Which Religions Will Die Out?

[DragonHawk1959]

Within the next thousand years, which major religious traditions of today (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, whichever others you'd like to talk about) can you see dying out entirely? If any.

Will your own religion die out? I imagine not

Other side of the coin, which ones do you think are likely to flourish, grow, spread? What'll be the changes to such religions as they grow? Might they include religions that are currently pretty small, like the Baha'i Faith, the Rastafari movement, Raelianism, Cao Dai?

I'll be interested to hear people's opinions.

 

[DragonHawk1959]

Within the next thousand years, which major religious traditions of today (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, whichever others you'd like to talk about) can you see dying out entirely? If any.

Will your own religion die out? I imagine not

Other side of the coin, which ones do you think are likely to flourish, grow, spread? What'll be the changes to such religions as they grow? Might they include religions that are currently pretty small, like the Baha'i Faith, the Rastafari movement, Raelianism, Cao Dai?

I'll be interested to hear people's opinions.

Any religion which fails to adapt will eventually become irrelevant.

 

[Maranatha]

I feel that all religions in the forms they've taken over the last 1500-3000 years could be more or less extinct within 200 years, if they fail to adapt to the intelligence and consciousness of our younger and forthcoming generations.

I am currently reading a book called "God in us: A case for Christian Humanism" by a Church of England Bishop, who descibes himself as an atheist. He goes on to describe that he's only really atheistic to the "king god" notion that he used to subscribe to (God in the clouds / heaven, judging and with omnipotent abilities to act, while often not).

The author (Anthony Freeman) now believes that God is not external. S/he doesn't exist externally at all - just within our consciounces and consciousness.

Love, compassion, joy, etc, are God.

Anyway back to the point - Freeman (who is still a bishop in the CofE, although he was sacked by his parish), believes that Christianity must "adapt or die".

The "king god", personal notion of God just does not stand up to proper scrutinty and investigation when approached rationally. If this god existed, able to stop the suffering of babies and children, and chose not to, what sort of monster would he be?

If you watch this short video from Jay Lakhani you will see a similar perspective within Hinduism. He describes the fact that reason can not be ignored when considering God, and that young people and emerging generations especially will reject God notions that are inconsistant with reason;

I am a Panentheist; for me God is everything, in everything and of everything. Every experience that is held in the universe (joyful, painful, blissful, tragic) are being experienced by god. God for me is never external and always internal; hence I'm in agreement with the above views.

Religions that are primarily concerned with external authority, legalism and rules, promises and threats - I really believe have a short future left, as mankind's consciousness and intelligence continues to evolve.

 

[Maranatha]

A form of worship involves 2, does it not? The one worshiped and the ones worshiping?

I don't agree this is a necessary condition for worship.

Non-dualists such as aherents of Advaita Vedanta would not either. The route of the word 'worship' lies in the word 'worth' ; an activity that is 'worthwhile', or 'worthy', 'worth-ship'.

Some of my friends at my local Quaker meeting are non-theistic humanists and still attend "Meeting for Worship". They use the silence to 'worship' the highest ideals of humanity. The hope that humanity can evolve and grow to become better at being humans.

Nichiren Buddhists are entirely non-theistic but refer to 'prayer' and 'worship' ; in their case of their beliefs about the Lotus Sutra and the Law of Cause & Effect that it represents.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Within the next thousand years, which major religious traditions of today (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, whichever others you'd like to talk about) can you see dying out entirely? If any.

Will your own religion die out? I imagine not

Other side of the coin, which ones do you think are likely to flourish, grow, spread? What'll be the changes to such religions as they grow? Might they include religions that are currently pretty small, like the Baha'i Faith, the Rastafari movement, Raelianism, Cao Dai?

I'll be interested to hear people's opinions.

Since most religions rely on faith/emotion for belief, one can't really make a reasoned guess as to which will reasonably survive. Reason does indicate that since the Age of Reason has been around for 300+ years, and if anything religions are just as unreasonable as before, it's going to take a lot more than a thousand years.

Now if you want to talk about which religions and philosophies should fade away, then I'd say all of them except agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism. There's no reasonable evidence for or against either at this point, and I'm willing to bet there won't be for the next million years...at least. Either there is no God, or It's made it to appear that there's no evidence for it on this side of the information firewall (i.e. the Planck space-time limit).

 

[Hawkins]

Basically it is not easy for an established religion to die out completely as each religion is ultimately tied to a single question which humans are unable to answer without a religion.

This question is, what would happen after death?

Everyone, religious or not, will have to have an answer of faith as it concerns one's life. While religious people believe with faith that life will continue in a form, secular people believe with the same among of faith that life will cease to continue, though to them this belief by faith is sub-conscious and without their own self awareness. So in the end, secularism is just another form of religion which will likely flourish.

 

[Maranatha]

Seeing how atheism is not a belief system, that would be quite a trick.

I disagree.

Proof for or against existance of a god or absolute reality can be neither proven nor disproven by empirical means.

From a standpoint of absolutely reason and logic; the only entirely rational viewpoint in the theism/atheism subject is agnosticism.

Empirically, by means of the senses, we do not know.

Theism and Atheism; being extremes of that rational position, are both "beliefs".

Now some will claim that as there is no empirical proof of God, that this means that there is no god but that viewpoint, from a Philosophical perspective at least, is invalid. We cannot 'know' something to be true (epistimology-wise) where we have no means of falsification; no means of proving it to be false.

Here's an example;

PREMISE: We cannot 'see', and therefore prove, that the colour of air is green.

CONCLUSION: As the colour of air is not Green, it must be Orange.

The conclusion is of course invalid. Such is the same with the god debate. It is not a 'binary' debate; (eg... It can onIy be A or B. t's not A so it must be B = false).

Some atheists are some of the most 'evangelical' people I've ever come across! .... Fixed views and absolutely unwilling to debate or consider other viewpoints.

 

[LuisDantas]

Basically it is not easy for an established religion to die out completely as each religion is ultimately tied to a single question which humans are unable to answer without a religion.

This question is, what would happen after death?

That is not an universal or even the best question to characterize religion.

 

[Hawkins]

That is not an universal or even the best question to characterize religion.

You miss the point. That's the question why religions won't die out. I never said something about what characterize religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Odd IMO, but I guess you may well be right about that.

 

[bishblaize]

I disagree.

Proof for or against existance of a god or absolute reality can be neither proven nor disproven by empirical means.

From a standpoint of absolutely reason and logic; the only entirely rational viewpoint in the theism/atheism subject is agnosticism.

Empirically, by means of the senses, we do not know.

Theism and Atheism; being extremes of that rational position, are both "beliefs".

Now some will claim that as there is no empirical proof of God, that this means that there is no god but that viewpoint, from a Philosophical perspective at least, is invalid. We cannot 'know' something to be true (epistimology-wise) where we have no means of falsification; no means of proving it to be false.

Here's an example;

PREMISE: We cannot 'see', and therefore prove, that the colour of air is green.

CONCLUSION: As the colour of air is not Green, it must be Orange.

The conclusion is of course invalid. Such is the same with the god debate. It is not a 'binary' debate; (eg... It can onIy be A or B. t's not A so it must be B = false).

Some atheists are some of the most 'evangelical' people I've ever come across! .... Fixed views and absolutely unwilling to debate or consider other viewpoints.

I think there's a difference between a belief and a 'belief system'. The latter, to my ears, implies an inter-connected series of beliefs, which tends to be common to religions. Atheists may have many beliefs, but they do not interplay in the way that religious beliefs do.

I disagree with your point about agnosticism. The mistake you make is to assume that the rational position is the one that requires 100% proof before having it as a belief. Down that road lies nihilism or solipsism. Nothing can be proven beyond any logical or philosophical querying. We each accept that a certain amount of evidence, or lack of evidence, is sufficient to make a judgement call. It's entirely rational to say you are 100% atheist or 100% theist, if you find that the evidence (or lack) is sufficient for to make up your mind.

 

[Caligula]

I am confused by the "Christianity will continue to shrink" comments. All the Abrahamic faiths are growing faster than the rate of population growth worldwide, and the rate of growth is accelerating. There is a long term worldwide desecularization trend that is well established. How does that translate into shrinking?

I don't doubt your sincerity but I would like to see some statistics that support your claim that "Abrahamic faiths are growing faster than the rate of population growth worldwide". I'm genuinely interested.

I am one of those that claims Christianity shrinks, independent of the growth rate you are talking about. Let me explain a bit: when I said this I was not talking about numbers/adepts. I already stated that this is of little importance. I was talking about religion's influence and the power to impose dogmas in the future.

What difference does it make now if 90% of the people in a country declare themselves Christians, for example, if in that country religion classes are no longer mandatory, homosexuality gains, or is in the inevitable process of gaining the status it never dreamt for 100 years before, abortion hasn't moved an inch etc.?

The first laws enabling same-sex marriage in modern times were enacted during the first decade of the 21st century. As of 1 January 2015, seventeen countries (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,[nb 4] and Uruguay) and certain sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Mexico and most states of the United States) allow same-sex couples to marry. Polls show rising support for legally recognizing same-sex marriage in the Americas and in parts of Europe.

Source: Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only gains Christianity accumulates are in terms of adepts and probably wealth, but definitely not in terms of power. It may win on one front but at the same time it loses on many others. It has problems maintaining its power and the fact that it lost a great deal of it is not the result of religion voluntarily ceasing, but of the fact that fundamentalists lost the support they once had from the moderates. That's where Islam and Judaism score more points than Christianity, if you ask me.

So it's the hard nucleus, composed of dogmatic people, that shrinks and could potentially perish. And when that happens the "tissue" becomes flexible and softer than ever, making faith nothing more than a personal philosophy in regards to origins, life and death, with no real impact on politics.

 

[bishblaize]

Basically it is not easy for an established religion to die out completely as each religion is ultimately tied to a single question which humans are unable to answer without a religion.

This question is, what would happen after death?

Everyone, religious or not, will have to have an answer of faith as it concerns one's life. While religious people believe with faith that life will continue in a form, secular people believe with the same among of faith that life will cease to continue, though to them this belief by faith is sub-conscious and without their own self awareness. So in the end, secularism is just another form of religion which will likely flourish.

I disagree that its that simple. It is one of the questions certainly. However religions fulfill a wide range of needs, and for every religion that fills one need, you can find another popular religion that doesn't bother. Judaism and some forms of Buddhism for example are rather unconcerned with what happens after we die, compared to Christianity and Islam which are very preoccupied with that.

 

[Laika]

I foresee a revival and strengthening of the Abrahamic faiths.

Global warming, over-population, resource depletion, environmental degradation, and other factors are almost certain to result in the destruction of liberal democracies and a rise of authoritarian or totalitarian states. In authoritarian states, the Abrahamic faiths will likely prove useful to the rulers as means of social control, and promoted for that reason.

The same factors (global warming, etc) are also almost certain to result in a reduction of standards of living and an increase in religiosity as people turn to their religions for charity.

This nightmare goes round my head most days. I hope as a species, we are wise enough to avoid it.

 

[Darius Madjzoub]

For a Baha'i, religion is progressive revelations that began from the begining that has no begining and will end that has no ending. Science is the systematic study of the evolution of the universe, while religion is the history of evolution of man's spiritualization. In that sense all great religions are divine in origin and are branches of the tree of oneness. They only differ in the application of their social laws as it applies to the needs of the time. In that sense, religion will be with us eternally as material evolution is endless.

I'll be interested to hear people's opinions.[/QUOTE]

 

[Joshua Ray]

All of them. If one is supposed to believe that we're to worship only God and keep his Commandments then none of them can exist. He wouldnt allow it. Because all of the religions are led by men that control the masses by insisting that people obey them before God. And those men insist that their laws are as important as the laws the God of Abraham set in stone.

 

[we-live-now]

Within the next thousand years, which major religious traditions of today (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, whichever others you'd like to talk about) can you see dying out entirely? If any.

Will your own religion die out? I imagine not

Other side of the coin, which ones do you think are likely to flourish, grow, spread? What'll be the changes to such religions as they grow? Might they include religions that are currently pretty small, like the Baha'i Faith, the Rastafari movement, Raelianism, Cao Dai?

I'll be interested to hear people's opinions.

I am convinced that eventually ALL religions (of man) will die out.

All of natural man is under "law" (death/darkness) and God's (perfect) law consumes all that is under it and transforms it into the same substance that God is made of. This is the essence of his holy and "consuming" fire. It causes us to be "reborn" or adopted as his very own children. This is independent of any and all "religion" which is always on man's side.

This is just my (sadly - often not so humble) opinion. I am an expert at it.

 

[Conceivia]

The Bible tells us that all religions will merge into one. Probably from one great prophet, the Savior, who will end war by teaching love. The Bible tells us that all nations will go to that prophet (actually called a mountain, but I believe it is talking about that prophet) to get wisdom and rule accordingly.

I believe I am probably that prophet, which, if true, would mean that one religion is actually more of an acceptance and encouragement to study all religions. The basic concept that God speaks to us through all religions.

What would die out is the hatred of any religion. The "holier than thou" attitude. The whole concept of separating ourselves into different religions, and saying you are a christian, you are a jew, etc. No one would say "I'm a christian", rather they would say "I am studying the teachings of Christ".

No one would worship any person, not even the Savior. There would be no assumption that even the Savior is right, but rather people would use their brains in all things. They would have respect for the Savior, and for other experts in their fields, but not to the point of insanity.

That is what I would expect the future to be like, If I am the Savior, and even if someone else is the Savior. The Savior would have to be a humble person, not a person who demands worship or claims to be above everyone else.

No one can save mankind, without enlisting the help of the people, not just help in doing work, but also help in making the decisions. There is simply to many decisions to be made. One person, even with God's help, can not make all the decisions that need to be made. This means that the Savior MUST be humble and allow the people to think for themselves and act on their decisions.

Tony

 

[Conceivia]

So in effect, this would mean that all religions would die out, and no religions would die out. How's that for a simplification?

In essence, by not committing yourself to a religion, you have complete freedom to think. A religion is a "thing" just as an idol is a "thing". When you bow down and worship a thing, it takes away your allegiance to God. Your allegiance is not to God, but rather to the thing you worship, your religion.

That was more understandable in my head... as it always is, but hopefully you'll get the point.

As an example, notice how people align themselves with a political party, and once they do they'll twist the truth to fit the needs of their party. If their party supports something, they'll support it as well, to the point of insanity. To the point of loosing all rational. They are committed to that belief, and they will not let anything change it.

That commitment takes away their freedom to think. It also takes away their freedom to follow God.

Tony

 

[AstralProjectee]

As a long time contemplater of religion I can see the Abrahamic religions dying out with possibly Christianity converting into a new and better form. Only reason I say that is that Jesus has been seen in NDE's. Eg Howard Storm was saved by Jesus from the ravages of hell. Which he was only lured into from the astral when he had an NDE. His soundings even had the classical bluish tint that astral projectors talk about.

On a more practical note I see a form of shamanism coming back up big time once the war on drugs/psychedelics has totally changed. I see psychonauts with psychedelics becoming the new spiritual path.

And most importantly I see science leading up to the ability for anyone to enter the spirit world otherwise known as astral project or have an out of body experience. There are a number of ways this will be done. One is what once we are able to tell exactly what in going on subjectively with nanobots in the brain we can then gauge peoples experience, whether it's by psychedelics, astral projection or out of body experience, or even meditation. We will have a front row seat into what it's like. Then we can start to find out how we can replicate these experiences in our own minds and bodies. Another way it can be done is if we test the genetics of all very good astral projectors then find out what is it that gives them this energetic edge to be able to leave their bodies at night. Then we can tweak those genes with drugs or nanobots to give anyone the ability to astral project and go out of body.

So this will mean that meditation and psychedelics will also be vindicated as a path to peace. Especially with the help of genetics or nanobots.

And to put all this in a nut shell, I see Open-Source religion being the new religion that accommodates a hugely growing open-mindedness toward other religions, along with a growing consensus as to what types of spirituality actually work. Personally I think the types of spirituality that actually work is meditation, psychedelics, witch craft, shamanism, astral projection or OBE. As you can see these aren't really religions as they are more tools that all religions have used to some degree or another.