Watching Star Trek gave me the idea. In the series, the federation is a utopian view of a world that has left religion behind and has no need for it anymore. Other species still struggle (Klingon, Bajoran) with a deeply religious nature but the show usually debunks these ideas as primitive or downright deceptive.
I would like to think that humanity will evolve to rely less on religion and superstition, as in the series, but fear that this would almost inevitably lead to a resurgence in religious thought. People need to feel important, like they actually matter. Religion fills this void for people too scared to face life alone. Flying around in a starship must be wonderful but I'm sure that it also gives people a perspective on their insignificance that is hard to bear. Their existence is a matter of supreme indifference to the universe.
I don't think we'll ever get to the pont where religion is a thing of the past but I would like to think that we can get to the stage where religious thought is the exception rather than the rule. We should be able to banish religion to the margins of society (currently inhabited by atheists!)
Any thoughts?
Just as religion probably evolved far in our past in order to answer certain basic human needs, it must surely be possible to evolve past those needs in the future and thereby render religion redundant. This would not be an easy transition, though.
It seems to me that the biggest issue is fear of death. Religion provides a paradigm for dealing with this which seems a lot more attractive to many people than the humanist alternative. Life after death, with rewards for virtue and hard work and reunions with deceased loved ones, is a better deal than rotting in the cold ground while the living get on with it.
People can be overwhelmed with the pointlessness of it all without a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to keep them going. What does humanist skepticism have to offer which can top an eternity in paradise?
Another thought: I don't claim to possess evidence for this impression and I'm prepared to be proved wrong - but it seems to me that as organised religion has declined, levels of (arguably) more dangerous woo-ery such as alternative medicine, and extremist religious positions such as creationism and justification for terrorism, have been on the rise. The major religions have evolved through millennia as a (generally) ethically sound and (usually) socially functional brand of placebo to help folk cope with the unpalatable realites of our animal existence. As these brands start to lose their appeal, a void could be left which will be filled with something a lot worse :(
I suppose it's a reaction to the enormous strides made by science that religion is 'getting nasty'. The ground that science is occupying now was ground that was previously firmly in the churches realm. Science gains ground from superstition, to paraphrase Sagan's Demon Haunted World. It's not surprising that religion perceives itself to be cornered and persecuted and so strikes back. Animals that are not dangerous (moderate religion) become vicious (fundies) when under threat.
Churches mistrust logic and science. Understandable, in the circumstances, but odd for organisations that claim to value truth over all. It shows that they value dogma, not truth.
Looking forward 200 years - what kind of world do you predict?
Hover Bikes
That goes without saying.
Not for this guy: (nsfw)Religion fills this void for people too scared to face life alone.
http://fileanchor.com/40345-r.jpg
(Although Jesus being a fairly common latino name, maybe he just has issues with one of the homeboys)
Not for him, nor for me. Nor you either, I suspect
But for some ...
Oleron wrote:
Indeed, many do. In particular, many individual churchgoing types distrust anything which threatens their world view - IMHO this is largely because fear of death is more powerful than the truth. However, not all clergy, or all churches, are like this. There's a lot of variety out there ...Churches mistrust logic and science.
I do not intend to hold a candle for religious belief per se with this line of argument - but I do think that future societies will have to find something to fill the place left empty by the decline of religion. A (dramatically) better level of scientific education may be one way forward, humanist and universalist wolrd views may present another.
Can an atheist blaspheme?Originally Posted by Hazen
For his sake, I hope not.
Should we add this one to the UK-Skeptics T-shirt collection? ???
Perhaps not.
.
Apparently, you can still be prosecuted, under some medieval law, for blasphemy.
This happened, not long ago, IIRC, for some dude who wrote a play which portrayed the fictional character, jesus, as being gay.
Good job it's 2006 where we consider ourselves 'civilised' and don't operate or indulge barbaric dark ages style feudal systems/rituals based on privilege by birth. After all, Magna Carta was nearly a thousand years ago and we're so much more enlightened now, than then.
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family please note
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks