What will we replace religion with?

Magical Realist

Magical Realist

Valued Senior Member
Assuming the human race will one day finally shake off the dull stupor that is religion, what would it replace it with? Does science offer a vision compatible with human spiritual needs? Do we even recognize the validity of those needs? Or are they mere projections of our own emotional insecurities in a universe that appears to increasingly have no purpose for us?

Quotation-Albert-Einstein-religion-future-theology-god-Meetville-Quotes-116476.jpg
 
Really the only question is whether the future will bring global literacy. People need to be fed and housed before they can begin to worry about learning anything. The goal then is to stamp out misery and bring literacy. Once that's in place I would expect all religions to be replaced by charitable organizations. There wouldn't need to be any cosmic philosophy since that's all covered in science class, which all people would receive as part of their basic education.
 
Ultimately organized religion as it is known today will be replaced by the sort of spiritual experiences that are derived from psychedelic trips. Science should be able to study these drugs, reduce their side effects, and figure out ways to safely offer the experiences recreationally and therapeutically. That, by my view, is maybe 30 years down the road, accounting for accelerating change, of course.

What replaces religion right now, however, is learning--philosophy, science, and history, mainly. As Hitchens said, astrology becomes astronomy, alchemy becomes chemistry, and religion becomes philosophy. My "religion" is transhumanism. I don't believe in anything supernatural, but in science I see the potential for a better and better world.

And that's a really exciting thing.
 
Amine said:
Ultimately organized religion as it is known today will be replaced by the sort of spiritual experiences that are derived from psychedelic trips. Science should be able to study these drugs, reduce their side effects, and figure out ways to safely offer the experiences recreationally and therapeutically. That, by my view, is maybe 30 years down the road, accounting for accelerating change, of course.

What replaces religion right now, however, is learning--philosophy, science, and history, mainly. As Hitchens said, astrology becomes astronomy, alchemy becomes chemistry, and religion becomes philosophy. My "religion" is transhumanism. I don't believe in anything supernatural, but in science I see the potential for a better and better world.

And that's a really exciting thing.
Click to expand...

I agree and am waiting for the day when people no longer believe in the fairy tales of our forefathers.
 
There is no need to replace religion with anything. It fullfils no purpose and has no value. Simply ignore it and let it die and we can continue quite happily without its irrelevance.

I see LG has gone - perhaps it might be possible to have some reasoned debates in this forum again, I could be tempted to return.
 
Magical Realist said:
Assuming the human race will one day finally shake off the dull stupor that is religion, what would it replace it with? Does science offer a vision compatible with human spiritual needs? Do we even recognize the validity of those needs? Or are they mere projections of our own emotional insecurities in a universe that appears to increasingly have no purpose for us?
Click to expand...
I'd like to say Philosophy (within which Natural Science sits) but more specifically the discipline of Ethics. However, our entire society is based on systematic use of legalized violence - and this is how most people like it. They really can't envision being happy living in a world without participating in legitimized violence. Thus, Ethics must remain mired in mud and in the meantime superstition will have to do. So, if we agree we're stuck with an inherently violent society, then the question is which of the superstitions do we think is best suited for modern man? I'm thinking a bit of secularist-Buddhism with a simple and straightforward afterlife via reincarnation based on "Ethically" derived morals as opposed to social norms. Moral is balanced against Immoral. Move up the tree of life to God-like Scientist or down the tree of life to a firey hell-fire punishment. While it'd be nice to think we could live as a 'secular' society - the fact is we can not. Not for now anyway. Maybe in another century when disease and aging have been cured. Or a century after that when death itself is a relic of the past. When people can populate their own virtual worlds with their own people's. Maybe, when we are Gods..... yes, maybe then :)
 
Religion is very unlikely to die off, mostly because it does serve a purpose. Most people who participate in religion probably find that it facilitates socializing, a sense of community, and thereby provides social support.

What would the secular alternative to this be?
 
Syne said:
Religion is very unlikely to die off, mostly because it does serve a purpose. Most people who participate in religion probably find that it facilitates socializing, a sense of community, and thereby provides social support.
Click to expand...

What would the secular alternative to this be?
Click to expand...

The religion of Humanity

Where a Temple of Humanity is built in every country , which contains , within its walls , all countries flags and shields , languages and history , in hard copy , and electronic

This temple would be 500ft tall by a thousand feet long and 500ft wide , built by the hardest rock known

This temple will give respect for all peoples of the Earth

This is just the start
 
You have failed to propose why people would go there for social/community support.
 
Magical Realist said:
Assuming the human race will one day finally shake off the dull stupor that is religion, what would it replace it with? Does science offer a vision compatible with human spiritual needs? Do we even recognize the validity of those needs? Or are they mere projections of our own emotional insecurities in a universe that appears to increasingly have no purpose for us?

Quotation-Albert-Einstein-religion-future-theology-god-Meetville-Quotes-116476.jpg
Click to expand...
You acknowledge that people have spiritual needs. This is because they are creatures of God. Despite what you may believe He does love us, and though people may try to replace His love and love for Him with something else, whether it be alcohol, stamp-collecting, a spouse, etc... the truth is that agape is the only fuel that will run our motor, so to speak. Do you recognize the validity of these needs? Is it too hard to love God directly because you cannot see Him? (To see Him means death?) Then do as His Son commanded and love your neighbor instead - it is the same. Syne got it right. Religion provides social support. How is it that when no one else will help the poor, not the government nor their own friends and family, there is a city rescue mission or a church that will? What was Jesus Christ that 2,000 years after his ministry the only unselfish love and mercy that exists is a direct result of His teachings? Your Einstein quote may be on the money, religion may well be improved without theology and dogma, but it will have to have love. Otherwise it will be as a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal, as someone once said. And how can love not be personal?
 
river said:
Isn't obvious ?

Its a place where all people are welcome , the world over
Click to expand...

All people are welcomed in a public library, but that does not make it a place of social/community support.
 
Arne Saknussemm said:
You acknowledge that people have spiritual needs. This is because they are creatures of God. Despite what you may believe He does love us, and though people may try to replace His love and love for Him with something else, whether it be alcohol, stamp-collecting, a spouse, etc... the truth is that agape is the only fuel that will run our motor, so to speak. Do you recognize the validity of these needs? Is it too hard to love God directly because you cannot see Him? (To see Him means death?) Then do as His Son commanded and love your neighbor instead - it is the same. Syne got it right. Religion provides social support. How is it that when no one else will help the poor, not the government nor their own friends and family, there is a city rescue mission or a church that will? What was Jesus Christ that 2,000 years after his ministry the only unselfish love and mercy that exists is a direct result of His teachings? Your Einstein quote may be on the money, religion may well be improved without theology and dogma, but it will have to have love. Otherwise it will be as a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal, as someone once said. And how can love not be personal?
Click to expand...

I disagree

Love is personal

But I myself would prefer understanding and respect humankind

Any god puts themselves above Humanity

I say that Humanity should be above any god concept
 
Arne Saknussemm said:
You acknowledge that people have spiritual needs. This is because they are creatures of God. Despite what you may believe He does love us, and though people may try to replace His love and love for Him with something else, whether it be alcohol, stamp-collecting, a spouse, etc... the truth is that agape is the only fuel that will run our motor, so to speak. Do you recognize the validity of these needs? Is it too hard to love God directly because you cannot see Him? (To see Him means death?) Then do as His Son commanded and love your neighbor instead - it is the same. Syne got it right. Religion provides social support. How is it that when no one else will help the poor, not the government nor their own friends and family, there is a city rescue mission or a church that will? What was Jesus Christ that 2,000 years after his ministry the only unselfish love and mercy that exists is a direct result of His teachings? Your Einstein quote may be on the money, religion may well be improved without theology and dogma, but it will have to have love. Otherwise it will be as a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal, as someone once said. And how can love not be personal?
Click to expand...
How is it that religious groups care for the poor? Because they have bought into a system that creates poor people, and charity is the enabler of that system, allowing people to feel good about themselves while acting with greed privately. How is it that after 2,000 years there are still poor people? Obviously religion is useless for doing anything meaningful about it except to prolong suffering, which to them is holy. It gives them pleasure to feel sanctimonious. It's totally selfish. And it's a lie that without religion there is no mercy. This degenerate teaching undermines our essential humanity, who's 200,000 year history transcends all religions.
 
It is not the job of religion to materially enrich society. And what essential humanity would you be talking about? The only mercy I have ever known is from 'church people', and they are not the same people as the capitalists who own the factories. You make too many simplistic assumptions in your post. spider. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top