So I was thinking and realized we haven't had any good thought provoking discussions here in the OT section lately. So:
Prediction: In 75 years, the vast majority of organized religion in Europe and North America will have disappeared.
Agree? Disagree?
Feel free to discuss.
Interestingly, you could use the Bible to back up agreeing with this prediction as well. Jesus said that sin and false religion would increase as the second coming drew near. Organized religion nearly disappearing would definitely fall into that category.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Gah, all this talk of religion!
Everyone is too cemented in their beliefs, for the most part, that a huge 'part of the problem/part of the solution' ethos will sweep the lands. In 75 years, the world will pretty much divide itself betwixt the main sects due to crazed zealotry. This zealotry is seen by all stances on religion, including Agnosticism and Atheism, to say the least. Anyone in the middle will either be caught out a bit too late at night (and subsequently destroyed for not taking a stance) or will succumb to one of the main religion clans, living a shallow and empty life.
...Hooray! I'm a big fan of the no religion/politics in a public setting rule, because it makes for less conflict between everyone.
To get the discussion started, here's some of my reasoning. I'll be using christianity as an example here, although it applies to all religions:
As time has progressed since the time of jesus, people (I mean both every individual and, more importantly, society as a whole) has gradually become more well educated in all areas of life (scientific discoveries, better understanding of pretty much everything, etc). This development has been most significant in the past maybe 200 years, since the industralization. I think it's safe to say that in this period of time mankind has taken some pretty huge steps forward in terms of development.
Arguably, 2000 years ago the primary reason for religion was the need to have something (a being, an entity, a force, or whatever) to explain all things which were unexplainable by contemporary science, everything ranging from death to lightning. Since then, religion has been extremely valuable for the people in power to scare people into obedience and keeping them in check.
In the past maybe 150 years, the general education and understanding of things have increased, to a point where these reasons for religion does no longer exist to the same extent as they did 2000 years ago. There's no longer a need for an explanation of the unexplainable, and with Joe Everyman's education and understanding of the world now (compared to maybe 1000 years ago), there's no need to believe in something superhuman to explain our existence.
The trend of religion becoming less popular is pretty noticeable, and I think it will only continue, at a faster pace as man's general knowledge keeps growing at a faster pace.
Discuss.
religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
The universal part of the definition is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Consequently, I do not think that religion in general is on the verge of disappearing. I'm not sure what you mean by "organized religion," though. As JXQ already mentioned, Jesus and other people in the Bible said that there would be many false religions before the judgment, which is certainly the case today. While I don't know about increases and decreases in "organized religion," the Bible says that there will eventually be a world religion that will encompass everyone during the time of the Antichrist.
In accordance with the above definition, my belief about this whole idea of "separation of church and state" is that it is quite impossible. People will always believe something about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and their beliefs will affect how they behave and what sort of political ideas they support.
Fabian wrote:
The trend of religion becoming less popular is pretty noticeable, and I think it will only continue, at a faster pace as man's general knowledge keeps growing at a faster pace.
You're saying that knowledge necessarily makes religions that include the part after "esp. when considered" in the above definition less popular. That is not the case. Scientific knowledge can be interpreted in a way that agrees with the Bible. It all depends upon what unprovable assumptions you're using to interpret the data.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
**I refuse to back up any of my statements with facts or whatever.
Religion isn't really becoming less popular. It's just as widespread as ever, but those who aren't as extreme as others aren't really noted for any religious standing. There is an underlying sub-genre of religious people that have faith, but don't follow the public/life guidelines that they should, according to their beliefs.
Just because science is becoming more accepted than anything most religions can create is not analagous to religion losing a war with non-religion. Religious people have the uncanny knack to twist non-religious things in to religious things (see the poor example of Intelligent Design), which keeps the faithful mostly faithful. Also, keep in mind that not every culture sees the unpopularity of religion that other countries see.
The thing you're trying to say is that the moral standards of the world are dropping. This is true, and though it does fly in the face of religion, it doesn't mean that religions are losing followers. It just means that those who don't share the morals of most religions have more outlets by which they can voice themselves, and technology is allowing these people to slowly have more of a say.
Blame it all on generation degeneration. And Janet Jackson's nipple.
It just means that those who don't share the morals of most religions have more outlets by which they can voice themselves, and technology is allowing these people to slowly have more of a say.
I wouldn't necessarily say that they have more outlets, just that they're more outspoken. I mean, the majority of Muslims are supposedly peaceful, but we generally hear about the radicals who cause trouble.
The trend of religion becoming less popular is pretty noticeable, and I think it will only continue, at a faster pace as man's general knowledge keeps growing at a faster pace.
You're saying that knowledge necessarily makes religions that include the part after "esp. when considered" in the above definition less popular. That is not the case. Scientific knowledge can be interpreted in a way that agrees with the Bible. It all depends upon what unprovable assumptions you're using to interpret the data.
I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, I'm saying that people being more well-informed than they were say 500 years ago has led many people to not believing in any religion. My opinion on whether or not this is reasonable or correct is irrelevant, I'm just stating that this is a very noticeable trend, and that I believe it will continue. Which is what led to my prediction in the original post.
No matter how civil it starts off, in my experience, there is no such thing as a religious discussion (on the Internet, anyway) that does not end in scorched earth.
I can already see some comments that could be construed as insults. Before people get angry about this, I say we just let it go.
I have a question. Take the following phrase:
"This pizza is so good, it tastes like it was hand-tossed by Jesus himself."
Do you think this is disrespectful to Jesus? If so, why? If not, why not?
I personally do not see disrespect in this statement. It is referencing Jesus's ability to work miracles and superhuman feats to put an exaggeration about the tastes of a food. I actually see a statement like this to be in good faith and "promoting" Jesus, if you will. (Couldn't think of a better word) Oh, glorifying would be a better word, I think.
Discuss?
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
I have a question. Take the following phrase:
"This pizza is so good, it tastes like it was hand-tossed by Jesus himself."
Do you think this is disrespectful to Jesus? If so, why? If not, why not?
I personally do not see disrespect in this statement. It is referencing Jesus's ability to work miracles and superhuman feats to put an exaggeration about the tastes of a food. I actually see a statement like this to be in good faith and "promoting" Jesus, if you will. (Couldn't think of a better word) Oh, glorifying would be a better word, I think.
Discuss?
It depends on how you meant it. I don't find that offensive really. But to be on the safe side I wouldn't make jokes like that myself.
I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, I'm saying that people being more well-informed than they were say 500 years ago has led many people to not believing in any religion.
I assume that you're using a different definition of "religion" than I am. Everyone has a religion, but not every religion mentions God, the supernatural, etc. Therefore, the trend, if it exists, is more toward religions without supernatural elements.
I wonder if people are truly better-informed than 500 years ago. There is certainly more knowledge than 500 years ago, but I don't believe that the general populace has access to the majority of that knowledge. Even the knowledge that they do access through the mass media is partial, since each author has his or her own agenda.
JXQ wrote:
Do you think this is disrespectful to Jesus? If so, why? If not, why not?
I think it is disrespectful because you're banalizing Jesus's power. The miracles He did were for the glorification of God, not just to show off. Such "jokes" only "promote" Jesus as some sort of magician or source of entertainment, when His purpose was to reconcile us to God.
I think it is disrespectful because you're banalizing Jesus's power. The miracles He did were for the glorification of God, not just to show off. Such "jokes" only "promote" Jesus as some sort of magician or source of entertainment, when His purpose was to reconcile us to God.
Yes, I overlooked that, I agree with Dacicus on this one. That is disrespectful.
I think it is disrespectful because you're banalizing Jesus's power. The miracles He did were for the glorification of God, not just to show off. Such "jokes" only "promote" Jesus as some sort of magician or source of entertainment, when His purpose was to reconcile us to God.
Well, you have to be careful who you make such jokes with, but if you mean no disrespect, I'm pretty sure God has a sense of humour.
I think it is disrespectful because you're banalizing Jesus's power. The miracles He did were for the glorification of God, not just to show off. Such "jokes" only "promote" Jesus as some sort of magician or source of entertainment, when His purpose was to reconcile us to God.
This is a very good point. I only question the link between promoting Jesus as a "magician" meaning we are not recognizing the true intent of his miracles. I see how it could be seen from both sides now, though.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
It's pointless to argue if the terms aren't defined. You can't "prove" anything at all without basic assumptions about what process(es) can be used in proofs and what you will accept as evidence.
