause of and I suffer from because we can't really treat or cure it as a result, the whole "science is the ultimate and holds ALL ANSWERS" argument always annoys me a bit, lol. We have a long way to go with answering EVERYTHING via science, if we can ever really answer philosophical questions through the scientific method.


PeterZweifler

based and science-doesnt-answer-everything pilled


Whipped_Alcremie

I... have no idea what you're trying to say.


PeterZweifler

I meant I agree on that point. xD Im spending too much time on politcialcompassmemes. Its reddit jargon. based signals agreement, and giving out pills is a play on the red pill blue pill thing from the matrix. a "pill" is a certain information or opinion that is making your thinking go somewhere it didnt go before and possibly subvert some misconceptions, like Neo when he recieved the red pill. Its also sometimes used when recognizing a "pill" you agree with in a text, and sometimes ironically when you dont agree (a pro-lifer could comment "based and murder-should-be-legal pilled" to a pro-choicers comment).


Whipped_Alcremie

Ah okay! Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't sure if it was an insult or not, considering some of the responses I get when I say things like that LOL.


HuskiesForever3985

Look at the numbers…. The world is becoming more secular by the minute.


ShivamSingh180603

I too have thought about this so much while I was struggling with my religion/faith. Those people which say that religion has no future, it will become extinct as the world progresses, seem to be seeing religion only as cult consisting of rituals, practices, superistitions, belief in God and some age-old ethics/morals. They only view religion as a divide between people which somehow it actually is. But one thing I dislike about them is that they are so resistant when it comes to hear the other, more precious, *spiritual* side of religion. Well, I too have rejected religion from my life, because I found my ritualistic/organised religion to be oppressive, regressive and causing divide between people. However, I will be open to the spiritual side of religion because, as far as I have studied, it does make a lot of sense, giving deep insight into one's life. Now coming to the ques:- What will be the condition of religion in upcoming world ? Will it become extinct? Will it modify itself and flourish? Regarding this, I find it really boring to predict anything yet. I am gonna wait for future to unfold what happens,bcoz it's interesting that way XD.


TenuousOgre

I doubt religion will disappear. But we have seen religions become abandoned. Most of them have eventually died off. But to put this into perspective we also need to consider that what we mean by religion today isn't what it used to mean. Ancient religions were all encompassing. They were belief systems, government, moral systems, their version of science, philosophy, ethics, morality, and so on. Today, many of these things are their own fields, or as in the case of science, many thousands of distinct fields. Bottom line is that what we mean by “religion” has changed. I doubt the human need for answers to a lot of life's big mysteries will ever go away. So I do see religions needing to adapt in order to survive. All of them will not make that change. Some will die out. Some will adapt minimally, some adapt a lot, maybe go the point of not being recognized to believers today. It's when you get into the details that things will be interesting. For example, in ten thousands years will some form of Christianity still exist? Probably. But will it still include the supernatural claims about an eternal, immortal, immaterial omnimax god who sacrificed himself to pay for the sins of humanity? Maybe not all of that. But some, almost certainly.


spice-hammer

> For example, in ten thousands years will some form of Christianity still exist? Probably. But will it still include the supernatural claims about an eternal, immortal, immaterial omnimax god who sacrificed himself to pay for the sins of humanity? Maybe not all of that. But some, almost certainly. Do you think that there are any religions that confront this sort of seemingly inevitable change, and how it affects what we believe today? It’d appear to be sort of at odds with claiming to have access to some kind of eternal revelation, but maybe that isn’t the case?


TenuousOgre

I think there are some religious organizations that have a setup that would allow them to adapt like this. But when it comes to it the people actually in positions of power will be the determining factor. It absolutely disagrees with the revealed narrative, but look to the Catholic or Mormon churches for great examples of how leaders can explain away issues. Mormon church was very racist, then when it came to a government taxation and funding issue, suddenly there's a revelation that the sin which black skin was apparently a sign of now changes how blacks are treated! God has forgiven black people for the sins of their ancestors so now we can treat them equally. Huge change, explained as revelation. But if you look closely, dollars explain the revelation much better than revelation.


RexRatio

Personally, I agree with Christopher Hitchens on whether religion will disappear: >First, first I've said repeatedly that this stuff \[(religion)\] cannot be taken away from people, it is their favorite toy, and it will remain so as long - as Freud said, in The Future Of An Illusion - it will remain that way as long as we're afraid of death and have that problem which is, I think, will likely be a very long time. > >Second, I hope I've made it clear, that I'm perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and so on, and to share them with other people who come around and play with the toys. So that's absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don't bring the toys to my house, don't say my children must play with these toys, don't say my toys might be a condom - here we go again - are not allowed by their toys. I'm not going to have any of that. What you call "critiques of religion" is a process that has been going on for a few centuries now, starting in the Enlightenment. The only new factor that what you call "New Atheism" has brought to the table is questioning the taboo of criticizing religion in the same way that public discourse can and does criticize every other belief system, be it banal (sports, fashion, etc.) or academic (philosophy, literature, etc.) As such, your "Age Of Empires" comparison is incorrect. The idea of religion melting away as scientific knowledge grows can be found as early as the 1700s in the works of the French *philosophes* as well as Francis Bacon and John Locke. The *philosophes* claimed that the advance of “*philosophie* \[using reason\]” would promote an “enlightened” day of happiness, toleration and progress. Many sharply criticized traditional Christian beliefs such as our sinful nature due to Adam’s Fall, the reality of miracles, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and the divinity of Christ. They questioned Scripture’s infallibility and endorsed biblical criticism. In general, they trumpeted the motif that orthodox Christianity promoted not light but darkness, not truth but superstition and not peace and civility but fanaticism. So clearly this does not originate with "New Atheism" as you claim. As to why these critiques posit that religion will disappear, the following are currently seen as some of the principle reasons: * The "[god of the gaps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)" - a result of an ever-receding area of ignorance where religion posed deities as the cause before science discovered the actual cause for these natural phenomena. Taken to its logical completion, this implies that when all gaps of knowledge of the natural world have been filled in by science, religion will have no "gods did it" box left to put in their deities. In contrast, religion has not been able to disprove even a single scientific discovery. Theists may argue that "science changes its mind all the time", but this is a [faulty generalization fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization): in most cases, science refines its findings, for example Einstein's theory of relativity did not disprove Newton's theories, but illustrated they are only correct in a specific scope of mass and velocity. In addition, there is nothing wrong with a hypothesis is incorrect - but this is something that religions can impossibly admit given their claims of authority and infallibility. * Neurology and psychology have disproven that human morality must come from a divine entity, as religions have claimed & monopolized since their inception. As our understanding of the evolutionary origin of social behavior grows (and is also found in other primate species), it has become clear that the golden rule is an evolutionary treat beneficial to the survival of the species. This undermines the moral authority of religions, which, taken to its logical conclusion, will make it clear to people that religion is unnecessary (and often opposed to) what humans perceive and adhere to as moral behavior. * Humanitarian works are increasingly undertaken by secular organizations, which do not spend a part of their budget on proselytization. Secular organizations are generally more transparent to the public in detailing their income and spending, and have far less charity scandals. In addition, * Sexual abuse and child rape within religious organizations has, in the age of the internet and social media, finally become public - as well as the illegal practices of religious organizations attempting to shield their clergy from prosecution. In addition, * Factually underbuilt information is now available to everyone online, whereas before you generally were indoctrinated exclusively in the religion of your direct environment. The mere realization that there are other religions who make incompatible truth claims to your local religion - not to mention atheists - out there has given many people a community and support system they could impossibly have before the internet. It is therefore much easier to leave a religion where before people were forced into keeping up appearances in fear of being ostracized. * The development of Biblical criticism (and similar criticisms for other religious texts) as a branch of Literary criticism has laid bare many inconsistencies in textual and historical perspectives, undermining the illusion that these religious texts are the "perfect" words of deities. Without infallible source documents, religions lose their authority. In conjunction, * Archaeology has disproven many religious claims, such as the Abrahamic Exodus, which never took place as indicated by Egyptian *and* Israeli research. Incompatibility with established historical facts undermines the religious claims of veracity and authority. * Biology has disproven the religious doctrines of caste systems, hostility towards homosexuality, as well as the creation stories of humans as described in every religion, and * Cosmology has disproven the creation stories of the universe and our world as described in every religion


WikiSummarizerBot

**[God of the gaps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)** >"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term "gaps" was initially used by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence. **[Faulty generalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization)** >In logic and reasoning, a faulty generalization, similar to a proof by example in mathematics, is an informal fallacy. It involves drawing a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has been reached on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group, based on what one knows about just one or a few people: If one meets an angry person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are often angry. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/religion/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


Eats_Dead_Things

They're probably hoping people won't be so superstitious and gullible when they further evolve. I hope so too...


Kangaru14

"Religion has done harm. But the cure of bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure of bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science." - Rabbi Sacks z"l


PeterZweifler

I love that guy


MagicOfMalarkey

To me religion is just a subcategory of ideology, and the worst one. It's one thing when you believe your actions are justified by a state, it's entirely something else when you think you're justified by the ruler of the universe. That kind of ontological baggage on any ideology is gonna to cause people to do horrible things with a terrifying degree of confidence. Obviously any ideology suffers from extremist corruption, but religious ideology is just especially primed and suited for it. Then on top of all that all of it is just made up nonsense anyways. The way I see it we're best off just creating a zeitgeist of humanitarianism within society and letting that rub off on religions within it. This is essentially what has happened to Christianity. Every change society undergoes Christian values slowly follow, then believers tell themselves their new values are what Jesus valued all along. As humanity continues to accept enlightenment values and explain the natural world religion will slowly lose all its utility. Once the utility goes so will the credulity of believers.


ballbyter

Science today has a 100%/360 degree functional theory for anything you as a human could ever see, touch, feel, hear or experience, including the stars at a fundamental level. If the supernatural could have any effect, that effect can be measured. At every level in your cognitive reality. Not a sign of god or anything supernatural anywhere.


spice-hammer

I mean, this is exactly the sort of thing a medieval monk would say about their time. They would tell you that they had already figured out all of the stuff that was truly important to the human experience, and everything else was sort of unimportant. Two other things: first, science definitely doesn’t have a 100%/360 degree explanation for everything. There are a huge number of things that science doesn’t have an explanation for yet, and some things that it may never be able to explain because we’re unable to detect them (we evolved to fuck and eat, not understand the universe). Second, even if science was able to fully explain the universe, that wouldn’t invalidate certain types of religion (like Buddhism, as an example). So I’m not sure where the idea that increased scientific knowledge of the world = decreased validity of religion as a concept comes from?


ballbyter

> doesn’t have a 100%/360 degree explanation for everything I never said they had a theory for everything, but I did say Science had a theory for everything in your cognitive reality. They are different scopes. > Second, even if science was able to fully explain the universe, that wouldn’t get rid of certain types of religion Buddhism is pinned to an afterlife. The afterlife was debunked by Science in the 1700s by Antoine Lavoisier when he proved the driving force behind man was slow combustion and not any spirit. There is no human spirit to be reborn. Very proven in Science. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/father-modern-chemistry-proved-respiration-occurred-freezing-guinea-pig-180964596/


spice-hammer

I think the more intellectually honest thing is to say that if there is an afterlife, it’s not something we can know about. Our cognitive reality may not be wired to detect an afterlife, and we would never know. Only evolved to fuck and eat, right? EDIT: Also, it kind of depends on the type of Buddhism you’re dealing with, as far as I know.


Whipped_Alcremie

You are correct, there are atheistic paths of Buddhism and many where the focus is more on actions in this life than in any sort of purported afterlife.


ballbyter

> I think the more intellectually honest thing is to say that if there is an afterlife, it’s not something we can know about. Baloney. Science knows a lot more than you. At this point in medicine, we can control death and even reanimate smaller animals completely following brain death. There is no human spirit to be reborn. You need more than a baseless theory for even consideration.


spice-hammer

Any scientist will tell you that science has limits. There are certain subjects that are just fully outside of its jurisdiction, on the one hand - things like ethics or epistemology can’t really be solved scientifically. On the other, we can only do science using the sensory tools we have, which (based even on the sensory tools we know other organisms on Earth have) are almost certainly only showing us the smallest sliver of what the universe actually looks like, and that in a very distorted way.


ballbyter

When did I imply it was limitless? > on the one hand - things like ethics or epistemology can’t really be solved scientifically Neither are a fact. Science only deals with facts. Facts of nature.


spice-hammer

There are things that science can’t tell us, which is why I’m suspicious when people say that our increased scientific powers will inevitably lead to an abandonment of religion as a concept. It seems like a non-sequiter, especially when the sorts of things that science does and the sorts of things that religion does seem to be very different. It would be like saying that as we get better at writing poetry, mathematics would disappear or something. I don’t see the connection.


ballbyter

> There are things that science can’t tell us, which is why I’m suspicious when people say that our increased scientific powers will inevitably lead to an abandonment of religion as a concept. Every aspect of religion has been refuted by Science. There is nothing left to debunk. At this point, we're talking about fraud. If you're selling an afterlife, you need handcuffs. Fraud is not a victimless crime.


Whipped_Alcremie

Not every religion is hardcore Christianity, dude. Many don't focus on an afterlife, and/or are non-dogmatic, and/or are focused more on what you do/how you interact with the world around you than anything. Many function more as a philosophy in that way. Also, many religions are tied intimately with the cultures that spawned them, and eradicating religion entirely erases swaths of culture--especially true in non-white cultures. People should be allowed to continue their cultural practices/rituals that don't cause physical or psychological trauma to others. And no, psychological trauma is NOT just the fact that it exists. Psychological trauma would consist of systemic racism, misogyny, anti-LGBT hate speech/"conversion therapy," etc. Participating in cultural ceremonies does not inherently equate to trauma.


PeterZweifler

>Every aspect of religion has been refuted by Science. There is nothing left to debunk. Strong agendapost, but if critical thinking was antithetical to religion, we would see that scientists strongly skew atheist. They do not. In fact, most scientists believe in god or another supernatural entity. Most scientific advancements have been made by religious people in history. In fact, can you name any atheist that invented something of note? Like, on top of your head? What have you contributed? So if you think you know you hold the rational position in being atheist, think again. I can respect agnostics, but an atheist believing they have any rational ground to stand on... no, no, its fun for sure. Try to justify "God doesnt exist" without using an Argument from Personal Incredulity.


jogoso2014

This is flawed thinking. Of course science has something for everything we know. This is not the same thing as science explaining everything and just because a theory/hypothesis exist, it does not in any way mean the theory/hypothesis is factual or true or even likely.


ballbyter

I did not say "everything". I did say "everything in your cognitive reality. There is a big difference.


jogoso2014

Yeah I said everything. But you’re basically saying that science proves everything we can see and touch. Whoopty Doo… To be clear I am perfectly fine with people living their life on that basis, but religion is a factor in society for a lot of other people.


ballbyter

> Whoopty Doo Science gave you 100% of everything you do in a day from your shoes to the synthetic air you breath. Even the computer you are using right now and everything connected to it, come from your empirical Sciences. Religion is fine. Divine reward sales is not fine. It's fraud.


jogoso2014

And how does that change what I said? You are under some kind of delusion that you value science more than me lol. I’m not a lesser person just because I also think about things not tied to scientific fact. If anything that would make me a bit more well rounded even if I believed in nothing.


ballbyter

Science works. Your context falls flat in its behind. > You are under some kind of delusion that you value science more than me lol. You're the one trying to gaff it off. > I’m not a lesser person just because I also think about things not tied to scientific fact. Science has a wrap on your entire cognitive reality.


jogoso2014

When did I say science doesn’t work? Quit pretending there is a conflict where there is none. It is extremely easy to be pro science and religious. Use one of those scientific cognitive realities to prove me wrong.


ballbyter

Pi isn't 3. No matter what you do.


jogoso2014

What did I try to do?


peepoop6942_0

They think this because the atheist population has been rising and religion isn’t really allowed in public schools. I think because children are not being taught religion at a young age and instead being taught evolution they are just going to believe what they here. Children believe everything adults tell them for example they believe a fat man in a red suit who is isolated for 364 days a year somehow goes around the world delivering presents to almost 8 billions people in a single night and who can break and enter into houses that may or may not have chimneys without getting in trouble or paying any money. So when you tell children that we all came from a fish of course they are going to believe you. This then leads to those kids growing up and teaching their children this theory.


weallfalldown310

Religion is absolutely allowed in schools. Teaching the basics about world religions is honestly a great way to help kids understand world history. Students can pray (there is that joke that as long as math tests were a thing there would be prayers kn school), but the teachers and admin shouldn’t be leading it. If somehow a Christian in the US was a minority faith in an area and the teachers were leading Muslim prayer, the Christian parents would be rightly upset. It is the same for any faith group. Better for the government to not promote over another. Though Christianity still holds sway in many districts. Coaches leading Christian prayer, baptizing their players in practices. Christian churches coming and handing out bibles and inviting kids to church on school fime and on school property (other religious groups denied the opportunity). New Testament verses on walls. Most Christian kids get their holidays off and know they won’t have tests to make up or worry about those issues (Orthodox Christians have it harder). December is a often a month of getting ready for Christmas. Essays after break asking what kids got alienating those who didn’t celebrate. If Churches can’t convince children to believe in their classes without the help of secular education then they don’t deserve to be able to go on. If you have that much issue with evolution (which not all Christians do) send your kids to religious school. I will be sending mine to Jewish Day school, not because of secular education, the school I have chosen has a great secular program, but for them to not be the minority and worry about making up tests and assignments for holidays. Christian kids in US don’t have that problem, and honestly which version of Christianity would you choose to teach? There are so many various theologies and beliefs, you can’t even say “Protestant” because there is a wide range even in that camp.


peepoop6942_0

But the majority of people in the us are part of some religions whether that be Christian, muslims, Jewish and they would go against religion. I feel like denying all religions and teach something that goes against pretty much all of them is the equivalent to say, “you can’t be racist if you offend all races equally”


Sir_Penguin21

First evolution is a fact. Allele frequency change over time is demonstrated. It is a fact. Second evolution as a model is insanely accurate, predictive and confirmed. We can literally predict what transitional species we would expect, in what part of the world, how deep in the ground and then go dig there and find it. We have done it many times. Multiple facets of science have independently confirmed evolution. You can go repeat them yourself if you are so inclined. So yes, we teach it to children as fact. Just because it conflicts with someone’s myths doesn’t mean the science changes.


EmuChance4523

Well, religion has some problems. First, it never helped to obtain any reliable information about anything. Second, it tries to give answers without looking for them, so, no utility there. It's also spread by indoctrination instead of curiosity or inquiry. So, the only reasonable answer is that when our societies get a better education and are able to use reason more easily, this kind of things would disappear. That doesn't mean that it would happen quickly, we are far away from that moment. But is the only reasonable future if we continue to get better as societies.


sir_schuster1

If religion is to evolve, it'll be up to us to act as the catalyst.


spice-hammer

Do you think so? I think that it’s likely enough that it will change and evolve regardless of our input - as someone else said, Judaism from 4000 years ago is incredibly different from Judaism today. Might it just evolve on its own? We could try to steer it, but could that be successful? It seems to me that religion is one of the places where feelings that are latent throughout society come to a head, which might make it difficult to deliberately change. Whether those natural changes are going in a certain direction I’m not sure - biological evolution doesn’t seem to do that.


sir_schuster1

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Bahai, Sihkism, Confucianism , Scientology, Satanism and probably many others, there is a primary founding figure. A single individual who has an idea about the way things should be and casts their impression into the world.


Whipped_Alcremie

Religion has a lot of cultural/community implications in terms of traditions that have developed around holidays and cultural ethics/morals. I think it is likely to change rather than be erased entirely for that reason alone. We have to remember that Judaism is still around today, even though it is practiced very differently from what we see described in the Jewish scriptures/biblical Old Testament. Different ancient cultures (Roman, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) shared gods with each other and exchanged culture enough to change one another. Japan was shaped in many ways by its connections with China during the Heian period wherein it adopted Buddhism and even the Chinese characters for writing. In short... people exchange cultural practices and ideas with one another, now faster than ever. Things change through these exchanges. But that doesn't necessarily mean it dies out completely.


spice-hammer

>I think it is likely to change rather than be erased entirely for that reason alone. We have to remember that Judaism is still around today, even though it is practiced very differently from what we see described in the Jewish scriptures/biblical Old Testament. 100% agree! Do you know of any religions or religious figures or just folks who have fully absorbed this, especially with an eye towards the deep future? If so I’d be really interested to know what their perspectives are on what religion is and what distinguishes a good type of religion from a bad type of it.


Helliongloom

Do most critiques of religion posit that it will disappear in the future? That hasn't been my experience. Maybe from trolls and raunchy social media sections, but not from educated people.


DavidJohnMcCann

Atheists are no more immune to wishful thinking than anyone else!


Ready_Owl_2070

It just shows the small scope of their mind


Co-Ping

Religion isnt disappearing, atheism is, atheists have an insanely low birth rate because they are negative crybabies, religious people have over replacement birthrate, os yeah atheists are f*cked lmao


ShadowElf25

And you can prove that?


Co-Ping

Google atheist birthrate


ShadowElf25

Do you know what an Atheist is? It's not like something you pass on to your children.


ThinkingPerson999

If we define religion as those beliefs promising worthwhile eternal life then it will radically change and redeem itself. The new direction involves scrapping god and heaven; instead ascribing the provision of eternal life to the cosmos. This isn't a new spin on pantheism. Rather, it's a belief now supported by reason.


Techtrekzz

As a pantheist, i don’t think there is any necessity to scrap the idea of God when ascribing eternal life to the cosmos, in fact i think you’re going to need the concept of a singular supreme being, albeit one very different from the Abrahamic concept.


ThinkingPerson999

As I clearly said, this isn't a new spin on pantheism. Pantheists can do as they wish. And the ascribing of eternal life to the cosmos doesn't require our recognizing God. Why do people never read and understand what I say?


Techtrekzz

I think I understood it well enough, but i dont see how you ascribe eternal life to the cosmos without recognizing the entity that is that life.


wordupsucka

It's because religions were the way pre-modern humans explained the world, and there are now adequate non-religious explanations for how the world works.