So, where do you think religion is headed in the medium term?

[Random_Australian]

I've heard people talk a lot about what is happening in the short term (current trends) and what they think will happen in the long term (religion dying out, being replaced, or going forever), but what will it do in the meantime? What will happen before then?

Eventually, I decided the easiest way to think about it was in terms of characteristics - "what properties will the dominant religions have? Why?" - and have a couple of ideas for where things can be headed.

1) We see more people controlling their brains through various means. Like meditation, and choosing what to put into their body when. (Rather than responding to emotional urges, if you follow me). I know that religious experience can affect people's brains markedly, and I'd guess someone will figure out some exploits using religion eventually.

2) There is the idea of religious identity - the idea of belonging to a particular social group (and therefore desiring to propogate that group), so I think we will continue to see tradition-based religion (religion as social structure) continue.

3) There are still quite a compliment of believers who do not identify with any structure; I'm going to guess that they will keep searching because they still believe.

I wonder if this will be problematic.

I can see little danger in the first one; not only do I think it would probably be beneficial (depends, though. If it affects the mind like meditation, fine. If it affects it like nitrous oxide, not so fine). It could also help keep the 2nd group in check, by showing that religous feeling isn't proof of anything at all.

The second group is more of a worry. Why? Because of how these groups can be controlled by relatively few people. (two meanings to that) It also, I believe, would be the most likely of the three groups to lend itself to fanatacism.

The third group is interesting. I can think of lots of ways they could turn out good or bad (good: social glue because of high rate-of-change between religions; bad: a second form of the 2nd group, this time identifying as the ones who hold the real truth)

The questions for you all are:

A) Have I missed any obvious groups? What would you add or change to the ideas of those groups?

B) What do you think influences these groups? If you worked out a set of outcomes (say, social harmony if you can't think of anything else), what changes do you think would have to be made to bring about those outcomes? (No, I won't yell at you if you think everyone should believe your religion)

C) If you think I'm wrong, please, share. :)

[LARED]

1. I'm missing your point

I wonder if this will be problematic.


Why are any of your groups a problem? You are asking folks to recommend changes to an undefined problem.


:shrug:

[Random_Australian]

3. Ok, to clarify.

I wonder if the progression outlined here is a progression away from social harmony. We have seen group interactions become problematic in the past, and I wonder if you think they will become problematic in the future.

To give an example from elsewhere, people are concerned that the polarisation of American society will lead to problems.

It's up to you to decide what you think will happen, and if that is likely to be problematic. You can just say what you think will happen, if you like. I'm really just wondering what people are thinking.

[LARED]

9. Thanks - my thoughts

The relationship between social harmony and the natural changes in religious beliefs is highly dynamic and not easily defined let alone "managed" to desired outcome.

As already seen Western religious beliefs will continued to be watered down from historic dogmas and doctrines. These "newer or evolving" forms of religion and spiritualism will be highly tolerant of other beliefs. This in my view will have almost no impact on social harmony as Western religions and spiritualists already function with little real problems within our culture. Human nature is alway going to desire some form of disunity. The key is not killing each other over these traits, but using them is positive ways.

Perhaps my definition of social harmony is different than your. IMO social harmony is ideal when we can hold strikingly different beliefs and still and have mutual respect for each other. There is room for improvement but we do a pretty good job of it already.

Of course supernatural changes within the spiritual world are a bird of a different feather.

[Random_Australian]

17. Naw, that sounds a lot like social harmony to me.

So, what about the identity-based groups like the religious right? Haven't we seen them become more and more detached from the mainstream? Don't we now see vast quantities of people believing creationism?

We know they dislike (and intensely) other religions, and liberal christians. Do you think there will be conflict there, or will they get the same watered-down thing happening to them?

[Meshuga]

2. My two cents

The second group is what Judaism is about: identity. But I don't think that fanaticism comes from the desire to continue a tradition. I think the problem comes with the faith aspects. I think the fanaticism lies with the haredi who literally believes that torah was given by God at Sinai rather than with the Reconstructionist Jew who views Judaism as a progressively evolving civilization.

[Random_Australian]

5. True on both counts.

We can easily see that people display fanaticism based on the way they were raised (social effects a lá Jesus Camp), and that they may come to it by other means.

It is indeed important to note that it is the fanatacism that is important to avoid, rather than any single method of reaching it. However, one of the things I was thinking of when I wrote this was "how can we minimise the amount of people reaching fanatacism through social effects?", so I was attempting to address that.

We can talk about fanatacism in general later, and how that might be avoided. Or hell, I could do it right now.

Hmmm, bedtime though. Drat.

And yes, judaism as an identity was something I was thinking about. In this context, I was thinking "we have seen the rise of people from a judeo-christian background who believe there are other, valid, religions." I wonder how that group will interact with the identity-based group. I wonder how much they overlap. I wonder if the fact that liberal christians have displayed this the most will complicate matters.

Most of all, though, I wonder what your thoughts on the subject are.

[Meshuga]

11. You asked so here are my other two cents :-)

I can't speak for Christians so I don't know if there is any truth to what I am about to write, but liberal Christianity seems to be moving toward the identity-based in the sense that people who were raised as Christians feel that they have benefited from the Christian values they were taught as they were growing up, therefore (to these people), the Christian system is a good system to teach their children and to use as a guide for their own lives.

They may realize that it might not be the best system but it's a good system nonetheless that helped them be what they are and a system they are comfortable with.

With Jews, since we are a group of people with our own folkways that always had a sense of peoplehood, I think that the future lies in something along the lines of Reconstructionalist Judaism and a new secular movement that is now being formed. Reconstructionalist movement is a very small movement but very influential to all others.

In order to understand where Judaism is going you have to understand where it comes from so here is a background:

Jews lived under different rules and were tolerated by different societies. For centuries, Jews were segregated in their own little world and lived under strict regulations. During all this time we were always allowed to keep our tradition. But with the Jewish Emancipation in the 18th century, where Jews were given full citizenship rights in the US and in Europe, for example, Jews tried to find ways to be both Jewish and Americans. In response to the emancipation, the Classic Reform Movement rejected the "peoplehood" component of Judaism and tried to make Judaism into a "religion-only" movement giving focus only to the ethical tradition. One of their points, for example, was how can you be fully American when you have to follow the dietary laws? So those requirements were dropped with other traditions.

The conservative movement was created in response to the early Reform movement since the conservative felt that they could be fully American while following Jewish tradition and law. The orthodox were a response to the ultra liberalism of the Reform movement and with time they became more and more rigid. And nowadays we have the ultra-Orthodox who seem to want to go back to ghetto Judaism. But on the other side of the spectrum you also see Humanistic Judaism that gives atheist Jews the opportunity to keep their heritage without the religious baggage.

So the whole point is to keep the tradition and teachings alive. Each group has its opinion on how to best achieve that. But which is really the best way to achieve that? I think Mordechai Kaplan spelled that out pretty nicely so you see the Reform changing its principles (going back to folkways) and other movements being influenced as well, even when they don't admit to this influence.

As far as fanaticism, looking in history it seems that there has always been a rational vs. irrational struggle. The irrational seem to thrive in moments of crisis. The rational seem to thrive in times of prosperity. But we can talk about this later since this message is already too long. :-)

Sweet dreams there, R_A! I have another 12 hours until I get to go to bed.

[TZ]

12. Thats a very informative post, Mr. Wiggles!

Thank you, I did not know a lot of that..And for the whiners, I think THIS thread is a great example of what R/T is about.:hi:

[Meshuga]

14. Thanks turtlensue!

And I am convinced that the whiners love the flame wars. If they wanted to change this place for the better they would be taking a different approach.

[Random_Australian]

18. Ah, so true.

Informative too.

Hmmmmm.

Ok, now I'm thinking about fanatacism, and how it might be avoided.

Well, we've discussed how people can become fanatical through social contributions, and through their own conversions.

What other paths do people take to fanatacism, do you think? What subgroups are there to the groups we've mentioned? I wonder.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I see religion as a part of our emotional evolution and the evolution of consciousness

It appears to me that it is an emotional need for most people to feel that they have control over their lives. Meditation, diet, and spiritual practices can help with this--after all, those with self-discipline have shown that they can control their bodies to an extraordinary degree, doing things that "normal" folks could not.

But I also see, coming from this same need, another group that you did not discuss--those who embrace religion, especially the extreme fundamentalist forms of religion, in reaction and fear of the world around them. I would say it is likely, up until around 1945, most people looked upon science as a great wonder and had very positive opinions about it. And then came the dropping of the atom bomb, and the realization that science had taken us to the point where we could obliterate ourselves. And this scared an awful lot of people, making them distrust science--and fundamentalism offered a safe, comforting alternative. This is one reason you see such things as the rise of Creationism and the anti-science mentality, I think.

Another emotional need of individuals is to identify with a group. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else, such as race, nationality, or even common interests. It isn't the group itself that can become a threat to society in general--it is the attitude of the group and its leaders. Nazi Germany is a prime example. On a less extreme level, you have biker gangs and the Mafia crime families. So yes, you have a right to be concerned about extremist religious groups, but also realize that most religions aren't extreme and that you can find the same sort of extremism in other groups. The Mennonites who live around my neck of the woods would never be a threat to society, but rather a benefit; they run many stores in town that offer high quality products for very reasonable prices. And the Seventh Day Adventist store at one time had a sign that said, "We are not in business to make money. We are in business to help people."

Now to talk of your third group--I would call them seekers. They keep an open mind about things, realizing that there are no pat answers to fundamental questions such as what is the nature of consciousness, what can explain the marvelous workings of our world (such as the remarkable way in which our bodies heal themselves from many minor diseases and accidents like cuts and bruises). They do, I believe, take into account personal experiences that they have had along the way--such as epiphanies, the reaction to great beauty, the feeling that comes with a burst of great creativity. There are times in one's life when one can only stand in wonder and in awe, for it feels, at least, as if one is a part of Something far greater. But yet that Something cannot be defined--cannot be "put in a box". In my personal experience, it appears that this Something is evolving and changing even as we, as a species and as a planet, evolve and change. And yet It does this with a sense of gentle humor and kindly quirkiness that makes the whole process fascinating.

[Random_Australian]

7. Yes, true. I was in no way saying that identifying with a religious group

led to extremism. I was thinking of it as a path, and I was wondering how we can make it so that few take that path, without restricting the freedom of individuals.

I'll take some time to think about the other group you mentioned (those who distrust science). There are a couple of things I've decided about them.

A) They could be part of a more subtle social phenomenon (and as real as the other groups). Because the first thing I think is "how did they learn to mistrust science?" the obvious answer is socially. (That is, people around them demonstrate a mistrust of science which they adopt) That is a well know effect psychologically.

B) There is the release from fear by getting pat answers that they can be certain of. Lots of platitudes, and probably a social support group. (I assume that is what you meant). It does make sense for people to enjoy religion because of that.

So, do you forsee the various groups getting along? Anything different than the bulk of human history, at least?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Ah, now I understand

Sorry it took so long to respond--I wrote my initial post just before commuting to work. I'm now on my lunch break, and will endeavor to continue this fascinating discussion.

Extremist groups, no matter upon which basis they are formed, are best curtailed though education and experience, I think. For example, in the area where I live, there are few blacks, yet there are 4-5 hate groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center. What I am noticing is that these groups are isolated--most folks won't have anything to do with them, and this attitude continues to grow as people find that blacks who move here don't trash the town or bring a rise to the crime rate. Personally, I think that the Obama Administration will deal a death blow to recruitment to these organizations, as more and more realize that people are people. There will always be the anti-social types who will blame their shortcomings on "others"--for these folks, I'm not sure what to do, other than offer compassionate counsel from an early age.

As for the science distrusters:

I think that their distrust of science has been reinforced by their social situation, but still contend that the initial distrust came as people realized that science was not always right, moral, and good, which is what they were putting their faith on. Thinking back to the '50s when I was growing up, science was touted as The Thing that would solve all our problems so that we could live in safety and security--after all, wasn't it science that took away the threat of polio? But later we found science had a downside--that DDT that was great in getting rid of mosquitoes and thereby malaria, was found to really mess up the ecosystem.

Can these groups get along? Yes, but with a huge caveat: IF we can change our way of thinking.

There is no "magic path" that will suddenly make everything right for all people. There is no one "right answer" to the questions and riddles of life. And, most important, the answers to one's own personal question are not to be found "out there" but rather within one's own self. At this point in my life, I sincerely believe that consciousness itself is still evolving, changing, and that variety and change are its very essence. We can never know all the answers, because more questions are continuously being created. What we can do is find a way to experience and enjoy what is given to us in life, and to help others do the same in their own unique way.

[Random_Australian]

19. That is indeed what would have kicked it off.

Ah, I should have made myself clearer; the reason I was focussing on propogation is that I was thinking about where it was headed. But yes, that is an important part of the history of the movement and I should take that into consideration.

But yes, education and experience are at the top of my list of things that prevent extremism. Then, there is the interesting matter of how to actually get people the education and experience. For instance (taking a slightly less dangerous example), home-schooled creationists who are taught to home-school are going to take a long time to reach.

That said, I do have a recurring thought that people need to move by their own internal motives and that eventually they should find that out for themselves. But I do also know that that is not the way things usually work.

I mean, hypothetically, if I knew a small ad campaign would do something to stop the rise of a dangerous group, I would be fine with it going ahead.

All in all, though, my main approach would be to educate the community and ensure that there is very little recruitment for such groups. Still, the idea of a self-propogating group is a difficult idea to get around.

What say you?

[TZ]

6. I think at least in the US, 2 and 3 are going to be a problem

There seems to be a backlash in this country from vocal atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens et al...You can see it in this years Primaries. This is the FIRST time I can remember where ALL the candidates went out of their way to illustrate their religious creds. Its like a religious litmus test. And goodness knows what happens if one admits not to be a member of a church. I feel alot of people I know go to church because its *expected* of them, not because they really believe it. Also the current polls that show the growing amounts of people in this country who don't *believe* in evoluton is frightening.
Then there is 3--which I think is resulting a growth of what I classify as cults..lead by charismatic leaders who seem to promise hope to people who are disenchanted with traditional religion, people who want someone to guide every aspect of their lives, because they have unpleasant lives and want to change them (with the growing economic woes in this country I think we are gonna see a big issue with this).
I don't know if you've been following the FLDS saga in Texas, but its disturbing to me how many people are defending the wretched behavior of the people in this cult by the cry of religous freedom.
As an atheist, I am very pessimistic about the future when it comes to religious trends HERE.

[Random_Australian]

8. Hmmmm, I can see some ok things in there, though.

With enough people going to church simply because of expectation, more and more people will invest little emotional.... actually, hold that. With woes increasing, I can see people putting a lot of emotional investment into the church.

Hmmmmm. Cults have rarely had mainstream influence, but given the rates of fanatics to normals in there, I can see that becoming a real problem. You are right.

Do you think there is anything much that can be done to stop the rise of the influence of cults?

[TZ]

10. I wish I could answer the question

However..I'm not so sure that cults don't already have mainstream influence here. ((puts on flame retardant suit)) I believe that Mormonism and Scientology are both cults and to some extent dangerous...The influence they are now exerting frightens me. The Church of latter day saints (mormons) practically OWNS the state of Utah, and they had a candidate running for President (Romney) who talked about the importance of religious people and yet somehow forget to mention that atheists have rights too.
And as for the Scientologists..well..I think you've listened to Tom Cruise enough to see how creepy that group is.
There is of course a freedom of religion issue, but much like freedom of speech where do you draw the line between having the right to practice what you believe in, and preventing harmful societal influences..
There are no easy answers to these questions I'm afraid, and when you have people actually trying to make the Rapture come about..well...it disturbs me quite a bit.
A very thought provoking post, R_A, thank you.

[Random_Australian]

20. True, true. Both those groups have power and a lot of self-interest.

Well, specifically scientology. I don't know a lot about the mormons.

Trouble, I think.

Mr. Wiggles suggested that this was more a fight of irrational vs rational; in which case can you think of any ways that you could maintain the rationality of the mainstream, to deny the groups large recruitment?

[TZ]

22. I would like to think teaching critical thinking skills in school at a young age

would help. However, I think that people are bombarded by so much media influences (especially the celeb driven pop culture) that do NOT encourage rational thinking (especially the last 7 years), that I am not at all optimistic about changing the culture of belief without evidence.

[Random_Australian]

23. Ah, the age old circle.

With some critical thinking skills, that groups bullshit would no longer dominate, and we'd be able to teach some critical thinking skill, and then that groups bullshit would no longer.... you can see where that is going.

Interesting problem.

Diagnosis: Severely not cool.

[HamdenRice]

15. Probably a "great leap forward" of religion and science

First a few provisos. I don't think that change is going to be steady and continuous. I'm more convinced by the model created by Kuhn for how intellectual history moves forward. Although Kuhn was talking about the structure of scientific thought, the model is applicable to other kinds of thought as well.

So I would expect that religion at least in the west is going to absorb some new big insights or begin addressing some new big questions, and have a large discontinuous change -- a great leap forward. My guess is that that leap is going to involve a closer embrace of science.

While there obviously are people who think of science and religion as incompatible, I don't see it that way. At its most general, to me, religion is a way of accomodating the mystery of existence and how the world works. In the last 100 years, science has continuously revealed more and more how the world works, but each revelation creates more profound mysteries, puzzles and paradoxes.

Several scientists I know feel that the more they push back the frontiers of knowledge the more "awe" they feel about the fundamental mysteries of their fields.

For example, a physiological psychologist I used to know, a guy who was mapping thought onto the physical brain, used to constantly use this refrain: "thought will always remain an epiphenomenon." By that he meant, no matter how precise we can get in showing what happens in the brain when certain thoughts are thought, there will never (in his opinion) be a way of showing how the phenomenon of brain activity generates the subjective experience of thought. In this way, the more he pushes back on the details of the physiology of thought, the more mysterious the "soul" becomes to him.

Another example is a molecular geneticist. When we talk, he often marvels at how intracellular organic molecules, especially enzymes, act as though they "know" what they are supposed to do. To him, you can't explain the interaction of enzymes and substates within cells as the randomized interaction of molecules in solution. So to him, as he studies science, he keeps coming up against what he calls "life force," and this has caused him to "convert" to Buddhism and become convinced that everything has consciousness.

Two scientists I know have remarked that if only the church talked about the awe of existence and mysteries of life and the universe they would attend. It wouldn't have to have answers, but it would capture that sense of awe that they feel from science.

A few years ago, Rabbi Michael Lerner gave a speech at a peace rally in which quite surprisingly, he pulled back from the immediate issue of war and peace to a riff on the scale of the universe and what it meant for us as humans, and ethics.

Ultimately, I feel that is where progressive religions are going. Liberal Christianity and liberal Reformed Judaism having made the sacred texts largely metaphorical and historical are liberated to address the mysteries and awe we feel about the scientifically described universe, rather than the myteries and awe that people felt about the universe 2000 years ago.

If I had to guess about the direction of liberal religion in the U.S., it will look something like California in the 70s at the height of the New Age Movement, which was ridiculed almost out of existence. I think's it's likely that liberal denominations will ultimately look like the New Age Movement. Identity with one's religion will decline, and we will see a "menu" approach to religion -- people will pick and choose what they are interested in regardless of their familial background, the way, for example, some non-Jews have embraced Kabalah, or non Native Americans have adopted some Native American ideas, or the way some Latinos and African Americans embrace African derived Santeria.

The places where religious identity will probably remain strong is in the south among Protestant evangelicals and among ultra orthodox Jews. Among most urban people in the northeast and in California, though, I think there will be very little "inherited" religious identity.

[Random_Australian]

21. Oooh, and having certain areas of identity and certain areas not would add

geopolitical stuff to the mix as well. Well, here's hoping there isn't too much conflict.

But yes, that is a new thought. Both groups one and three in the OP would really go for what you are talking about.

Hmmmmm, these ideas will mix interestingly with another discussion on this thread (ayeshahaqqiqa) about the group of people who mistrust science.

What do you think will happen to them? Will they lose recruitment as the mainstream undergoes the change you are talking about, or will they form their own society or what?

[HamdenRice]

25. I suspect that if mainstream religion goes "new age" they will re-join mainstream religion

I find it interesting that the most vociferous critics of new age thinking were (1) the very traditionally religious and (2) a certain kind of materialist scientism and atheism.

(1) is fairly easy to understand. New Age thinking was accused by them of being everything from devil worship to secularism.

(2) is a little more difficult to understand, but I think of it this way: in the "trenches" of science, the world is pretty well explained. The engineers, the lab techs, the surgeons, etc., tend to be very skeptical of mysticism in science.

But at the fringes of knowledge things get so "spooky" that the scientists themselves become somewhat mystical -- from multi-universe physics, big bang, worm holes, organic molecules that "know what to do," inheritance of acquired characteristics, universe as hologram/brain as receptor, the scale of the universe, dark matter, and so on.

I can see that people who "mistrust science" would be drawn to a new New Age renaissance. I'm thinking of the kind of people who are not scientists but are fans of Professor Michiu Kaku (sp?) and his kind of popularizer of the strange in science.

[Evoman]

16. It is really hard to say, and to a large degree it depends on what happens with the environment.

Religiosity changes as a response to changes in society (though thats not always true). When times are hard, people cling to religion. When things are going well, religion takes a back seat. That seems to be the general trend, though there are cases in which exposure to overwhelming hardship lead to a loss of faith in a good god.

In the end, I don't know. What would happen with another depression? Would people cling to their faith, as their children starved and their houses were destroyed by the weather? Will we overcome energy demands and environmental stresses and continue the path of funding the sciences?

Will we become more ignorant as society breaks down, and will dangerous, fanatical religion the likes of which we haven't seen since the Inquisition rise? Or will those fanatical religions slowly become less fashionable as we see growth of science and liberal religious thought in conjuction with sane energy and economic policies? Will we lose our tolerance to scientific progress? Will we lose our tolerance to religious thought. Or will we always have an uneasy balance? How will dangerous population increases affect us?

Who knows.

I certainly don't.

[and-justice-for-all]

24. Yeah, I have noticed it too...

The more push against them there is for their fascists bigotry, the more they cower away. Even the more nonreligious people speak up and out and expose their hypocrisies, the more devastating it is for the religious ideology. People are, in a major way, striking back at them and seeing them as the dated nonsense religion is.

Will it ever disappear? probably in 200 years or so, I would expect it to have at least been sent back under the rock it crawled out from under. Spirituality and personal/private belief will more than likely take over in the future, all the dogma will be abandoned.

All religions come to a close at some point in time, none last forever, not even the big 3. Religion is not required for anything, it has not real purpose, other than the free ride it is given and the resources it devours along the way. Society just will not be able to carry it forever, you can not move forward with this fossil of an ideology tied to your ankles, it just is not possible.