When will atheism replace religion?

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Atheism is a minority view and if anything, organized religion seems to be gaining momentum.

Not in Europe.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

There's a very slow decline in religion but the question is, will it ever fully stop? Probably not. Humans will always need to feel safe, secure and trying to avoid their innate fear of death. That's where God and by extension, religion, comes in. Without a God, the universe is cold, without feeling, without reason and there's no help and no life after death. Living with the purposelessness of existence is a tough fact for most people to handle.

 

[Aesthete]

I agree with both, and would prefer to see agnosticism take over. It is the only logically defensible position regarding deity.

As an acceptance in society that we can't know much (if anything) about a transcendent being, I agree: objectively, that's the truth. But I don't want spirituality to be removed from the scene: all we'd have left is pitiful materialism.

Religion as a subjective matter that the individual goes through, I'd like to develop; it would be best to eliminate it as a collective thing, unless it so happens to we all go through the same collective experiences and thoughts. It's hard to explain what I mean - it seems - as my words don't seem to fully explain my thoughts to me.

 

[Stumblebum]

Atheism doesn't replace religion. It replaces theism.

Well spotted.

 

[Sniffles]

Not in Europe.

But Europe is increasingly the exception, not the rule. Even then, Europe is ironically the center of the growing field of post-secular studies - with its basic premise concerning the continual and even increasing relevance of religion in modern societies that are overall secular by nature. One example is the Czech Republic, where a majority are atheist but yet religion is still highly respected. Europe is also increasingly seeing the growth of small but very dynamic movements of religious revivals.

 

[Coriolis]

There's a very slow decline in religion but the question is, will it ever fully stop? Probably not. Humans will always need to feel safe, secure and trying to avoid their innate fear of death. That's where God and by extension, religion, comes in. Without a God, the universe is cold, without feeling, without reason and there's no help and no life after death. Living with the purposelessness of existence is a tough fact for most people to handle.

Without God, we are still left with plenty of human feeling, and human reason. Since belief in God is just that -- belief -- the uncertainty about life after death would remain.

As an acceptance in society that we can't know much (if anything) about a transcendent being, I agree: objectively, that's the truth. But I don't want spirituality to be removed from the scene: all we'd have left is pitiful materialism.

Religion as a subjective matter that the individual goes through, I'd like to develop; it would be best to eliminate it as a collective thing, unless it so happens to we all go through the same collective experiences and thoughts. It's hard to explain what I mean - it seems - as my words don't seem to fully explain my thoughts to me.

You don't want spirituality removed from the scene, even if it is a figment of the imagination? I do favor disorganized religion myself. While a personal spiritual journey may be a common element of the human experience (cf. eating), how each person realizes it is quite individual, limiting the utility of collective religion.

 

[Aesthete]

You don't want spirituality removed from the scene, even if it is a figment of the imagination? I do favor disorganized religion myself. While a personal spiritual journey may be a common element of the human experience (cf. eating), how each person realizes it is quite individual, limiting the utility of collective religion.

Wait, do you call it a figment of the imagination, or is there a misunderstanding of what I said? Now, I'm quite certain there is a soul (I don't feel like regurgitating he argument at the moment, but perhaps I'll discuss it with you later): an eternal, transcendent part of ourselves - or, better put, our real selves.

The thing is you cannot experience your own soul in the collective.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Wait, do you call it a figment of the imagination, or is there a misunderstanding of what I said? Now, I'm quite certain there is a soul (I don't feel like regurgitating he argument at the moment, but perhaps I'll discuss it with you later): an eternal, transcendent part of ourselves - or, better put, our real selves.

The thing is you cannot experience your own soul in the collective.

Soul inside us would maybe be more likely, or aptly called, immanence. Transcendence means God without us. Immanence means God within us.

Nice post.

 

[Aesthete]

Soul inside us would maybe be more likely, or aptly called, immanence. Transcendence means God without us. Immanence means God within us.

Nice post.

Yes, you're correct. By "transcendent" I meant that it can exist independently of the material, but you're terminology is more correct.

Thank you.

 

[Nicodemus]

Next week.

Fasten your seatbelts, ye nutjobs!

 

[Lark]

When will atheism replace religion is a little like taking some gold and asking how to turn it into lead.

The idea that religion is a salve has been around forever, or so it seems to me, Marx wasnt the first to liken it to opium, this was a positive association which is something most people dont realise (he meant painkiller and the second part of the quote is "the heart of a heartless world").

I dont believe that at all, religion isnt and shouldnt be purely and merely about feeling good, being comfortable and finding happiness, and it shouldnt be a compensation when those things are wanting or abscent either. I've no doubt for a lot of people that's all it is, its a byproduct, I'd suggest of the consumer culture which sells the ideas of ease, effortless living, no need to concentrate, no need to contemplate, no need to wonder, no need to reflect and wonder.

The greatest criticisms of an affluent atheism I can think of is in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

 

[garbage]

Hopefully, religion will simply become increasingly focused on the "why" than the "how"--and actually seen by its practitioners as such. It would still provide comfort and support by instilling meaning, rather than by doling out a prescription and explanation.

 

[Nicodemus]

[...]

How do you define religion?

 

[Stephano]

But Europe is increasingly the exception, not the rule. Even then, Europe is ironically the center of the growing field of post-secular studies - with its basic premise concerning the continual and even increasing relevance of religion in modern societies that are overall secular by nature. One example is the Czech Republic, where a majority are atheist but yet religion is still highly respected. Europe is also increasingly seeing the growth of small but very dynamic movements of religious revivals.

It seems the better the life conditions and education are, the less people tend to belief in God. Have a look at Sweden, there are already more atheists than theists and countries like Egypt are truly dominated by monotheistic beliefs.

 

[Lark]

It seems the better the life conditions and education are, the less people tend to belief in God. Have a look at Sweden, there are already more atheists than theists and countries like Egypt are truly dominated by monotheistic beliefs.

That's what, some sort of liberal developmentalist conceit?

I think so.

 

[Sniffles]

It seems the better the life conditions and education are, the less people tend to belief in God. Have a look at Sweden, there are already more atheists than theists and countries like Egypt are truly dominated by monotheistic beliefs.

I don't know if that generalization can really be made, as there are many factors to consider. Many Islamist leaders and intellectuals were educated in the West, including Morsi to give one example. South Korea is a developed country and yet boasts to being one of the largest exporters of missionaries around world. Being Christian is even seen as conveying certain economic benefits as well. A similar attitude can be seen in the growing Chinese middle class. As I said before, Western Europe is increasingly the exception, not the rule.

 

[Lark]

I dont think that living religion has been or will be supplanted by atheism but will be supplanted by dead religion, the vast majority of athiests I can think of are only or could only be described as "nominal atheists" and of the real card carrying variety that I can think of, AC Grayling, the new atheists, Bertrand Russell fans etc. they all care about religion a lot more than "nominal athiests" or practitioners of what I'd describe as a dead religion.

 

[Stephano]

Just to say, to be a christian you have to belief in Adam and Eve, otherwise Jesus died for no reason. He died for our sins. What sins? - The sins that the first people did when they ate an apple from the tree of knowledge. Now through Jesus people can go to paradise again. That's the christian story. If someone beliefs in Evolution and in Jesus their ideology would get caught in contradictions. My point is that many people are a lot less theists than they think.

 

[Lark]

Just to say, to be a christian you have to belief in Adam and Eve, otherwise Jesus died for no reason. He died for our sins. What sins? - The sins that the first people did when they ate an apple from the tree of knowledge. Now through Jesus people can go to paradise again. That's the christian story. If someone beliefs in Evolution and in Jesus their ideology would get caught in contradictions. My point is that many people are a lot less theists than they think.

Perhaps that's the christian story in some simplistic evangelical format, its not what I believe.

The genesis story as interpreted by kabbalists or Jewish philosophers doesnt involve any sort of dumb "the fall, the fall" literalism, its a traditional tale which makes a few essential points, ie God is incorporial for one, possessing knowledge can mean that the comfortable paradise you inhabited before is a state of being you can not return to etc.

What is the mystery or purpose the incarnation then? Well its simply that, the incarnation, Jesus was God made man and as a consequence overcomes the dichotomy between man and God which exists in pretty much all world religions besides Christianity.

Man's "sin", the "bitter fruits" which are the "inheritance" or "legacy" conceptualised in the Genesis story is doubt, fear and disbelief, it should be cancelled out in the proper understanding of what the incarnation is and the evidence it provides, ie God is not a menacing supernatural force. Without that doubt, fear and disbelief as a bind upon man it should be possible for transcendent insights to be recognised to the good of all.

 

[UniqueMixture]

But Europe is increasingly the exception, not the rule. Even then, Europe is ironically the center of the growing field of post-secular studies - with its basic premise concerning the continual and even increasing relevance of religion in modern societies that are overall secular by nature. One example is the Czech Republic, where a majority are atheist but yet religion is still highly respected. Europe is also increasingly seeing the growth of small but very dynamic movements of religious revivals.

Religion is respected because Atheism was forced on them by the USSR so there are negative associations with anything related to the USSR. Also, eastern europe is quite poor, so it does not deny the claim in the OP that increased fear and uncertainty lead to a climate hospitable for religion.