When will religion die out or become irrelevant?

JLV:

That is certainly true if by "revelation" you mean the Christian idea of a prophet seized by God and compelled to speak His words verbatim.

And I admit that some Hebrew writings invite that interpretation. However, the mainstream of Jewish thought, even among many Orthodox thinkers, is that the "still small voice" can be more accurately rendered "fine silence". In short, the prophet arrives at understanding through contemplation, looking into his heart in an open and truthful spirit. Almost like the Budda, I guess.

The misconception also stems from really slanted translations. When a prophet seems in translation to be talking about grands events in the distant future, i.e. "Behold a young woman will conceive..." the Hebrew can be read as a much more immediate and likely obvious statement of fact.

What I mean by all this is, the C.B. DeMille version is not the best way to look at Jewish prophecy. Closer to the mark might be people warning of resource wasteage or global warming in our own time.

Also remember that Judish prophecy was a literary device for social criticism more than a source of guidance for future actions. My own speculation on this subject suggests to me that the CHristian religion looks at Jewish prophecy as a prediction of the future in part because Christianity is a future oriented religion. This is a mistake, I think, because Judaism is a PAST oriented religion. The expression for ultimate authority in Jewish practice, for instance, is "min Sinai", meaning form Sinai. The whole idea of the convenant between God and the Jews is that it was established in the PAST and should be observed in daily life for a long and prosperous time in this life.

Until very late, Judaism didn't really even have a concept of life after death; that's why the issue was being debated as late as Jesus' ministry.

So is revelation without trumpets really revelation? Sure. But you cannot accept a Christian view of a Jewish book uncritically. Not if you want any hope of genuine understanding.

 

(a) Indeed many fall back on God (or a god or some gods) when they need Him/Her/them. Methinks that religion has not evolved much since the days of the fertility goddess (and her stud service). Religion is now, as it was in the beginning, and ever shall be, a technically correct ritual of propitiation designed to get the higher power on one's side.

(b) Indeed the French Revolution was the beginning of the secularization of the modern mind, at least for the upper crust of society.

(c) For those who need the crutch, let them have it if it helps them with the walk of life. Official government confiscation of crutches would cause a revolution.

(d) Indeed, many there be who are wolves in sheep's clothing who would use religion as an instrument for the social control of the masses.

(e) I myself have gone from fundamentalist Christian raised in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod as a child & as young man to agnostic as a young & middle-aged man to now, as a middle-aged to old man a theist who acknowledges that God wants to throw me away into Hellfire & damnation. At any rate, I think we ought to let people believe what they want to believe because we'll all find out soon enough whether we've got someplace to go and, if so, where or whether we're just all dressed up with no place to go. After all, people are betting their own souls on their concepts of the deity.

 

It seems to me that whether God is a good idea or a bad idea isn't really the point. The real issue, the HARD issue, is whether God is a TRUE idea.

 

Well said.

 

We have problems if we don't have any convincing or persuasive ways of knowing which ideas of God (or gods or transcendental being(s) generally) are true and which are false.

Earlier posts tied religion to the mystery of being. But unless mysteries are fleshed out with content, in which case they aren't mysteries any longer, we are led inexorably to agnosticism.

In previous threads I've raised the question of how one might distinguish between true religious beliefs and false ones. The response is usually some variant on 'It's my faith!'. But from where I sit, that's not an answer to the truth-question, it's an avoidance of it.

The most promising approach that I see to the problem of religious choice is pragmatic. That means changing our question from 'is it true?' to 'does it work?'. Does following a particular religious path produce results? The philosophical advantage is that the criterion that we use to make our choices is available to mortals here on earth, it isn't the essence of something divine that transcends this world by definition.

But that philosophical approach essentially collapses questions of truth into questions of good and bad. If the effects are good, then it's working so accept it. If they are bad, it isn't so don't.

Unfortunately, that raises a host of new problems: Obviously more than one path works in the judgement of those people who follow them, so the pragmatic aproach does little to tame problems of religious diversity and contradictory belief.

And there's the problem of determining whether or not a religion is working in our own lives. Often times we are making the most progress when it seems to us that we are making the least. And how can we judge our own progress if that means judging the truth and efficacy of things that the tradition has declared inviolate?

Finally, there's the problems of those religions like Christianity, but less so Judaism I guess, that are orthodoxies rather than orthopraxies. If the essence of following a religious path is affirming the truth of certain fundamental beliefs, then how does one approach such a faith pragmatically? How can we try out believing something as we might try out ethical precepts, ritual performances or meditation techniques?

 

So there is no practical WAY to address my question?

How depressing.

 

BillDayson:

Don't let your obviously gifted intellect make a fool of you. Either a faith is true or untrue, regardless of whether it "works", whatever in thunder that means.

Did Buddha speak truth or was he a liar?

Did G-d really speak to Mohammed or was he a myth-making, scheming political entrepreneur?

Did the "I AM" really speak to Moses from the Bush or was it a convenient myth created by an erstwhile prince of Egypt?

Did the I AM, if He existed, really enter earth in the form of a servant rabbi from Nazareth or was Jeshua just another in a long line of failed Messiah wannabes?

What's really true? Is any of it? I know that all of the various traditions cannot be true simultaneously, but that does not mean that one of them isn't true, objectively, actually, eternally true, with consequences that bear down upon each of us.

Anyone who's read many of my posts knows what I believe.

Frankly, I think it's a cop out to say that because humans aren't perfect arbiters of truth, not perfectly objective in knowledge and understanding, that the only recourse is to punt and ask "What works?" Because of course, what works is subjective as well. I know, you alluded to this, as near as I can tell, though half your post is over my limited head.

Thanks for introducing me to a new word: "orthopraxy". In a way, that does distinguish Christians and/or Jews who believe Jeshua was the Messiah from the rest of world religions. But it doesn't take into account what's really going on.

We do not believe that possessing the proper formula of beliefs is sufficient. We believe that something more goes on when you profess those beliefs and accept them in a way beyond mere intellectual assent, something that cannot be stated in words quite properly. We believe that when you come to the realization--as did the hero in Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Illych", that you cannot by your own good deeds impress a perfect G-d, that as a result there is a yawning gulf between you and that G-d, and that without some form of sacrifice for those imperfections, you are in deep trouble, and that Messiah is the means by which that sacrifice was made, that you become a new creation, and G-d literally begins residing within you.

It's just hard to explain, but you certainly won't ever get there by reasoning your way up to it. It transcends human reason, as does most real truth. Know your limitations.

 

I was thinking in terms of trying a religious path and then judging it by its fruits.

Trying a path might involve adopting ethical precepts, joining in ritual acts, scholarly study or perhaps engaging in things like meditation practice. It might start with 'talking the talk', then grow into 'walking the walk', to the point that some personal transformation begins to take place.

The evidence that the path is working might include the growth of compassion and the accompanying freedom from malice. It might involve gladness and the establishment of equanimity.

But if a religious path is conducive to contrary things like greed, defensiveness, ill-will and emotional agitation, then that might be pretty good evidence that maybe it isn't working and perhaps one's path lies elsewhere.

Eventually, performing various religious practices might produce more exotic results whose description is part of the tradition. But one probably needn't believe in them at the outset.

Probably not in a literal descriptive sense.

Could be. But the problem is figuring out which one it is.

If there's some means of determing what is and isn't religious truth, then I'd really like to know what it is.

True. But subjectivity in the personal decision whether or not a religious path is suitable seems less worrisome than personal subjectivity in factual assertions about the divine.

Most religions around the world have historically placed more emphasis on right-practice than on right-belief. What mattered most was maintaining ritual purity, performing the sacrifices or whatever it was. What people thought about it wasn't as big a deal.

So in that kind of non-Christian context, a pragmatic path is probably easier. People can assume the ethical precepts, they can perform the rituals, they can associate with the community, all without affirming belief in the literal truth of things that they don't really know. It becomes possible to 'try out' religions and see what effect the practices have on their lives.

I'm sure that's true. But it looks to me like intellectual assent is a necessary part of it. A precondition to faith, as it were. That's why I don't quite see how somebody could 'try on' Christianity. And that delivers us right back to our problem of religious truth.

But if religious truths transcend man's knowing, then isn't that just another rather portentious way of describing agnosticism? And agnosticism does violence to religious truth claims.

That question directs our attention to religious mysticism and negative theology. I find the various forms of mystically-motivated religious agnosticism to be tremendously fascinating.

But ultimately, if there is some different and higher way to distinguish between literal religious truth and falsity that bypasses the limitations of human reason, then I certainly don't know what it is.

 

I just read this article I find relevant for this discussion. It seems that religion has a different fate at each side of the pond.

-------------------------------------------------------------

A public poll conducted for the American news agency the Associated Press (AP) indicates the US is the Western country with the strongest belief in God. While eight out of 10 Americans say they believe God, more than half of the French say they are atheists.

Ipsos conducted the poll on behalf of the AP in 10 countries, the questionnaire included politics and religious discrimination and belief. Some of the questions included asked, "Whether or not clerics effect the decisions of government, the importance of religion in people's lives, whether or not they believe in God and which religion or sect they belong to," and was conducted with the participation of 1000 adults in the US, Australia, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Spain, and Mexico. According to the public opinion, the results are:

The US: Eight out of 10 people believe in God in the US and the majority of this group, have no doubt in their belief in God. Americans also expressed that their belief has been very important to themselves, and only two percent of Americans do not believe in God. While nine out of 10 people say that religion has been important in their individual lives, four out of 10 believe that clerics should try to effect the decisions of government.

Britain: 57 percent say religion is not so important for them.

France: Although seven out of 10 French view themselves as Catholic, almost half are atheists or agnostics.

Germany: 54 percent say religion is important but for the rest, it is not.

Spain: Four out of five Spaniards introduce themselves as Catholics; however, 46 percent say religion is important, while 52 percent say that religion is not important.

 

Nosborne, I am aware of the role Jewish prophets had. If I recall properly they are called "nebi". I know they were more an independent voice calling people back to their coventant responsabilities than a glamourous figure with ESP skills. I was really talking about something else. By revelation I din´t exactly meant prophecy; I meant something even more difficult to believe: God himself disclosing the guidelines of his policy towards human beings. The Genesis and the Exodus books are full of these "conversations", among which, is the covenant passage, the very foundation of the Jewish religion. Since all three major religions trace their origins back to Abraham, revelation plays an important role in their development. If, as you yourself put it, “human reason is almost powerless to deal with this mystery”, how much better is it to rely on what organized religions give us instead (e.g. revelation)? I am aware as well that science has limitations, but it is still the "less bad" approach to deal with this. The problem is that it leads us inexorably to agnosticism, an option many find unbearable.

 

Very interesting, Bill. That´s an utilitarian view of religion, isn´t it? This is how Mill himself put it:

I wonder if we could use indifference curves for religion and its substitutes (art, alcohol, women, etc.............

 

When pigs fly ;-)

 

..why even bother resurrecting an old thread like this?

 

Hi HR - You're right. A newbie goes back four years and resurrects a thread to make her first post just to make a silly comment that doesn't advance the debate one bit. Welcome to degreeinfo terrible!

 

I can't stop myself *the bump heard round the forum?* Most of us have probably never seen this thread, I know I haven't. I found it from the auto search when posting my thread "Nevermind. We're all going to die anyway." I didn't just search for an old thread to resurrect on purpose. It was also started by Ian so this thread automatically gets 10 points in favor of resurrection.
----------------------

I do believe that religion, right or wrong, is inherent to our nature. There will always be religion as long as there are questions, because only religion provides a complete answer, or if not complete, answers the ultimate question.

 

That's awesome.
rickyjo, I would argue that religion does not provide an answer to the ultimate question. It dodges the question.

I'm no well-read scholar on the subject, but here's what I know. People do not want to believe that they exist by accident. People do not want to admit that when they die, they are dead. People do not want to be held accountable for their own shortcomings. People want to feel justified in doing what they want. What great monument will allow all of these conditions to be held in harmony within one's own mind? Religion.

Whether it is a construct that is "on purpose" is arguable. But the fact that it is a construct is not.

Now, to answer the central question. Religion will not die. To dismiss religion and to embrace one's very mortality and accountability (or lack thereof) is a frightening concept, and it seems that one can only make that leap after a fair amount of very critical and honest introspection. With the utmost humility, I will maintain that most humans are incapable, or unwilling, to engage in such a process. Long live God/Allah/Sacred Cow/Buddha/Zeus/Mohammed/etc...

 

What a great post!

I would like to rephrase my statement for the sake of argument based off emisary's points: Religion claims to answer the ultimate question, if it does or doesn't and which ones if any actually do is not the point of debate.

I actually am religious; however, I do not think that the current brands of religion being pushed are anything more than an unholy union of big business and tradition. I believe that accepting a God is a rational solution to an unsolved problem; however, I strongly avoid suggesting that it is the only rational solution, I believe the only truly rational position is an acknowledgement of a degree of ignorance. I also freely acknowledge my own background and biases. I do believe that ultimately there is a correct answer, although it would be silly of me to say I'm 100% sure exactly what it is.

I would like to someday reach a level of knowledge in which I am more confident in my position, but I sincerely doubt that I will ever be able to say with absolute certainty that I am right about matters of this scale. Same goes for politics.

 

Agreed, and agreed.

Agreed. I would offer that this has always been the case.

Well said. As long as those of us on all sides of this (and all) debate(s) can keep this in mind, we can have meaningful, constructive, and enjoyable conversations about such things.

So do I. I'm glad that we can discuss it candidly. I don't know about you guys, but I left my vest outside.

And girls.

rickyjo, you and I think much the same, though we believe differently

 

I'm very glad to see we are so like minded overall. I look forward to this discussion. I'm about to log off, but will try and post something to further the discussion tomorrow.