The Future of Religion

[Darkdale]

Despite what many of us pagans and heathens wish to believe, religious evolution will not be cyclical. Mankind will not “come home” to pagan religions, and religious tolerance will not be a thing of the future. Most likely, we’ll see more of the same, in addition to new universal religions springing up from advances in philosophical and scientific thought. Indeed, science will most likely be the center of the next new religion – as people decide that science makes the most sense, but recognize that they still have a human desire to worship, to pray, to imagine, and to hope; a new religious evolution will begin. Scientology will be a failed attempt at such an evolution, but it will not be the last! Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism will all remain in their various forms. Pagan religions will continue in the same fashion that they exist today; as only a small number of individuals who have fallen in love with the old ways, old moralities, and old mythologies from whatever culture, trying to get some damn respect. We won’t get it, but don’t worry – we don’t need it.

 

[No*s]

Wow. Now that's something we can actually agree on. I do see a new religious outlook emerging, probably one that will mix a "scientific" outlook with a "spiritual" one as well. As an Orthodox Christian, I'm none to congenial to such an outlook, but I do see it coming. Well said

 

[CAPPA]

Great point, and very well said, I too, feel that science will play a bigger part in our beliefs and perhaps change many if not some of the concepts that religion has developed over the years... On the other had religion will never cease to exist, and the top ones will remain, due to its followers.

However, I also believe that science will never be able to answer all of our questions all of the time and completely. Because of this, humanity will be draw from other means to answer the ones science can not. That, of course will be religion.

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

Despite what many of us pagans and heathens wish to believe, religious evolution will not be cyclical. Mankind will not “come home” to pagan religions, and religious tolerance will not be a thing of the future. Most likely, we’ll see more of the same, in addition to new universal religions springing up from advances in philosophical and scientific thought. Indeed, science will most likely be the center of the next new religion – as people decide that science makes the most sense, but recognize that they still have a human desire to worship, to pray, to imagine, and to hope; a new religious evolution will begin. Scientology will be a failed attempt at such an evolution, but it will not be the last! Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism will all remain in their various forms. Pagan religions will continue in the same fashion that they exist today; as only a small number of individuals who have fallen in love with the old ways, old moralities, and old mythologies from whatever culture, trying to get some damn respect. We won’t get it, but don’t worry – we don’t need it.

Excellent and healthy perspective. May I enfrubalize you?

 

[shema]

I believe Jesus when he said that the earth will shake just before my return, and it will be hard to tell the seasons apart. and the anti-christ will come. the earth is starting to shake more and more. the seasons are so hard to tell, and the anti-christ is already here.(anyone against christ). I beleieve what was written in the scriptures, has started to manifest. Science proves many things, but it is how we use the results that determines our relationships

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

I believe Jesus when he said that the earth will shake just before my return, and it will be hard to tell the seasons apart. and the anti-christ will come. the earth is starting to shake more and more. the seasons are so hard to tell, and the anti-christ is already here.(anyone against christ). I beleieve what was written in the scriptures, has started to manifest. Science proves many things, but it is how we use the results that determines our relationships

The Earth has shaken for 4 billion years.

You don't understand your own theology if you believe "anyone" against Christ is The Anti-Christ.

No, my naive friend, when the Anti-Christ comes, you'll know it. (I'm pretty sure he's on vacation at the Crawford Ranch.)

 

[Revasser]

I agree with you, Darkdale, that science or pseudo-science will be the central point of the Next Big Thing in terms of religion, barring some kind Falloutesque apocalypse. I see a lot of little "sciencey" cults in the future, and one of them is bound to catch on and start to spread to an even larger degree that Scientology has in the States.

We can only hope that whatever does catch on is agreeable and tolerant in how it deals with different people and different opinions, but that's probably a futile hope. You get enough people involved with something, and it usually starts to turn sour.
</pessimism>

Pagan religions will continue in the same fashion that they exist today; as only a small number of individuals who have fallen in love with the old ways, old moralities, and old mythologies from whatever culture, trying to get some damn respect. We won’t get it, but don’t worry – we don’t need it.

Hah! So true, so true.

 

[ChrisP]

DarkDale, would you compare UU's to the type of Religious group you just outlined?

 

[Fluffy]

Actually, I see something along the lines of UU having far more potential of becoming the next big religion (though I don't know if UU itself will manage it) and it is definitely deserving of such a position. However, it will need to do some serious work to expand in Europe so its ideas can filter across the continents.

A religion will only successful meld with science if it is prepared for change. Scientology, is certainly not prepared to do so. Therefore, in my mind, it cannot have something like an all knowing God that has decreed some of the central scientific ideas although perhaps they could use the idea to add weight to fundamentals such as scientific method etc. Otherwise it would be very difficult to reconcile why God decided to support a deterministic outlook of the universe just as quantum physics constructs a unified theory of everything .

 

[Darkdale]

DarkDale, would you compare UU's to the type of Religious group you just outlined?

I think of UU as something entirely different, and it was an idiotic oversight on my part not to include them in the original post. UU is a universal religion and therefore has a chance to do very well. Wicca will continue to pick up converts for the same reason, but I don't think of Wiccans as Pagans, so I think that UU and Wicca could share their own category. Both UU and Wicca allow for a mixing of a great variety of beliefs, are focused on caring for their fellow man, for their environment, and for their own spiritual health. Both are universal, in the sense that they appeal to people regardless of their culture or ethnicity. They both appeal to liberals, but this may be by default - as most conservatives have been sucked into Christianity. (woe is me). Yes, I think UU and Wicca will continue their success.

I keep telling my heathen friends to stop dreaming of having a successful religion. Our religion is culturally and ethnically specific, it requires a great deal of dedication, and most of us have very little tolerance for people who simply want to play viking. Our numbers will always remain few. We have no interest in converts either - no message of peace on earth, no idealism about the afterlife, and no lovey-dovey atmosphere. People don't like to be told to work hard, live well, and be strong. They get that kind of stress from their jobs, they don't want it from their religion.

 

[shema]

The Earth has shaken for 4 billion years.

You don't understand your own theology if you believe "anyone" against Christ is The Anti-Christ.

No, my naive friend, when the Anti-Christ comes, you'll know it. (I'm pretty sure he's on vacation at the Crawford Ranch.)

Well I stated that the earth is shaking More and More as techtonic plates move more and more. the earth is moving at a faster rate than ever before.
anti- means against. anyone who is not with christ is against him. And I do know the anti-christ is here because Im speaking to him. The anti christ is a spirit. but to take what i said out of contect was unfair. Im simply stating some of the reasons why I believe science will soon prove biblical history.

 

[Smoke]

I believe Jesus when he said that the earth will shake just before my return, and it will be hard to tell the seasons apart.

Where did he say that?

 

[Smoke]

Well I stated that the earth is shaking More and More as techtonic plates move more and more. the earth is moving at a faster rate than ever before.

See this page from the U.S. Geological Service:

Are Earthquakes Really on the Increase?

We continue to be asked by many people throughout the world if earthquakes are on the increase. Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant.

A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more that 8,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by electronic mail, internet and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate earthquakes more rapidly and to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years. The NEIC now locates about 20,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 50 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in the environment and natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes.

According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year.



​

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

Well I stated that the earth is shaking More and More as techtonic plates move more and more. the earth is moving at a faster rate than ever before.
anti- means against. anyone who is not with christ is against him. And I do know the anti-christ is here because Im speaking to him. The anti christ is a spirit. but to take what i said out of contect was unfair. Im simply stating some of the reasons why I believe science will soon prove biblical history.

Ok, maybe I was unfair, I apologize.

What I find interesting is that Christians, after hundreds of years of denying the validity of science, have recently begun to use science to "prove" the Bible. So, if you believe in science, then you must believe in the Big Bang, which would make the universe 15-20 Billion years old, and which would make Earth 4 billion years old, which directly contradicts the Bible. You believe in geology, obviously. What about aerodynamics? What about biology? Because with biology comes evolution. What about Newtonian physics? Gravity? After all, gravity is only a theory.

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

And I do know the anti-christ is here because Im speaking to him.QUOTE]

Who? Me? Do you not know that Muslims adore Jesus? Muslims also believe the Anti-Christ will come, and that Jesus will return to destroy him.

 

[James the Persian]

Ok, maybe I was unfair, I apologize.

What I find interesting is that Christians, after hundreds of years of denying the validity of science, have recently begun to use science to "prove" the Bible. So, if you believe in science, then you must believe in the Big Bang, which would make the universe 15-20 Billion years old, and which would make Earth 4 billion years old, which directly contradicts the Bible. You believe in geology, obviously. What about aerodynamics? What about biology? Because with biology comes evolution. What about Newtonian physics? Gravity? After all, gravity is only a theory.

There's actually a long history of Christians using the science of their day to explain the faith. It's only really the fundamentalist Protestants (who are a relatively recent development) who have ever railed against all science, but if this is your idea of what Christianity is then I can see why you find it ironic. Now, I would say that there's a major difference between using science as an aid to faith (which I think is quite possible) and using it to try and prove the faith, which is something science is ill equiped to do. I'd also point out that an old earth/universe only contradicts the Bible if you have an over literal interpretation of it, which again is a relatively recent development of the Protestant fundamentalist type. An example of a Church Father from long ago who did use science and philosophy and didn't interpret Genesis literally is St. Basil the Great. That's long before even the Great Schism which split eastern and western Christianity and certainly far, far older than Protestantism.

James

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

There's actually a long history of Christians using the science of their day to explain the faith. It's only really the fundamentalist Protestants (who are a relatively recent development) who have ever railed against all science, but if this is your idea of what Christianity is then I can see why you find it ironic. Now, I would say that there's a major difference between using science as an aid to faith (which I think is quite possible) and using it to try and prove the faith, which is something science is ill equiped to do. I'd also point out that an old earth/universe only contradicts the Bible if you have an over literal interpretation of it, which again is a relatively recent development of the Protestant fundamentalist type.

James

Good points. My only disagreement is that I believe the church, catholic and protestant, has had a continuing bias against science since the Renaissance. Galileo and Copernicus, are just the first two who come to mind, who struggled with their careers, and their lives, against the church. It seems as though the church has had a reluctant acceptance of some scientific principles, and I believe Pope John Paul II was the first to officially acknowlege science as a means to validate faith. Churchmembers have had more liberal opinions, en masse, but it seems as though the official line has been more conservative.

What gets me are literalists (like Shema) who use science when it meets his needs, but deny it when it contradicts his literalism.

Thanks, James!

 

[James the Persian]

Good points. My only disagreement is that I believe the church, catholic and protestant, has had a continuing bias against science since the Renaissance. Galileo and Copernicus, are just the first two who come to mind, who struggled with their careers, and their lives, against the church. It seems as though the church has had a reluctant acceptance of some scientific principles, and I believe Pope John Paul II was the first to officially acknowlege science as a means to validate faith. Churchmembers have had more liberal opinions, en masse, but it seems as though the official line has been more conservative.

What gets me are literalists (like Shema) who use science when it meets his needs, but deny it when it contradicts his literalism.

Thanks, James!

Yeah, but both the RCs and the Protestants are western Christians and there was no Renaissance in the east. What they did after the Great Schism is something I can't really comment on. There's clear evidence of the science and philosophy of the day being used coupled with non-literal interpretation of the Bible in the undivided Church and also in the Orthodox Church post-Schism. There are also some who go against the idea on our side, but I would suggest they are the minority. This doesn't mean that we will necessarily accept everything science suggests, though. As an example of 'scientific' model that I have a hard time accepting on scientific grounds I'd suggest the standard cosmological model. It seems closer to religion than science (who knows, maybe the 'scientific' religion of the future will worship dark energy/matter?) and so I can't imagine the Church accepting such an idea, but reasonably concrete (even if subsequently shown to be incorrect) science doesn't seem to cause Orthodox Christianity any great difficulties, and I'd include things like the age of the universe in such a category.

James

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

Yeah, but both the RCs and the Protestants are western Christians and there was no Renaissance in the east. What they did after the Great Schism is something I can't really comment on. There's clear evidence of the science and philosophy of the day being used coupled with non-literal interpretation of the Bible in the undivided Church and also in the Orthodox Church post-Schism. There are also some who go against the idea on our side, but I would suggest they are the minority. This doesn't mean that we will necessarily accept everything science suggests, though. As an example of 'scientific' model that I have a hard time accepting on scientific grounds I'd suggest the standard cosmological model. It seems closer to religion than science (who knows, maybe the 'scientific' religion of the future will worship dark energy/matter?) and so I can't imagine the Church accepting such an idea, but reasonably concrete (even if subsequently shown to be incorrect) science doesn't seem to cause Orthodox Christianity any great difficulties, and I'd include things like the age of the universe in such a category.

James

You're entirely right. Being raised Roman Catholic, my entire Christian experience has revolved around their teachings and my understanding of the history of the Church is completely biased toward that side. I honestly forget how different the two sides are - that is, Eastern and Western Christianities.

I apologize - I promise to learn more and to include Orthodox Christianity in my thoughts when making statements. My only interaction with the Orthodox was Greek Orthodox. I witnessed the Byzantine Choir of Athens University give a performance at the Sydney Opera House. Absolutely stunning. I had always heard chant in Latin, so to listen to it in Greek was intriuging. I see you are Romanian. Here's a question that further reveals my ignorance - are your services in Greek?

 

[James the Persian]

You're entirely right. Being raised Roman Catholic, my entire Christian experience has revolved around their teachings and my understanding of the history of the Church is completely biased toward that side. I honestly forget how different the two sides are - that is, Eastern and Western Christianities.

I apologize - I promise to learn more and to include Orthodox Christianity in my thoughts when making statements. My only interaction with the Orthodox was Greek Orthodox. I witnessed the Byzantine Choir of Athens University give a performance at the Sydney Opera House. Absolutely stunning. I had always heard chant in Latin, so to listen to it in Greek was intriuging. I see you are Romanian. Here's a question that further reveals my ignorance - are your services in Greek?

No problem. Most westerners forget about us, which has both up sides and down sides to it. I'm not personally a fan of the Greek style of singing, it's a bit shrill for my ears and I prefer the Romanian and Slav singing. I'm Romanian Orthodox but I'm not ethnically Romanian (I'm a mongrel mixture of central and western European peoples) but, no, we don't have the Liturgy in Greek but in Romanian (and, my parish being in England) with some English thrown in. There was a period in history when the Romanian church officially used Church Slavonic despite Romanian being a romance language (though more often it was Romanian made to sound like Church Slavonic - Romanian even has a verb a boscorodi to describe mumbling Romanian to make it sound like Slavonic!) but generally speaking the policy of the Orthodox Church has always been to use the vernacular. Ideally, for instance, my parish would use English, but as we are mostly made up of immigrants and those of us who do speak English as a first language have a good grasp of Romanian, for the moment Romanian makes more sense. Give it a couple of generations, though, or an influx of converts and that might all change.

James