When will religion die out or become irrelevant?

Consider it a koan, BLD, provided there's no biblical injunctions against such things.

 

No, no it won't. Once the husband becomes a Christian there is a mutuality of respect, etc.

 

You might be interested in Dean Hamer's book The God Gene : How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes. Here's the blurb from the cover:

• The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God, expressing a conviction that has existed since the beginning of recorded time and is shared by billions around the world. In The God Gene, Dr. Dean Hamer reveals that this inclination toward religious faith is no accident; it is in good measure due to our genes. In fact, he argues, spiritual belief may offer an evolutionary advantage by providing humans with a sense of purpose and the courage and will to overcome hardship and loss. And, as a growing body of evidence suggests, belief also increases our chances of reproductive survival by helping to reduce stress, prevent disease, and extend life.
  
  Hamer shows that new discoveries in behavioral genetics and neurobiology indicate that humans inherit a set of predispositions that make their brains ready and eager to embrace a higher power. Blah blah...

It's a nice idea. But personally I think it's rubbish.

 

I saw a brain organization scientist on TV that had a patient that had unusual seizures, he would have an intense religious experience whenever he had one of these seizures. In my mind it can be argued to show God is true as well as arguing the opposite.

 

Not at all. That could be absolutely true. Imagine the anxiety of the prehistoric man having sooo many doubts, tribulations, problems, (and the intelligence to wonder about them) which were calmed down partially through the use of religion (no alcohol or Prozac back then ). Initially they came up with those fertility gods, sun disks etc, then the axial religions, and so on; all of them built to satisfy the current neccesities of man which differed as time passed by. This newly acquired necessity could be passed genetically like many other behavioural and intellectual traits do .... This is reasonable since it would be a winning gene; it favors human survival so it may somehow be written in the genetic code. We could especulate on and on. Of course, it wouldn't constitute proof for nothing, but I think it is a fascinating theory. Not new though. If memory serves well, some Christian philosophers explained the existence of God by using this human need for it as a (very weak) proof.


Great topic, Thanks, Ian, for the idea.



Greetings

 

I think we actually have two issues being discussed here.

Will religion die or become irrelevant?

Will Christianity die or become irrelevant?

I stand by my first response that religion will survive as long as humankind possess a conscience.

Christianity will never die or become irrelevant based on 1 Peter 3:1 and the fact that, in spite of the growth of Islam worldwide, Christianity is also growing, albeit at a slower rate.

The only time, that I can recall, that Christianity was in any real danger was in 732 at the Battle of Tours.

 

Bill Dayson

Your message is truly erudite and very interesting. I have the suspicion that religion simply reflects the state of mind of man, as I said earlier. Probably the history of religion simply echoes a saga of human perception of life. Now, in the middle of a globalization process, where we are all becoming cultural mongrels, I have the feeling that fundamentalism (of any sign) will find itself confronted with a flow of ideas that up to now were successfully hidden and/or unchallenged or simply dismissed without much preocupation. However, now these peopel must inevitably face those ideas. In fact, some argue that Islamic terrorists act like this as a desperate response to the destruction of their ancient but clearly now inadequate set of values. Parallel to this, the technologies of this age, that permit to reach much further and to a greater number of people, will help first to do more proselytism and second to unify in the worst and most fundamentalist manner those religions like Islam that don’t have an obvious head. Wouldn’t you think that globalization may lead to a greater spread of the enlightenment (expressed perhaps as a pragmatic use of religion as you put it) but also to a drastic radicalization of some religions that feel threatened by the process?

I hope it makes sense.


Greetings

 

BTW, I just saw Uncle Janko's message. I hope I don't divert he direction of this thread. I just wanted to say that no apology is needed whatsoever. Often it is very difficult to explain oneself in a heated discussion. Nevertheless, I apreciate your courage. I myself offer mine if you consider I said something out of place.


Cordial greetings

 

Thank you.

Now, back to topic!

 

Christianity is declining in the West, perhaps more so in Europe than in the US. (Australia doesn't seem very religious either, and seems to take after Europe in that regard.)

But there are noticable regional variations here in the States.

The SF bay area is a lot like Europe I think. Christianity is relatively weak, there are lots of immigrants bringing their own non-Christian faiths and there's a tremendous amount of experimentation and eclecticism among religious seekers.

But parts of the rural South seem to be strongly influenced by Protestant fundamentalism. I mean, just compare me to the Degreeinfo fundies. That's a real culture difference there, probably broader in its own way than that between Americans and Europeans.

There's an urban-rural split, a North-South split, a coastal-inland split, a host of ethnic splits...

So when we talk about the future of Christianity in the United States, we need to extrapolate all of these tendencies.

That's my careful assessment. Now I'll get a little more speculative.

My vision of 21'st century America has Christianity shrunken but still lively. But it will no longer define the whole context of thought, for Christians and non-Christians alike. We will no longer think in Christian terms, even when we are rejecting Christianity.

To a large extent that move to a post-Christian America has already taken place. And the vehemence and stridency of the religious right is to some extent a reaction against exactly that.

But Christianity isn't going to go away. It will just recede into the marketplace and become another intellectual and cultural option. I expect that it will remain the most popular religious option, by far, for the foreseeable future.

But changes there will be.

Today, while most Americans (about 80% I think) self-identify as "Christians", they aren't particularly religious. Many attend church sporadically or not at all. Often their reasons for attending are more social than devotional.

But most people say that they believe in God. In many cases, if you inquire further, you get something like "there has to be something more than this". The belief is inchaoate, but it's expressed in Christian form because Christianity has historically been the American social norm. It's been the automatic default system.

My suspicion is that as Christianity recedes into being just another religious option alongside others, as more and more Americans live in neighborhoods where religious diversity is the norm and non-Christians are their neighbors, Christianity will cease being an automatic default.

People will still have their "there has to be something more than this" intuition, probably stronger than ever as their cultural certainties wobble and shake. In other words, their core religiosity will remain the same.

But they will derive their conceptual vocabulary from a much wider variety of sources. They won't just automatically express their religiosity in Christian terminology.

So what I foresee is the "Californication" of American religious life, where all kinds of "alternative" religious ideas flourish and where many people imagine themselves as seekers. Religious "consumers", if you want to be cynical, but it's not a bad thing.

But just as in today's Los Angeles, Christianity (in a host of forms, many clearly variant and heterodox themslves) will continue to be the choice of the majority, if only for reasons of tradition, ethnicity and family upbringing.

If I'm right, we might see a rather rapid decline in the number of self-avowed American "Christians" in the coming years. The drop will represent many of the nominal default Christians no longer feeling any need to call themselves "Christians". That decline will no doubt elicit triumphalism from the atheists. But it will level out with a significant percentage of the population still avowing Christianity. And these core believers will represent the more devout and personally committed.

In a way, America will come to resemble Rome in pre-Constantinian times. The prevalent religious temper will be eclectic and syncretistic, and Christianity may take on more of a sectarian tone.

Oddly, that will make 21'st century American Christianity much more akin to the early Christian community in the New Testament. The New Testament church wasn't a state church or an unquestioned universal cultural norm.

 

I voted "never", not because I think that is necessarily a desirable outcome, but because I agree that religion has been, and always will be, a component of the human condition, something that sets us apart from animals for example. In terms of "the Christian religion", I believe that this will also survive, although again I'm not necessarily in favor of that outcome.

I could be more in favor of it if somehow we could come to terms with the portions of scripture that, if taken literally, require us to kill those who do not think like us or worship the same God (or "gods"). I do think that the biggest challenge facing humanity right now is that our capability to destroy each other has outpaced our development in the spiritual/tolerance area. Islam still says that all infidels must either convert, or die. Christianity says almost the same thing, although not as stridently.

The world cannot survive in a post-nuclear age with this type of mentality governing our leaders and peoples. We simply must get beyond "blind faith", and take a more humanistic approach to living on this planet.

As for those who blindly believe that "Christ is MY KING", and that when he "comes back everything will be fine", best wishes. You are living in a fantasy/myth driven mindset that is part of the problem, not part of the solution. My assumption is that you would delight in seeing the torment of those who do not agree with you when Jesus comes back to settle scores. This is not right, and it does nothing to settle down the tensions between Islam and Christianity that have once again (this time for the sake of oil) brought a world crisis into focus. It would be good for you to instead think of the words of our Lord who said "do unto others as you would they do unto you", and this does not include by any stretch of the imagination eternal damnation for simply holding different IDEAS....

 

Lots of what I consider interesting posts.

Regarding Bill Dayson's last post I agree with his assessment. I just wanted to mention that around the world I understand that Christianity is growing very quickly. The big advantage that Christianity seems to have over Islam, for example, is that I believe that it is more flexible and can fit into different cultures better.

 

Mr. Carl Rugenstein speaks!

• Posted by Carl_Reginstein
  I could be more in favor of it if somehow we could come to terms with the portions of scripture that, if taken literally, require us to kill those who do not think like us or worship the same God (or "gods").

I am unaware of any New Testament scripture that tells the Christian to kill people who don’t agree with them. Naturally, you must be referring to the Old Testament or to a non-Christian religion.

• Posted by Carl_Reginstein
  Islam still says that all infidels must either convert, or die. Christianity says almost the same thing, although not as stridently.

Where in the New Testament is the Christian told to ”almost kill” an infidel? Or are you embellishing?

Pray tell?

Incidentally, when I was watching some Islamic fundamentalists saw-off the heads of some non-Islamic people, I became deeply concerned that these are the types of people who would gladly start WWIII, all in the name of religion. If you want to see their proud videotaped display of chopping-off human heads, then you can visit the Northeast Intelligence Network. However, be advised that their trophy-video-tapings are brutally inhumane.

• Posted by Carl_Reginstein
  We simply must get beyond "blind faith", and take a more humanistic approach to living on this planet.

Is ”blind faith” your definition of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? I think you will answer that question next:

• Posted by Carl_Reginstein
  As for those who:
  [*]blindly believe that "Christ is MY KING"
  [*]and that when he "comes back everything will be fine"
  best wishes.

You don’t believe that? What then do you believe?

• Posted by Carl_Reginstein
  You are living in a fantasy/myth driven mindset that is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Hummmm, to have faith that the Lord Jesus Christ will return to the earth… How, Mr. Carl Rugenstein, is that a part of the problem???

Pray tell?

• Posted by Carl_Reginstein
  My assumption is that you would delight in seeing the torment of those who do not agree with you when Jesus comes back to settle scores.

Oh no no no, you are so far from the truth. We Christians do not want to see anyone perish. The Lord Jesus Christ came to this earth to give life to them that believe in Him. Anyone who believes on Him with all their heart will be saved.

Mr. Carl Rugenstein, your self-avowed concept that Christians seek to see humans suffer is a maladjusted philosophy on your part. Why do you think that a Christian looks forward to seeing human suffering?

Pray tell Mr. Carl Rugenstein?

• Posted by Carl_Reginstein
  It would be good for you to instead think of the words of our Lord who said "do unto others as you would they do unto you."

On this, we agree. But at the same time, I often wonder ”Why do the heathen rage?”

 

I sort of agree. Religious traditions are elaborate cultural constructs. They obviously don't correspond to genes one-to-one.

But I do think that there are innate human characteristics that predispose us to religion.

The way I see it, human beings are hard-wired to deal with other human beings.

Newborn infants preferentially attend to human faces and respond to voices, particularly their mother's voice.

Children learn to speak and understand language at an early age. That's pretty amazing, when we remember that natural language is so complex that linguists still don't fully understand it. And children do this spontaneously, without formal instructon. We just expect children to start to talk. Compare that to the difficulty people have in learning much simpler systems like calculus.

And children have the ability to read other people's inner states in the greatest detail from the subtlest clues like tone of voice or tiny fleeting gestures and expressions.

It's strange that all of this stuff is so familiar that most people never notice how striking it really is.

(I wonder if autism might not be the failure of this innate predisposition to understand and respond to other people.)

Well, my thesis is that people are innately better at understanding other people than they are at understanding inanimate objects. It's easier, it's more comfortable. That means that most of us may naturally prefer to think about things in personal terms, by interpreting events as if they were the intentional actions of conscious actors.

In other words, human beings may have an innate tendency to anthropomorphize. We naturally tend to respond to inhuman things as if they were persons.

So we slide easily into the kind of animism that typifies some "primitive" religion.

I think that the history of ideas provides countless examples. The ancients didn't think of storms in terms of air pressure and moisture, they thought of some powerful occult entity expressing anger. Disease and misfortune was the work of malevolent purpose. The cycles of the seasons represented the death and rebirth of some divine personality.

Abstractions are often personified, from Platonism's demiurge to God's wisdom to the holy spirit. God "him"-self is an example, as are the "persons" of the trinity.

And the same pattern is repeated all around the world, in every culture.

So, I guess my point is that while we probably don't have a "God-gene", we may well have genes that precondition us to understand and communicate with other people and to live successfully in social groups.

And I'd speculate that the hard-wired capacity to relate to our fellows carries over to our general cognition, leading us to respond to a non-human universe in personal terms. And while that doesn't really imply that religion is innate, it suggests that the anthropomorphizing of broader reality may be a byproduct of our social instinct.

 

Re: Mr. Carl Rugenstein speaks!

You literalists always hide behind the so-called difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, claiming that the New Testament releases us from the duties of the old, yet calling in the Old Testament at various times in history whenever it suits your needs. For example, are the 10 commandments no longer valid? Of course not! Then why is Deuteronomy invalid?

There are plenty of examples throughout history, in fact an inexhaustible list of examples, where the Christian religion and its proponents/leaders have ordered the deaths of thousands, even millions, through the ages for professing a different faith or ideology or even heresy. This is not embellishment - it is fact.

I agree that Islam seems designed to start WWIII. But, we "Christians" need to carefully examine our own motives, history, and intentions when we respond to this from a standpoint of religion rather than humanity. For example, Ann Coulter recently said something like "we should conquer all Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity". That sounds like a call for a new Crusade to me, which is not a tactic likely to lead to meaningful dialogue.

If Christians do not delight in the torment of their "enemies", then how do you explain the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust, and the witch burnings of modern times? How do you explain the Branch Davidians, with their twisted view of sexuality, family life, and cultish behavior? Were they not of Christian origin?

How do you explain the raping of young boys by Catholic priests, if the Christian religion is so infallible?

Admittedly, these are the acts of men, not God. But that fact alone should cause you to question the overall motive of the Christian belief system. If it is OK to claim mistakes are always the result of men acting under Satan's influence, then why are those mistakes almost always perpetrated under the guise of furthering some religious goal that has its origins in the teachings of Christ? Twisted and tormented, yes, but still the origins are what God says to us, are they not?

This is why I question basing our values entirely on faith-based religion. It is time for us to begin to examine what is important in morality, and not hide behind the shield of the Bible and its teachings as the ultimate guide in life. The goodness is within us, as is the evil. God has nothing to do with it.

 

Great Discussion!!!

This is a great discussion.

First, I want to agree with Bill Dayson on the future of Christianity in America. Bill, I always enjoy your insightful posts.

When I was in a small, fundamentalist bible college in Portland about 8 years ago, I had a professor who smashed the idea that one can leverage Christianity by historically proving the resurrection of Christ. Instead, he argued that Christ has to be presented as one option in the "marketplace of the gods."

I would also say that there is nothing in this discussion about religion being a fundamental part (perhaps a primal, arch-typical aspect) of the human condition that does not agree with John Calvin. Karl Barth's exegesis of Genesis 1 explains that our physical constitution is shaped for a relationship with God. Why don't the theologians get credit for coming up with the God-gene idea first?

Finally, just in response to Carl. Carl, I understand why you get so irked at "literalists." I also think you are a very intelligent man. Will you consider distinguishing between protestant Christians and "literalists?" Jesus did not appreciate the Pharisees of his day, telling them "you search the Scriptures because you think in them you have life, but you refuse to come to me to have life..." (Jn. 5).

When Jesus addressed the sorrows and violences of the church's history to follow him, he said that many would do things "in my name." However, he would say to them, "depart from me, I never knew you" (Matt. 7). Please remember that many profess to follow Christ, but only do violence in His name. That does not discount the legitimate pursuit of Christ. Christianity is defined by its center, the final revelation of God, the person of Jesus Christ. If there is religion that practices holocaust, Christ is certainly not present. In that case, please do not witch hunt for straw men.

I also think spirituality is basic to rational thought. So, if we are doing theology, we are always serving certain interests. If you are resentful to "Christians" for doing these acts, that will shape your approach to God. Please remember that such men crucified Christ, an outsider. Don't let your resentment cloud your reason. Give it up, repent of it, and receive Christ. Ask the Holy Spirit for the power to see through the mire of human corruption. The world does not need harsh criticism, we have plenty of that. We are falling apart at the seams because we lack the spiritual resources to give of ourselves, and face the world with the self-giving love of Christ. The world needs this love, Carl. It does not need your intelligence. We have plenty of that to go around.

Chris

 

Re: Great Discussion!!!

Chris,
Thanks for your thoughtful post, and your gentle rebuke of my somewhat extreme positions in these kind of discussions. However, one of my points is that moderate Christians (and moderate members of any of the faith-based religions - Islam, Judaism, etc.) actually make the problem much worse. They make it worse because, while they do not perform acts of violence or extremism themselves, they tend to apologize or look the other way when people DO use religion as a basis for violent behavior.

"After all, they did say they were doing God's work, didn't they? I know it is wrong to (pick one) ... (a) bomb abortion clinics or (b) kill Jews indiscriminately or (c) blow up train stations for Allah ... but, these men really believe in God, and perhaps they are misguided, but then again, maybe not?"

It is these kind of doubts in the minds of the moderates that enable the extremists to function so pervasively in this modern world of ours.

Modern? We might as well be in the 14th century as far as Islam is concerned. I'm willing to give Falwell and Robertson enough intelligence to only relegate their views to the 16th century, two centuries more progressed than your average Muslim "thinker". But still an amazing fact.... in this day and age that we have people who still look to "the Good Book" for guidance as opposed to what they can see, touch, and feel through science and reason, and humanistic morality....

 

Thanks for the respect Carl. You may be right to blame religion in general, moderates as well as fundies. However, I don't really think so. I think, if you get to know Christian theology, it is a religion defined by the cross, not by conquest. Those who seek to belong to Christ have a cross to bear, not a sword.

As for the other religions, they can speak for themselves. But, as far as I'm concerned, with Christianity, there are overwhelming internal conceptual reasons to question the legitimacy of violence done in Christ's name. It's not just a political apology. It's the teaching of Christ.

Chris

 

Chris,
Just by way of clarification, I am neither an atheist nor a non-Christian. I was raised in the Lutheran faith, and still have ties there. I have a least a more than average familiarity with the Bible and the teachings of Christ.

Which is why I feel it is the duty of every Christian to question our faith, to question our past, to question our future and where this is all going. I agree that Christ's teachings do not, on the surface, urge us on towards violence against other human beings. But it is difficult to explain why, then, Christian cultures throughout history have been at the forefront of so much horrible wars, atrocities, and inhumanity to man. Where does this come from, if not from some deeply ingrained lessons or subconscious contextualization of the real directions of God, as represented in the Bible?

For example, how is it that the Church in the Middle Ages was adamant about conducting a continuous policy of genocide towards the Jews? They claimed they killed Christ, and therefore were damned - so it was the duty of good Christians to help those "damned ones" along their way to hell, a little quicker than otherwise might be the case!

And how are we different today, in our desire to assist Osama bin Laden and his followers to a fiery end, and as soon as possible? Is it political expediency that drives us to want to exterminate al Qaeda, or is it fueled by religious outrage?

Are these the teachings of Christ? No. But the religion of Christ has somehow enabled these kind of actions on the parts of its followers. This is deeply troubling to me, and should be to every thinking Christian man, woman, and child.

 

Hi Carl,

I pretty much knew that you weren’t a Christian, regardless of your childhood ties with Lutheranism (If it is possible for me to say that without being offensive; I’m just being candid). If you ever fully commit your heart to the Lord Jesus Christ, then he will speak to you and you will hear His voice e.g. My sheep hear my voice. If you ever have a one-on-one contact with Him, you will be forever changed. He is the Author and the finisher of our faith and what He has begun, you can rest assured He will complete. But until you have a personal revelation of His existence and resurrection, I can understand that becoming a believer would be difficult, if not impossible, without the promptings of His Holy Spirit --- or some other sort of spiritual revelation. You see, I was once a diehard atheist, so I speak from experience.

Categorically, you cannot realistically lump all alleged Christians into the same pot. Not everyone who calls himself a Christian has become born again, much as you have not. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian has been inwardly converted in their heart, although from an outward appearance, they may claim to be a Christian for various reasons i.e. they may have been born into a religion and may have adopted the outward lifestyles of that religion, but they never truly believed in it; consequently, they have a form of godliness, but they inwardly deny the power thereof because they have never had a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. For example, you said:

• Posted by Carl_Reginstein:
  I am neither an atheist nor a non-Christian. [However] I was raised in the Lutheran faith and still have ties.

Having been raised as a Lutheran, you have learned how to ”walk the walk” and can ”talk the talk,” but clearly you haven’t been converted in your heart. I say this not in a demeaning way, but simply to demonstrate that there is more to being a Christian then titling oneself as such e.g. there must be a conversion within the heart or, as is more popularly known, there must be a born again experience where the spirit of a man is reborn whereupon he becomes the property of the Lord Jesus Christ and nothing can snatch that believer out of His hands, at least from a spiritual perspective. That man will eventually partake in the resurrection of the just and will experience eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.

Regarding the murderous or barbaric actions of those who title themselves as Christians, but who are not, the Lord Jesus warned us about them. He said that many of them will claim to be His, but He never knew them and He will tell them so on judgment day. Conversely, he told us how we can accurately discern who really are His people e.g. we will know them by their love, one for another, and by their fruit (their actions). Yet we trod along together, side-by-side, the believer adjacent to the unbeliever, all within church buildings. Many of the unbelievers falsely wear the mantle of Christianity and they get away with it because they know how to ”walk the walk and talk the talk” of Christianity. Why? Because they were born into the denomination and were taught how to abide by all of the outward appearances; but they remain unconverted. Judas Iscariot is a prime example of this. He was born and raised in a religious setting and he knew how to fool the other apostles, yet he was a devil from the beginning, according to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and he was never converted. The believers and the unbelievers will be together until the end of the age when the tares are finally separated from the wheat.

May you be richly blessed in your thoughts.