Religions of the Future

[Society]

this came up else where, and i figured it might be a fun and potentially insightful thought experiment...

what new religions might rise?

 

[Epiphany]

A co-worker and I were talking about founding the Church of Chupacabra to make money. It's a cult. Not a real cult, but a parody. We'd even serve Kool-Aid to the congregation.

 

[Kayness]

FSM.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Perhaps future religions will be inspired by a vision rather than a dogma - like, they may have plans of action we can take to shape the world in a better way, or they may develop complex world cosmologies. Ideally, it should offer us a sense of purpose and guidance.

We should also be accepting of our various faiths and allow them to coexist peacefully. I would encourage us to have our own independent values and belief systems. This would make society more diverse and unique, which could lead to more progress, should we come to appreciate our many differences and points of view.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

^sweet. that gave me chills.

 

[Lark]

I think that atheism, secularism and most of what passes for expected "replacements" for religion are highly religious in character, unfortunately its not the good but the bad which they've taken from earlier examples of belief.

Although I've moderated my view that this shit all began with the reformation [MENTION=5789]Beorn[/MENTION]

 

[UniqueMixture]

I think because christianity, islam, no religion, hinduism, and buddhism are the most popular religions then future religions will be mixtures of the concepts involved in these. Because spirituality tends to spread as part of larger macroeconommic and social trends, then as different regions have conflict they will not tend to mix, but those which do will continue to integrate. So I foresee further integration of regional cultures/religions, but because it is difficult to foresee how political relations will change it will be difficult to predict which religions will integrate. Also, regions of increasing prosperity and education will probably become less religious while those of increasing poverty will become moreso, with major unknowns being the effect of ai and computing on integration of thought processes (ie studying how the brain experiences spirituality, religious robots, sharing information and culture over the internet, etc) and any possible colonies we set up on mars or the moon and the resulting shift in perception that those cause. Using only present day possibilities I would imagine that North and South America would continue to integrate culturally and religiously as they are geographically close, have european cultural ties, and are christian based. Europe will continue to integrate, along with China, Russia, and India. From a more meta perspective, as conflict arises between major geopolitical powers Europe and the Americas will integrate next with China/Russia exerting pressure to minimize the effect of western cooperation, the outliers are the BRICs countries and Islam. I think the world would look very differently religiously if China and Russia were to cooperate more versus China and India or India and Islam. Probably though, (or so I hope) the religion of the future will be a religion of the past a sort of greek style agnosticism/atheism that is more based on a philosophical moral creed (ie asceticism vs. epicureanism vs. hedonism, etc).

 

[Standuble]

- Religion built around modern scientific concepts. Examples are: seeing the big bang as a phenomena deity, worshipping string theory and/or the mechanisms of quantum mechanics or multiverse cults.
- Treating the different types of radiation as a polytheistic pantheon
- Neo-Ancestor worship (including celebrities and perhaps scientists and engineers)
- Neo-Quetzalcoatl cults where the prophecised "return" involves the worship of alien races in an effort to stave off potential future alien invasion.
- Manichaeist-like religion built around energy and entropy (I created one of these for a novel I am writing)
- Reverence of the notions of free will and determinism by their respective branches
- Jedi and Sith if not anything else.

If civilisation regresses or collapses

- New pagan religions with a polytheistic system for different processes. Could have a mythology built around a distorted understanding of real history e.g. the god of the Sun brought the god of the Earth his power as gifts meant in good will and Earth burnt. In ancient history (especially in Rome) foreign worship of pagan Gods were perceived to be different means of worshipping the same Gods and you could see more of these.
- Monotheistic worship of the "golden age" (us) or another age in history as either a cautionary tale or a state of Eden like grace which mankind fell from and should seek to return to.
- Worship of cult leaders or warlords.
- If humanity becomes space-faring and then collapses expect "star cults" which worship the coming days where the humans of the stars who weren't stranded on planets (and survived whichever collapse with their technology intact) come to uplift them or they long to be re-united with the stars that dot the sky.
- Return of the geocentric model where everything is believed to revolve around the planet. Could be Earth or in the example above any number of isolated planets which had forgotten their history.

 

[ewomack]

I'm not sure if what we now know as "religion" will survive in the long run. For one, religion and entertainment seem to be merging more and more. I hear more people saying things like "I switched to this church because they have music and singing and dancing and a really upbeat message." There's nothing wrong with that, but it sounds more like entertainment and wish fulfillment than a serious belief system. But if "religion" does survive it will have to deal with the ever more emergent problem of meaninglessness in the human condition. It's more and more difficult to sustain a sincere metaphysical system of meaning that posits a "special place" for humanity. Or perhaps a new religion will eschew meaninglessness, at least in the traditional sense, and embrace a type of embedded naturalistic humanism that accepts the current view of our place in the cosmos while nonetheless celebrating humanity as a thing in and of itself. Meaninglessness may after all turn out to be meaningless. Future religions, if they can be called that, may also start to move away from the idea of an anthropomorphic deity that "looks after" us and instead completely terrestrialize meaning and purpose. They will be grounded in us and ground us. Hopefully they will teach us to find meaning in each other and in our common experience of being human. Who knows?

 

[Chiharu]

I think that there will be two main religions, three if you (for whatever nonsensical reason) want to count atheism. One religion will have a Greco-vibe, in that it's deity or deities will be very beautiful, humanistic, and materialistic (there's been a big push to attract young converts by making traditionally impersonal deities sound more like friends or fathers). The other religion will worship the planet(s) and life itself (there's always been a nature-based religion). They will fight endlessly and cause no end of hardship on everyone, as large groups of deeply religious people are wont to do. Think fundamentalist/evangelical Christians versus maniacally devout PETA members.

 

[Standuble]

I think that there will be two main religions, three if you (for whatever nonsensical reason) want to count atheism. One religion will have a Greco-vibe, in that it's deity or deities will be very beautiful, humanistic, and materialistic (there's been a big push to attract young converts by making traditionally impersonal deities sound more like friends or fathers). The other religion will worship the planet(s) and life itself (there's always been a nature-based religion). They will fight endlessly and cause no end of hardship on everyone, as large groups of deeply religious people are wont to do. Think fundamentalist/evangelical Christians versus maniacally devout PETA members.

Your post inspired me to ask a couple of questions:

1) What relevance would worshipping a Greco-themed pantheon have to its believers? They would need to classify and perceive beauty, humanism, materialism (perhaps even feminism) as objective moral values and then symbolise them as figures or concepts which are the ultimate expressions of these values.
2) Why would they necessarily be at war? A religion that worships nature could see problems in the worship of traits it believes deviates from the importance of life (e.g. perceived vanity) but a pantheon would see life as important too as the element which allows humanism and beauty to exist.

It doesn't really matter however.

 

[Chiharu]

Your post inspired me to ask a couple of questions:

1) What relevance would worshipping a Greco-themed pantheon have to its believers? They would need to classify and perceive beauty, humanism, materialism (perhaps even feminism) as objective moral values and then symbolise them as figures or concepts which are the ultimate expressions of these values.
2) Why would they necessarily be at war? A religion that worships nature could see problems in the worship of traits it believes deviates from the importance of life (e.g. perceived vanity) but a pantheon would see life as important too as the element which allows humanism and beauty to exist.

It doesn't really matter however.

1) I meant more that the sacred deity or deities would be more human, less awesome and omniscient, and would have established physical characteristics. This blends existing trends in Hinduism and, more recently, Christianity.

2) I've never know two different religions to occupy the same land(s) and tolerate each other in perfect harmony, have you? Look at history. We never learn. The humanistic worshippers would probably offend the tree-huggers by putting man over nature, or cutting down some sacred tree of theirs to build a statue, or something. Religious conflicts never make much sense, but they happen anyway, and I doubt that'll change.

 

[Standuble]

1) I meant more that the sacred deity or deities would be more human, less awesome and omniscient, and would have established physical characteristics. This blends existing trends in Hinduism and, more recently, Christianity.

2) I've never know two different religions to occupy the same land(s) and tolerate each other in perfect harmony, have you? Look at history. We never learn. The humanistic worshippers would probably offend the tree-huggers by putting man over nature, or cutting down some sacred tree of theirs to build a statue, or something. Religious conflicts never make much sense, but they happen anyway, and I doubt that'll change.

1) They would still need to exalt a certain appearance of beauty if they are to make human-like depiction, even if different regions have differing depictions of the diety's appearance. It's kind of self-evident that a polytheistic system of individual entities would not promote omnipotence or omniscience (outside of the highest God) as any hierarchy would be irrelevant.
2) Harmony is not necessarily required, just that neither feels the need to eliminate the other. In history numerous cultures have equated foreign Gods as merely a different depiction of their Gods and so haven't really felt the need to go into a religious war regarding it (more the case of Gods cheering their nation on in their expansionist crusade) and the respect of various Gods in a country's pantheon meant that adherents who promoted one God over the other did not find themselves in a real ideological struggle with another sect which promotes another God. So war would be averted or subverted if they see each other as following the same ideals (perhaps perceiving the worship of life as the sum total of the pantheon's beliefs) but any incompatibility could still cause clashes. IMO polytheism was much more dynamic and ironically better designed than the monotheistic model. There wouldn't be as much need to war for the most part outside of ulterior motives.