What Comes After Religion?

[joe1776]

The Abrahamic religions were created by men who probably saw themselves as shepherds, and shepherds need sheep -- and they're adept at flock-building. By indoctrinating young minds generation after generation, they built a huge flock of followers. But what did they have to offer them?

They taught them of a god that offers conditional love -- I will love you if you please me -- which isn't love at all. The founders of these very popular religions simply didn't understand that genuine love is always unconditional.

The scripture they wrote giving moral guidance was useless. It has always been lagging behind the leading edge of moral progress set by the keener consciences among us. Scripture condones slavery and is clearly opposed to equal rights for women, for example.

In 2005, just after the election of a new pope, the Gallup people polled American Catholics. 74% said that on controversial moral issues they would heed their conscience rather than the teaching of their church. I doubt that lay Catholics are the only believers who have lost faith in the moral guidance of their clergy.

Humanity's progress in technology is obvious. Social progress is less obvious because it happens so slowly. But, it's true. We humans are actually learning from experience.

I can't see traditional Western religion surviving in the more sophisticated world of the future but, in your opinion, what replaces it if anything?

 

[Kirran]

They taught them of a god that offers conditional love -- I will love you if you please me -- which isn't love at all. The founders of these very popular religions simply didn't understand that genuine love is always unconditional.

You can't even back that up for Paul, let alone the others.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not Love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not Love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not Love, it profiteth me nothing.

Love suffereth long, and is kind;
Love envieth not;
Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly,
Seeketh not her own,
Is not easily provoked,
Thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, Love, these three; but the greatest of these is Love.

 

[joe1776]

You can't even back that up for Paul, let alone the others.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians:

How is God's love unconditional if I go to eternal punishment in hell when I don't accept Jesus as my Savior?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can't even back that up for Paul, let alone the others.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians:

Other passages establish Paul's God's love as conditional.

To the OP: religion will be replaced by nothing and everything. We don't have to look for one specific thing (or a specific collection of things) that form a religion-shaped plug to put in society's religion-shaped hole; we just have to ask ourselves how human needs and desires should be met, and be guided by that.

... and different people will have different ideas of what those needs and desires are, so they will (and have) come up with different approaches.

This has always happened with religion there and will keep happening with religion absent.

 

[Kirran]

How is God's love unconditional if I go to eternal punishment in hell when I don't accept Jesus as my Savior?

Other passages establish Paul's God's love as conditional.

Fine, but even the presence of that verse is enough to indicate that a blanket statement like 'the founders of Christianity held God's love to be conditional' is wide of the mark.

 

[joe1776]

To the OP: religion will be replaced by nothing and everything. We don't have to look for one specific thing (or a specific collection of things) that form a religion-shaped plug to put in society's religion-shaped hole; we just have to ask ourselves how human needs and desires should be met, and be guided by that.

... and different people will have different ideas of what those needs and desires are, so they will (and have) come up with different approaches.

This has always happened with religion there and will keep happening with religion absent.

I sometimes think as you do, but I'm not as sure of that position as you seem to be because we humans seem to be at our best when we are cooperating in a worthy cause. Viktor Frankl's book "Man's Search for Meaning made sense to me on this topic.

You and i will agree that religion is a false path, but people were on that path drawn by some need. Yes, they were indoctrinated as children, but I'm not sure that they remained simply because the early indoctrination was so effective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fine, but even the presence of that verse is enough to indicate that a blanket statement like 'the founders of Christianity held God's love to be conditional' is wide of the mark.

I think the term "founders of Christianity" may be a bit wonky, but aside from that, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: how did they actually behave?

I'm not sure how we can measure the attitudes of the absolutely earliest Christians, but the earliest indications are that there was quite a bit of intolerance in the early Church. Certainly there's clear evidence of Christians having no problem with murdering people they thought God disapproved of. This is something that happened fairly regularly and points to attitudes that existed beforehand.

 

[joe1776]

Fine, but even the presence of that verse is enough to indicate that a blanket statement like 'the founders of Christianity held God's love to be conditional' is wide of the mark.

To save us some time, I will grant that you can cherry-pick something out of your Bible, estimated to be 700,000 words, that will oppose anything I write.

 

[Kirran]

I think the term "founders of Christianity" may be a bit wonky, but aside from that, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: how did they actually behave?

I'm not sure how we can measure the attitudes of the absolutely earliest Christians, but the earliest indications are that there was quite a bit of intolerance in the early Church. Certainly there's clear evidence of Christians having no problem with murdering people they thought God disapproved of. This is something that happened fairly regularly and points to attitudes that existed beforehand.

I'm not sure the proof necessarily is in the pudding in this case. We can't say snow is brown just because it gets soiled when it falls in mud, y'know?

 

[YmirGF]

I can't see traditional Western religion surviving in the more sophisticated world of the future but, in your opinion, what replaces it if anything?

One of my predictions is the eventual demise of religion as we know it even today. I agree 100% that religion cannot really connect with modernity though many theists will tie themselves into pretzels in mental gymnastics to make it more palatable. There are certain religions that seem incapable of change and others that are implored by their founders that their religion is perfect already. This kind of thinking will only appeal to the gullible and those who are looking for superficial answers to difficult questions. What will follow religion? A hangover of a sorts and then the clear light of a new era where reality is our guide when we have outgrown our need for the delusional prophets of yesteryear.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They taught them of a god that offers conditional love -- I will love you if you please me -- which isn't love at all. The founders of these very popular religions simply didn't understand that genuine love is always unconditional.

That is worth a million repeats. If you know what love is, it is hard to accept this "one chance or else" as anything that resembles what we would expect of a benevolent and merciful being who loves unconditionally. What we find in the Bible isn't unconditional love, it isn't even love; what we do find is very much "my way or the highway."

I can't see traditional Western religion surviving in the more sophisticated world of the future but, in your opinion, what replaces it if anything?

I think atheism and agnosticism will grow, perhaps even experiencing explosive growth for a time, and we'll probably see also a rise in deism and pantheism and panentheism.

You can't even back that up for Paul, let alone the others.

I would never consider labeling this as unconditional love, but rather more akin to unconditional hatred:
1 Timothy 2:11-15
I especially want to call attention to verse 15:

Notwithstanding [women] shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

There is absolutely nothing unconditionally loved being expressed by saying women were the first to sin, women were deceived not men, must be quiet and submissive, must dress a certain way, must not "usurp" authority from a man, and are saved through being human-baby Pez dispensers.
And what's up with verse 8? Jesus said to pray in a closet, but Paul says to do it everywhere.

 

[joe1776]

...What will follow religion? A hangover of a sorts and then the clear light of a new era where reality is our guide when we have outgrown our need for the delusional prophets of yesteryear.

Will Science lead the way? Philosophy? I don't think so, but my crystal ball gets fuzzy at this point.

 

[YmirGF]

Will Science lead the way? Philosophy? I don't think so, but my crystal ball gets fuzzy at this point.

My crystal ball is fuzzy on that point too but I would hope rationality and realization would lead the way.

 

[joe1776]

I think atheism and agnosticism will grow, perhaps even experiencing explosive growth for a time, and we'll probably see also a rise in deism and pantheism and panentheism..

In other words every belief we have now will expand to fill the void? OK, maybe.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Religion isn't going anywhere. The demographics are shifting towards Islam becoming the dominant religion globally by numbers. Western atheists don't have enough kids to replace their population so the population of white Western secularists will continue to fall. The truth is that more religious people have larger numbers of children. In the West, they will replace an aging population through immigration, conversion and revivals. We see this in Europe already. Russia knows and pushes for its Russian Orthodox population to have more children. Atheists are mostly white, too, so their drop in numbers says nothing about Western blacks, Asians and Latinos, who continue to have higher rates of religiosity.

The Changing Global Religious Landscape
10 facts about atheists

This is just facts. Everything else is just pie in the sky idealism and the myth of "progress".

 

[George-ananda]

I can't see traditional Western religion surviving in the more sophisticated world of the future but, in your opinion, what replaces it if anything?

A newer type of western spiritualism that has its basis in eastern Hindu/Buddhist traditions presented in a way for a western audience. God is no longer seen as an external being but as the experiencer in every living thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Religion isn't going anywhere. The demographics are shifting towards Islam becoming the dominant religion globally by numbers. Western atheists don't have enough kids to replace their population so the population of white Western secularists will continue to fall. The truth is that more religious people have larger numbers of children. In the West, they will replace an aging population through immigration, conversion and revivals. We see this in Europe already. Russia knows and pushes for its Russian Orthodox population to have more children. Atheists are mostly white, too, so their drop in numbers says nothing about Western blacks, Asians and Latinos, who continue to have higher rates of religiosity.

The Changing Global Religious Landscape
10 facts about atheists

I think we will eventually hit a point where we realize that we are so far culturally removed from the Abrahamic texts and religions as it says to actually practice them will all their laws and punishments, that people are going to put them down and seek sources that are morally superior to the Tanakh/NT/Quran, and don't justify things like slavery and misogyny.

 

[LuisDantas]

The very word "religion" is essentially impossible to decipher without some context as of now.

Some people take it to mean "dogmatic behavior". Others use it in contrast to dogmatic acceptance of a scripture, operating under the premise that religion is human-made and therefore "unreliable", presumably unlike the true god-given doctrine.

Attempts to "let go" of religion sound to me a bit naive, to be frank. Various conceptions of religion are pretty much unavoidable, for both constructive and destructive reasons, for a variety of anthropological and social reasons. Trying to dismiss that pull is far more likely than not to just make us less aware of whatever it brings to be.

Tempting as it is to "find one's way" and then ignore the very significant challenges of mutual understanding that come with the decision to attempt to understand the role and reality of religion (and its alternatives) in our midst, it seems to me that we do in fact need to face those challenges up front and make sincere, dedicated efforts at, first of all, attaining a clear understanding of the variety of stances regarding religion.

That alone will be traumatic enough, at least at first. But it must be done. We have postponed for far too many generations the very real need of accepting that some people hold views of religion that are not really compatible with our own, even among family and close friends. Talking openly about that is not very often really possible, because the bad habit of taking refuge in false "certainty" has taken a lot of root already.

Before we can truly consider whether religion is worthy and whether it can or should be substituted, we must undo the difficult knot of mutual acceptance and understanding that, to a very significant extent, we attempt to avoid dealing with by turning into what is nominally supposed to be "religion".

There are a lot of very unpleasant, difficult traps to dismount in there. Close family who has become disfunctional out of fear of hell, or who has an actual need of "certainties" that do not really make sense. People who are phobic or deeply delusional and take refuge in unhealthy stances of doctrine or belief. In short, people who are a lot of trouble to deal with and that, to some extent or another, we would rather not have to. It is entirely unrealistic to expect those situations to solve themselves of their own accord without our own participation and with no significant bad consequences.

On the other hand, that is perhaps more of a solution than it is a problem. Once we face those problems up front, there will be that much less reason to worry about many questions that are IMO unproperly considered "religious" in nature. Doctrine is not supposed to be protection against basic social responsibility and civility.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think we will eventually hit a point where we realize that we are so far culturally removed from the Abrahamic texts and religions as it says to actually practice them will all their laws and punishments, that people are going to put them down and seek sources that are morally superior to the Tanakh/NT/Quran, and don't justify things like slavery and misogyny.

That's nice, but do you have demographic data to back that up? None of the data I've seen bears that out. Islam will overtake Christianity by the numbers globally and the center of Christianity will shift to Africa and Asia. Europe and the rest of the West will experience a shrinking population that will be largely replaced by immigration.

 

[joe1776]

Religion isn't going anywhere. The demographics are shifting towards Islam becoming the dominant religion globally by numbers.

I see Islam as the religion with the most staying power because its followers are generally less urbane, sophisticated, and skeptical than those of Judaism and Christianity. But, it's just a matter of time until all crumble.