A future with no religion possible?

[confusedgirl]

Someone asked me if I thought the future would be better without religion and I don’t think it is possible to have that sort of a future. I think that as humans its in our nature to be curious. We all have questions that we want answered and we will keep looking for the answers. My opinion is that religion is about questions and finding answers. For example one may want to know what their purpose in life is so they pray and often they reach their conclusion. That’s just one example there are a lot of other (probably less superficial) questions like perhaps Why am I? I find that no amount of science or math can tell us why we are so people look to faith and discover why on their own. I think that as long as we ask those questions religion will never cease to exist.

I am not too experienced when it comes to the world (trust me I am practically a child still) so I would really love to hear other people’s thoughts.

 

[Mystophilus]

Current thinking in the anthropology of religion says that you are probably right: religion has been around longer than civilisation, possibly longer than farming, and shows no sign of disappearing. Further, its benefits (public schools, universities, hospitals, preservation of knowledge, etc) suggest that its absence would not be good, and the absolute failure of communist states to demonstrate that “no religion too” means “all the people living life in peace” gives us no cause to assume that religious wars are caused by the religions.

So, it most likely will not disappear, and it most likely would not be good for it to do so.

 

[mdgspencer]

It’s been tried before it. The communists in Russia tried to produce a country with no religion with all their means, including for example through schools promoting atheism, and when communism fell, religion remained. It was tried even harder in Albania, for example. That country also did not become a country with no religion.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Technically speaking, I think it is possible to have a future with no religion. What I don’t think is possible is for there to be a future without spirituality. That is, religion is a formal, communal spiritual system. It’s possible not to have that. But I can’t see human beings having no spiritual longings (which may bring back religion), at least as long as we are human beings.

In fact, I’d consider it an essential part of the human being. If mankind really turns away from spirituality, then it has to be a fundamentally different “mankind” than what has existed until now.

 

[confusedgirl]

Current thinking in the anthropology of religion says that you are probably right: religion has been around longer than civilisation, possibly longer than farming, and shows no sign of disappearing. Further, its benefits (public schools, universities, hospitals, preservation of knowledge, etc) suggest that its absence would not be good, and the absolute failure of communist states to demonstrate that “no religion too” means “all the people living life in peace” gives us no cause to assume that religious wars are caused by the religions.

So, it most likely will not disappear, and it most likely would not be good for it to do so.

That is a neat point about the benefits of religion and how it brought a great deal of benefits to the world thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Discerning13]

No such future is possible. The gates of hell shall not prevail, after all. :coffeeread:

 

[SteveVH]

That is a neat point about the benefits of religion and how it brought a great deal of benefits to the world thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

There are other things that could be added to the list as well; human dignity, scientific method, law, art, music… Try to imagine a world without Christianity. As others have said, all we need to do is look at cultures and nations without religion. They have to wall their citizens in just to keep them.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

It’s possible but it would be a radically different world. Without the Mystical, religious or spiritual all that is left is the pragmatic and search of fulfilment in the world. A world like that would be something quite different than what we are used to.

If I were to judge what that world would be like, I think modern secularism gives us a picture of that.

 

[cmodrmac]

It all depends how you define religion right-different than a Philosophy

-if you mean an organized structure consisting of core beliefs - rituals, supreme being or beings- ultimate judgment - then I think it is a toss up-but it will take hundreds of years

rituals will fade with time ( Roman Catholic -remember Supreme High Mass-and High Mass-Reconciliation) or Rite 1 in the Episcopal Church

I think that we are safe from having no religion as the true believers of many sects such as Islam , Roman catholicism and the Orthodox are still numerous

God may be redefined over the centuries a favorite in my Church is “God is Love”

when people say God is Love and thus will always be-my response is what’s the point without a judgment

 

[adawgj]

The huge numbers of people who are religious is pretty big.

So I don’t think it will die out. Especially with Islamic states.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

If mankind really turns away from spirituality, then it has to be a fundamentally different “mankind” than what has existed until now.

Or humanity turns to something fundamentally unlike what we’ve heretofore called “spirituality” – something like what’s alluded to in When God Is Gone Everything Is Holy.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Someone asked me if I thought the future would be better without religion and I don’t think it is possible to have that sort of a future. I think that as humans its in our nature to be curious. We all have questions that we want answered and we will keep looking for the answers. My opinion is that religion is about questions and finding answers. For example one may want to know what their purpose in life is so they pray and often they reach their conclusion. That’s just one example there are a lot of other (probably less superficial) questions like perhaps Why am I? I find that no amount of science or math can tell us why we are so people look to faith and discover why on their own. I think that as long as we ask those questions religion will never cease to exist.

I am not too experienced when it comes to the world (trust me I am practically a child still) so I would really love to hear other people’s thoughts.

If you look at the record, the reality is that the Abrahamic based religions get more air time now than ever. If the attached link is anything to go by, Christianity and Islam account for about 53% of the world’s population.

Atheism and “no religion” are about 15%.

Of the other religions, Hinduism is about 15%, predominantly Indian. Buddhism is about 6%, with the remainder taking up the remaining 11%.

The way I see things, the Abrahamic faiths are taking centre stage at the moment, largely due to the Moslems. Abraham’s “physical” descendants, the Jews, might be small in number, but they’re right up there in the thick of things at the moment.

Somehow I don’t think the Abrahamic God is going to allow Himself to be pushed off the stage that easily, and any consideration of a future without religion is somewhat premature. The way I see it, the current growing conflict between Islam and the West is God’s backdoor way of making sure we don’t forget His baleful presence.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Or humanity turns to something fundamentally unlike what we’ve heretofore called “spirituality” – something like what’s alluded to in When God Is Gone Everything Is Holy.

I have not read the book, so I cannot comment on it, but I can reply to your comment based on my understanding. I didn’t limit the definition of “spirituality”. I would include Native American spirituality there too, not just the Catholic type.

But the book description sounds a lot like its describing pantheism- as in, “everything is God” “Everything is Holy”. That sounds nice. And for a time I explored this perspective. But I find it faulty in that it presents too many problems from the get-go. I know a common expression is “Holy ****!”, but would you really consider human or animal waste holy? Would you put it up on display to venerate and worship?

I consider human and animal waste necessary and the product of a natural process which has a place in the environment (as fertilizer, etc.) And I consider the whole eco-system a wonderful testament to God. But not everything is holy. In fact, holy means to be “set apart”. How can we set everything apart? It is the same as not setting anything apart. If everything is holy, nothing is holy. The creation, as wonderful and good as it is, is not the purpose nor the creator.

I consider this a misunderstanding or a distortion of spirituality. Nevertheless, even this sort of spirituality manifests an inborn desire for the human being to give thanks and praise to God for the sake of God and for the sake of his wonderful creation.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Or humanity turns to something fundamentally unlike what we’ve heretofore called “spirituality” – something like what’s alluded to in When God Is Gone Everything Is Holy.

Consider for a moment that this author’s depth of spiritual questioning is informed by his Catholic Christian upbringing. The only reason he has these spiritual insights that allow him to question to such a depth is because he was raised with Catholic awareness and sensibilities.

I am 60 years old. I have known and talked with a number of young people who were raised with no religion at all. They are completely incapable of formulating the kinds of questions or embarking on the kinds of spiritual quests that this author is on.

With no Christianity, this generation will be a collection of dullards with no ideology but pleasure and self-interest who will be easily controlled by whatever power deals out pleasure and self-interest.

Bread and circuses, anyone?

A nation without God is a nation of slaves. The founding fathers knew this well. Why don’t we?

Paul

 

[Discerning13]

Slaves of their sins and immoralities

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

But the book description sounds a lot like its describing pantheism- as in, “everything is God” “Everything is Holy”. That sounds nice. And for a time I explored this perspective. But I find it faulty in that it presents too many problems from the get-go. I know a common expression is “Holy ****!”, but would you really consider human or animal waste holy? Would you put it up on display to venerate and worship?

Holy in the sense of something appealing to venerate and worship? No. Holy in the sense of something fascinating and frankly awe-inspiring in its mechanism and importance to life? Yes.

I consider human and animal waste necessary and the product of a natural process which has a place in the environment (as fertilizer, etc.) And I consider the whole eco-system a wonderful testament to God. But not everything is holy. In fact, holy means to be “set apart”. How can we set everything apart? It is the same as not setting anything apart. If everything is holy, nothing is holy. The creation, as wonderful and good as it is, is not the purpose nor the creator.

Raymo does write:

What a thing is matter! In the formulations of contemporary physics, matter is all vibration, resonance, and inexhaustible potentialities, a music of the cosmos. If this is matter, who needs the immaterial? Who requires a ghost in the machine when the machine itself is a thing of such infinite surprise? The greatest miracle is as close as my next breath.
*

I consider this a misunderstanding or a distortion of spirituality. Nevertheless, even this sort of spirituality manifests an inborn desire for the human being to give thanks and praise to God for the sake of God and for the sake of his wonderful creation.

You consider it a misunderstanding or a distortion because you are combining “spirituality” in the sense of supernaturalism with “spirituality” as the senses of awe, wonder, respect, and gratitude when we consider the universe and our lives. The point of the book is to tease apart those two ideas.

 

[Theo520]

Someone asked me if I thought the future would be better without religion and I don’t think it is possible to have that sort of a future. I think that as humans its in our nature to be curious. We all have questions that we want answered and we will keep looking for the answers. My opinion is that religion is about questions and finding answers. For example one may want to know what their purpose in life is so they pray and often they reach their conclusion. That’s just one example there are a lot of other (probably less superficial) questions like perhaps Why am I? I find that no amount of science or math can tell us why we are so people look to faith and discover why on their own. I think that as long as we ask those questions religion will never cease to exist.

I am not too experienced when it comes to the world (trust me I am practically a child still) so I would really love to hear other people’s thoughts.

anyone who despises religion has an infantile understanding of what religion brings to our lives. For the most part, they attack the child’s view of God, that he is the sky daddy granting wishes if he feels like it.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Holy in the sense of something appealing to venerate and worship? No. Holy in the sense of something fascinating and frankly awe-inspiring in its mechanism and importance to life? Yes.

These are the definitons I got for “Holy”:

Dictionary:

dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred: the Holy Bible | the holy month of Ramadan.
• (of a person) devoted to the service of God: saints and holy men.
• morally and spiritually excellent: I do not lead a holy life.

Again Holy means something that is “set apart”. You may be awed by something, you may find it fascinating, you may like it, or even cherish it. But that does not make that thing “holy”. Cherished, liked, awe-inspiring- sure. But not holy. I am afraid that that word does not apply the way you would like it to.

You consider it a misunderstanding or a distortion because you are combining “spirituality” in the sense of supernaturalism with “spirituality” as the senses of awe, wonder, respect, and gratitude when we consider the universe and our lives. The point of the book is to tease apart those two ideas.

I am also awed by the complexity, versatility and beauty of matter. This is why I greatly enjoy science (without the scientism). But God is not “ghost in the machine”. God is the intentional designer, engineer, programmer and creator of the machine, which is far more than a mere machine as we can conceive of a machine.

You seem to be arguing that somehow venerating/adoring/worshiping matter is all that is needed for spirituality and you may be implying that it is somehow superior to worshiping God, the creator. But you’re not quite getting that in worshiping God, we are indeed in awe and eternally grateful for his works.

God made the world. And it was good. Matter is good. In fact, we Catholics expect to be reunited with our material (though glorified) bodies someday, not just be disembodied spirits. I love nature and the science that attempts to discover how it works. But ultimately, a work without a creator and without a purpose is devoid of true holiness and spirituality. You may well try to deny this- say that nature without an author is enough. But it is not. The human spirit longs for more.

I’ve walked down this road before. I, like you, tried to tell myself that nature and my connection to the cosmos was enough. It certainly is poetic and awe-inspiring. But it is not enough. It is just a piece of the puzzle, a means towards an end, not the whole picture and not an end in itself.

Awe, wonder, respect, and gratitude are just that. But they are not spirituality. There needs to be a spirit for spirituality. This is the definition I got for Spirituality:

Dictionary:

“1 of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things: I’m responsible for his spiritual welfare | the spiritual values of life.
• (of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.
2 of or relating to religion or religious belief: the tribe’s spiritual leader.”

What you are alluding to ultimately are subjective thoughts and emotions, not spirituality. I have those thoughts and emotions too. And they are good. But they are not, in themselves, equivalent to spirituality. Spirituality is, by definition, rooted or reaching beyond the material world.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I don’t like to play dictionary games with philosophical and theological concepts; those are superbly shallow definitions of both “holy” and “spirituality” that even the most basic understanding will put the lie to.

If you insist on defining both such that they are impossible without religion; then I concede the point - there is no future in which your definitions of holiness and spirituality will be understood, except if religion as you understand it also continues to exist.

Hopefully many others will be able to escape the demon-haunted world, and show you the way you missed.