The New Religion?

[Aquila]

Looking at history, it seems that religions rise to prominence every 2000 years or so. Before Judaism and the idea of one god, there was pagan idol worship, then after about 2000 years came Jesus, and later Mohammad. If the 3 Abrahamic religions are on the way out, what is going to replace them, if anything?

Some people may say "nothing", we don't need any religion; science will suffice". But I think that people will need something mystical to fulful what seems like a basic human need for faith in the spiritual. What will this be?

I sometimes think that we are seeing a new religion already. The principles and morals etc are eternal and haven't really changed from the old beliefs, it's just the names that have changed. Maybe

The "new" Christian/Jesus = environmentalism, meditation, nutrition
The "new" Judaism/Jews = skeptics?
The "new" devil/tempter/deceiver = arms manufacturers, pharmaceutical company pushy advertising, junk-food sellers, fossil-fuel car manufacturers etc
The "new" pharisees = fundamentalism?

Comments?

 

[ben m]

Looking at history, it seems that religions rise to prominence every 2000 years or so. Before Judaism and the idea of one god, there was pagan idol worship, then after about 2000 years came Jesus, and later Mohammad.

Eh?
Abraham: ~1600 BCE
Jesus: 33 AD
Mohammed: 600 AD
Buddha: 600 BCE
Hinduism: pre-2500 BCE
Zoroaster: 300 BCE
Taoism: 600 BCE
Confucius: 500 BCE
Shinto: pre-400 BCE
Greek gods: ?-200 AD
Egyptian gods: 3000 BCE-200 AD
Native American/Inca/Aztec/Maya religions---all predate Columbus and collapsed later.
Norse gods?
African religions?

What points to any cycle at all, much less a 2000-year one? The Abraham-to-Mohammed period? Abraham to Jesus? Mohammed didn't invade just Christian or Hebrew lands---he invaded a lot of Persian and Egyptian territories. The closest thing I can see to a pattern is (a) everyone had some sort of religion already according to their earliest records, (b) some groups developed new religions later and the origins are documented.

 

[Ben K]

But I think that people will need something mystical to fulful what seems like a basic human need for faith in the spiritual.
Comments?

I don't experience this "basic human need." Does this mean I don't count as human? Or is your definition of "faith in the spiritual" so loose as to be virtually meaningless?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I don't experience this "basic human need." Does this mean I don't count as human?

Cue Godwin.

I think what he means is that some researchers (or, as far as I know, quite a few) say that humans seem to have a natural drive towards religious belief.

 

[BillyJoe]

Or is your definition of "faith in the spiritual" so loose as to be virtually meaningless?

Faith:
For our human ancestors, survival in a world of deadly predators, meant making decisions on the run, as it were. There was not much time to sit down and think logically and rationally about what should be done. The idea was to trust gut instinct and to do exactly what your elders did. This way you survived. Faith, in other words, was a survival instinct.
The rational and logical substitute is "trust". Trust is based on evidence that the the information provided is very likely to be correct. We trust the results of scientific enquiry, because the scientific method is a rational and logical way of getting gradually closer to the truth and has stood the test of time in this respect.
So, the substitute for faith is trust.

Spiritual:
Spiritual is a bit trickier. It is the sort of thing Einstein meant when he talked about god, religion, and the mystical, when he actually meant something completely different.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the power of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

I don't know if there is a good substitute for it.

 

[rocketdodger]

Spiritual is a bit trickier. It is the sort of thing Einstein meant when he talked about god, religion, and the mystical, when he actually meant something completely different. I don't know if there is a good substitute for it.

1) No need to replace it. Respecting the pixies of the forest and the mountain spirit is an experience. Respecting the reality of the forest and the age of the mountain, understanding our place in relation to them, and knowing how much greater the non-supernatural is than anything in the supernatural elicits the same experience -- only orders of magnitude stronger.

2) We will make our own anyway. When I (and hopefully most other educated and intelligent individuals) think about how exciting the future of reality is there is no room for the supernatural -- it pales in comparision. Who knows where we will end up? That leaves alot more to the imagination, without resorting to baloney, than any supernatural ideas ever could.

 

[Aquila]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful responses.

By "a need for faith in the spiritual" I don't neccessarily mean religion. I've heard scientists express their beliefs in a diety, for example Einstein saying "God does not play dice.." I've even read people on this forum describe themselves as "soft atheists".
Even if science succeeds in finding a unifying theory of everything, we are still left with "why?". And would the theory explain the question of good-evil, morals?

In one of Michael Shermer's recent Scientific American articles, he suggested that skeptics stop knocking theists, as it only divides science and religion even more. I agree. I think that scientists and theists should be tryng to find a philosophy which would encompass both. To me, environmentalism would include both, which is why I put it at the top of my list.

 

[BillyJoe]

I've heard scientists express their beliefs in a diety, for example Einstein saying "God does not play dice.."

Einstein did not believe in a deity:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Even if science succeeds in finding a unifying theory of everything, we are still left with "why?". And would the theory explain the question of good-evil, morals?

Another quote from Einstein:

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

In one of Michael Shermer's recent Scientific American articles, he suggested that skeptics stop knocking theists, as it only divides science and religion even more. I agree. I think that scientists and theists should be tryng to find a philosophy which would encompass both.

Unfortunately, religion and science are often overlapping and incompatible so there will always be friction. But I agree they must try to somehow live with each other, because neither is going away any time soon.