Hi there all,
I have two questions for the forum:
If technological growth and human development continues at its present pace over the next century, and if the earth does not suffer some series of global catastrophes, will Christianity survive as a major religious belief system in 22nd century?
Can atheism give birth to new forms of religious thinking?
Christianity is mostly sold by hammering on these 6 appeals:
So, to what extent will technological growth and continuing (intellectual?) human development affect any of these “pull factors”?
As humanity progresses, factors 2, 4 and 6 will fall away first, as these can be directly contested with evidence. At that point I think a lot of Christians will give up their religion. At critical mass, point 5 will crumble too.
Factor 1, the desire for everlasting life, and 3, the guilt-thing, may prove the most perennial. I can’t see though, how these two could reasonably be expected to prop up Christianity by themselves.
So yes, I think religion is gradually on its way to become very marginalized over the next two hundred years or so. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the first significant population of atheists were to come from a Christian background.
Can atheism give birth to new forms of religious thinking?
There was some debate many moons ago on whether a fig tree and a rock are atheists. This may sounds like a strange thing to argue about, but it has implications about our own state of religiosity when we enter the world as newborns. In any case, clearly the fig tree would not be expected to come up with new religions based on its secular roots (he-he).
But back to humans. If atheism is a human condition, then God alone knows what strange rationalizations men are capable of concocting it there heads. 
However:
Religions are well known to sprout new varieties of itself all the time. Christianity, for instance, has developed several new and improved fun filled flavours (each of which calls the others “sects”, almost as if it’s a bad thing) over the centuries. There are, after all, many ways to believe in God.
I think atheism is comparatively immune to such sectorial divide, because there is only one way not to believe. And more importantly, atheism is not a religion. Its more like a hobby.
Rigil
Rigil, I think you’ve neglected the most important “infection mechanism” of Christianity (which is the same for all religions), namely that it is inculcated into children as absolute, immutable and unquestionable truth long before those children can develop critical faculties. For most people, their religion is as much ingrained in their psyche as their potty training, and is therefore a habit as hard to break as any other. And in habit I also include all the usual post hoc mental gymnastics and contortions that are used to defend religious belief.
For this reason alone and short of radical interference in this widespread brainwashing of children, Christianity will persist for the foreseeable future alongside all the other major religions. However, some of the details around dogma will change slowly over time and in accordance with changing social needs and structures, just as it has done over the past two millennia.
Whether atheism can give rise to new religious thinking will depend on how the question is meant. Certainly, theologians take some atheist critiques seriously and amend their arguments so as to preserve their core ideas. In doing so, they can effect subtle changes in the way that theologians and philosophers think about their subject matter, which later often filters down to the laity via the clergy. In recent times, for example, we’ve seen an upswing in pandeist and panentheist conceptions because the personal god idea can’t withstand very much critical scrutiny. Similarly, we’ve seen some novel (but still wholly unconvincing) approaches to the Problem of Evil.
On the other hand, it is also conceivable that if atheism becomes a set of ideas that is drummed into people instead of something that they arrive at by thought and reflection, then atheism could become a religion if (1) it’s an idea that those people rally around, and (2) they start being ritualistic about it. Other religions may see this as a threat and so adjust their canons in response. In all these scenarios, atheism has provoked new and/or different religious thinking. I’m sure that many more hypothetical situations could be suggested.
To avoid all of this, atheism must make sure that it never becomes zealously dogmatic. Vocal, yes. Radical, yes. But never dogmatic.
'Luthon64
I think the one thing we all need to realize religion is going no where.
There is a trend with the more prosperous a country the less religious they are.
So I guess it all depend on that
It did spring to mind, but exactly because Christian adults will almost always carry their beliefs over to their youngsters, I thought it more meaningful to focus on the factors that are likely to keep adult Christians on the straight and narrow. It’s only the erosion of those factors that will render them less likely to “infect” the next generation.
Rigil
Yes, that’s true enough as far as it goes. I got your meaning but as I tried to indicate, those factors have a strong tendency to be ultra resistant to any erosion precisely because of the nature of the “infection mechanism” we’re dealing with. It is fashionable to think that adult people defend their religious beliefs with something very much like reasoning and it’s only their premises that have gone awry. I challenge this notion as a convenient myth in the case of the overwhelming majority of believers. Instead, they “defend” reactively with a set of conditioned responses that have very little to do with any reasoning, which is why their “arguments” are much the same as they ever were.
And it’s this postnatal inoculation that forms the foundation on which all those other factors are anchored and built. In short, the “infection mechanism” is prior to all else in this context, and is cleverly constructed to be self-replicating and rigidly conservative.
'Luthon64
One could argue that religion is not so much belief in gods as it is a mindset, a style of thinking. I have seen that mindset and style of thinking among atheists and religious folks alike. Soviet communism comes to mind. Also some of the outer fringes of the environmental/animal rights movement.
It seems as if madness will always be with us. We can only hope that reason will prevail.
Rigil, Mefiante,cr1t and Brianvds,
Rigil I like your point by point exposition of the factors pertaining to the first question. In your summation you contend that it will probably be marginalized over the next century.
Cr1t your argument if I understand it correctly is the same as Rigil’s.
e.g. The technological development and ability to solve problems of a society makes for a more prosperous society, hence the dependency on religion diminishes. AmIright?
You will note that I hold that position too.
HOWEVER
'Luthon64 makes the argument that as long as children are indoctrinated with the Christian belief from Childhood, it will remain entrenched. The question then becomes: Are Christian children today being indoctrinated to the extent of previous generations.
My own contention is no. I base this on my own personal anecdotal experience. For example: I can argue the Trinity better than most South African Christian young people of today’s generation because not only was I exposed to the doctrine in church but also in the formalized school curriculum of the time.
'Luthon64 also made the following argument: “However, some of the details around dogma will change slowly over time and in accordance with changing social needs and structures, just as it has done over the past two millennia. However, some of the details around dogma will change slowly over time and in accordance with changing social needs and structures, just as it has done over the past two millennia.”
Theological evolution? AmIright? I have to agree that religions adapt to the Zeitgeist of the time. For example, Hell is a totally illogical idea (The “loving” god punishing the individual in eternal torment for sin committed over a limited period of existence) and so Christianity no longer focuses on the particular dogma. Atheists are quick to point to point to hell as a ridiculous belief, hence I have started to see some ideas like ‘universal redemption’ emerge as an attempt to solve the critique.
Perhaps the first question should “evolve” into: Does Christianity have the ability to adapt and evolve fast enough to its changing social environment to successfully survive?
Luthon I have to even touched your thoughts on the second question yet.
Brianvds,
“One could argue that religion is not so much belief in gods as it is a mindset, a style of thinking.”
I would like to add to that
“Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values” – Wikipedia paraphrasing anthropologist Clifford Geertz
Footnote: I apologise for my shite spelling,grammatical and syntax errors.
Yes I think this is probably the biggest detractor to religion. Education levels being another but that is also tied to economics.
I think it does. It’s not a single entity (any more) giving it a massive evolutionary edge, and has proved to be able to change with time.
Luthon you wrote:
It is fashionable to think that adult people defend their religious beliefs with something very much like reasoning and it’s only their premises that have gone awry. I challenge this notion as a convenient myth in the case of the overwhelming majority of believers. Instead, they “defend” reactively with a set of conditioned responses that have very little to do with any reasoning, which is why their “arguments” are much the same as they ever were.
I disagree here. Most Christian children are raised with the Jesus and Santa Claus myths simultaneously. One cannot ague that finding out that Santa Claus does not exist is more satisfying to a child than the idea that a Fat Magical Elf that delivers presents using Warp 9 reindeer. Yet reasonably young children can distance themselves from the myth quite easily. Why can’t most children/people distance themselves from Christianity? Its because the Jesus myth solves a difficult problem. When faced with the possibility of non-existence religion offers mitigation of risk. Your assertion of “conditioned responses that have very little to do with any reasoning” is not correct. Christians argue from the perspective of the secret unnamed fear. The fear of non-existence and therefore is not the result of Skinnerian conditioning. Conditioning does play a part but is not at the core of the motivation.
I think this is a good list of appeals.
Besides the significant role played by child indoctrination, there are a number of major life events where religion gets reinforced such as baptisms, weddings and funerals. It may take long before secular alternatives for these events gain general popularity.
I could make a long argument here about how Christians will be the first to tell you that a Santa Claus/god analogy is problematic, how Santa is a materialistic manifestation that is very easily debunked, how children usually learn of Santa’s non-existence from their peers or elders, and how this makes the Santa concept fair game for questioning while god is not to be probed, at all or ever. Instead, I’ll just point out how intimately tied to one another the ideas of Santa and god are in all sorts of respects, and yet people have no trouble separating the two, rejecting the one but not the other. A proper impartial and rational appraisal would not miss these parallels and incongruities but because the god idea pretends to address existential and “ultimate” questions, it must always enjoy special treatment and considerations, usually in the form of question-begging or post hoc excuses.
I’m sorry, but that just is not reasoning by any standard definition of that term.
'Luthon64
I would add: “I will be severely punished if I don’t believe.” I’d say that right there is the main thing preventing people from questioning too much. I know it made me pause.
As for religious decline, I’d say it is for now mostly confined to the “western” world and China. And then the problem is that people just replace religiosity with quantum mumbo-jumbo, crystals, “spirituality”, etc, etc.
What I would like to see much more than a rise of athiesm, would be a rise of skepticism. Atheism can follow behind, because then the new converts would be able to fend off “replacement dogma”.
I agree with BM:
Once we start peeking into the future one needs to make some assumptions. As an economist I am obliged to do this >:D I am thus assuming (inter alia) that in the next 100 - 200 years people will be better educated and as a consequence be better equipped to think critically (I know this is assuming further that brainwashing and religious indoctrination is minimised). Skepticism is more prevalent in societies that have followed a more liberal educational route and this would seem to correlate with atheism. It is for this reason that religions want to control education and in many instances have schools in which they are able to regulate what the kids learn.
Now part of the overall educational experience is technology driven (media, internet etc etc) and this will no doubt have a massive (and already has) impact on the liberalization of people’s minds. (it will also be used extensively by religions). However, the sheer weight of information (and overload) will lead to censoring and selective filtering by the powers that be, leading inevitably again to some forms of mind control and propaganda. I think nonetheless that so much information will fall through the cracks that critical thinking will improve and as a consequence religion will become more marginalised.
The pendulum of history will unfortunately continue its inexorable swing back and forth and we might as a result see a new form of Inquisition, Big Brother and the like. It is ultimately not in the interest of politicians to have their subjects thinking too much for themselves.
Will atheism lead to a new form of religion? No…it’s the antithesis and as has been said already should by its very style of thinking never become dogmatic, over-bearing or autocratic.