Is Religion dying?

Remove all ads!

@ Ziad: those groups from the 90s weren't nearly half as extreme as your regular islamic fanatic. You didn't see them slaughtering non-believers and believers alike. I was pointing out an 'in-this-point-in-time' assessment, not 10 years ago.

Nobody has ever said that Islam is the only source of fanaticism but today it sure as hell is the dominant source and the most extreme. I doubt you'll ever see modern non-islams EVER bombing schools or mass slaughter of non-hostiles. We know there are fanatics of every religion, I doubt there has been a religion without fanatics and I doubt there will be a time where no fanatics exist.

 

when was it not? I think it was Master of Nuhn in the "Are Christians Better people" thread that said best what I want to say: Faith is good. Religion isn't :/ well, that's obviously not verbatim but it conveys what my feelings are on the matter. organized religion creates strife, its a hassle imo.

 

Ziad is right, of course. There are christians and jews who are just as dangerous as muslim fanatics. I see little differences there.

Interesting how the three monotheistic religions are so prone to fundamentalism and zealots. Perhaps because of the inherent intolerance that there is only one god, only one truth and only one path to 'deliverance'?

On topic, I feel religion will be with us in one form or other for some time, even though it has lost much ground in Europe - for now. It seems to be all about fear, the unknown and comfort.
Fear of death and the loss loved ones, the delusion that we are creatures unlike the rest (and therefore surely we are the focus of 'god's' attention - how arrogant), the question what will happen to us afterwards and the terrifying idea that we could just cease to exist when our body dies. Then there is the petty hope that we can affect our afterlife by submitting to certain rules.
As long as there are people who are not selfreliant, who need to be comforted by others that they are doing fine and that they will be rewarded later on religion will have its 'uses'. My personal view on this matter.

To be honest the whole concept sounds repulsive to me. Sowing doubts and fears, then offering a way out. In another thread I read something about mental parasites.
It would be better if people could rid themselves of this confinement. I know this - my children will not learn of hell.

 

Huh? Could you please give an example of a dangerously fanatic Jew? One where there's no difference to a suizide bombing muslim?

Maybe orthodox Jews have a funny outlook on the purity of women during menstruation. Bad enough. But how does that compare to cutting off the fingers of a woman who painted her nails?

 

Huh - how about those people who created the fanatical environment that killed Rabin and the prospect for peace with him? Or the zealots inhabiting the settlements.

So, they dont commit the attrocity mentioned by you, Darkthrone, but the consequences are more severe in their own way. They are fueling the violence and hatred. And they dont seem to care. As long as they have their way nothing else matters. The victims of this conflict die for other reasons and are killed in a different way. I still dont see the difference.

I dont say that the one is better than the other. All extremists are wrong. With extremes there is no place for common ground and thats not how things work. Someone pays for it.

If you think that cut off fingers and heads are worse than the dead children of Palaestina and Israel, ok. I think all of it is pretty sad, part of the same closed mindset.

 

Double Huh!

Right, we're treading dangerous ground here in addition to going completely off-topic. The conflict in the Middle East is emotionally charged, sure enough. Still, statements like "Israelis are fueling violence and hatred" or suggesting fighting for one's life makes you an extremist are disturbing, to say the least. It is currently en vogue in old Europe to blame Israel for the conflict and suggest it is them who stand in the way of a pieceful solution. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are depicted as the victims who have no other chance than bringing terror in Israel's to to day life. Please!

Dendri, here's a good read you might enjoy: http://www.henryk-broder.de/index.php

Next, do you really think that, for example, building a wall for self defense - and hence "creating the fanatical environment that killed Rabin" - is the same as blowing yourself and 7 other persons to shreds?

By the way, a fundamentalist is not the same as a fanatic. A fundamentalist is someone who is insisting on his political or religious point of view uncompromisingly. A fanatic is someone who stands for his convictions intolerantly and ruthlessly. You see, it is hard for a Jew to be a fanatic. He doesn't believe that just because he's a Jew, all others have to be Jews as well. In fact, he believes that it is not even possible for others to become Jews. He has got absolutely no sense of mission. That sure as hell sets him apart from any muslim fanatic. Period.

To justify this post in this thread: back on topic. From what I've learned in my youth, christianity is not about fear or hell or the unknown. Quite the contrary. You don't have to be a do-gooder because of your fears of what may happen to you in the afterlife. The reverse is true: we (we as in "humankind") are free to do good because we were already saved by Jesus some two thousand years ago. This may seem laughable to you, but take your time to think about it.

 

Indeed, we are off-topic.
So I wont comment on your assumption what’s en vogue in old Europe, fight for survival, building fences on foreign ground. Or the rest. In short – I don’t agree.
But Broder?! An ex-leftist-now-redeemed, cynic and jester who has, it seems, on rare occaisons something better to do with his time then holding one crime against an other. Who thinks it is adequate to critize Israel only if one has protested against each and every wrong-doing worldwide beforehand, just to prove anti-Semitism isnt the cause for the disagreement? Big Broder, the Equalizer.

Admittedly, I agree with some of his sentiments, but not for the reasons hinted at by him. Anyway, his wishy-washy will get us nowhere, though. Either something is wrong - or it’s not.

Since you were so free to recommend him, I will point to his “Die Irren von Zion” . Perhaps you know it. To prove one can be Israel-critical without having anti-semitic motives.
You know, I don’t want to emphasize the fact that Palaestinians aren’t the saints in this conflict every time I disagree with certain groups of Israel. Of course they are not.

On topic

Never ever would I laugh about such a subject, Darkthrone. It is a… remarkable thought, yes. But I am not enough of a mystic to believe in its significance. No offense intended.

 

Abomination said: "Nobody has ever said that Islam is the only source of fanaticism but today it sure as hell is the dominant source and the most extreme. I doubt you'll ever see modern non-islams EVER bombing schools or mass slaughter of non-hostiles."

And the US army didn't bomb schools? Just because they call it "collateral damage" suddenly makes it perfectly acceptable? Or because they're an army and not a bunch of fanatics? Personally I don't really see why something a religious group does is Evil, but the same thing done to an even larger extent by an army is perfectly acceptable, and even Good because it's in the name of Democracy.

Dendri said: "Interesting how the three monotheistic religions are so prone to fundamentalism and zealots. Perhaps because of the inherent intolerance that there is only one god, only one truth and only one path to 'deliverance'?"

Interesting point. However, Taoism (as I understand it) also points to one path to "deliverance" (though the word has a very different meaning there), without the accompanying desire to force this deliverance on everyone else, both willing and unwilling.

Darkthrone said: "He doesn't believe that just because he's a Jew, all others have to be Jews as well. In fact, he believes that it is not even possible for others to become Jews. He has got absolutely no sense of mission. That sure as hell sets him apart from any muslim fanatic. Period."

No, not period at all. Sure, he doesn't believe that all others have to be Jews, but you can bet he believes all the other non-jews don't belong on his God-given land. And THAT isn't any better than trying to convert everyone else to your religion.

Frankly, I really don't see why you're trying to single out Islamic fanaticists by making all other fanatics look like tolerant good guys. Fanatics are fanatics, period. Religious background doesn't matter.

Darkthrone said: "Next, do you really think that, for example, building a wall for self defense - and hence "creating the fanatical environment that killed Rabin" - is the same as blowing yourself and 7 other persons to shreds?"

Perhaps not the same, but I don't see how it's any better. You call it a "wall for self defense" - why not call it creation of a ghetto? You have a nice way to wall off those of the other religion off - quite ironic, when you consider that 60 years ago this was being done TO the people of the religion that is now doing it to others.

Don't get me wrong here - I am not, and never will, defend suicide bombing or ANY form of attack against civilians. The ANY is capitalized for a reason. Reading your post, I feel you're doing exactly what you just accused the Europeans of doing, only in reverse - you're accusing the Palestinians of being a bunch of terrorists and think it perfectly alright if the Israeli do whatever they want about it, since they are the "poor victims". That includes sending missiles against houses in which they suspect militants might be hiding - killing every other palestinian CIVILIAN present in that building. I don't see THAT as being any better than a palestinian blowing himself up and killing other CIVILIANS in the process.

Now, a nice tie-in back to the topic: as long as you have two different parties doing that, you have fear, terror, etc. And all those lead to extremes in religious belief, and extremes are not good. Go too much into the extreme and you end up in fanaticism. In that regard, there's so much new fear surfacing that religion might be facing an unexpected rebirth.

 

I'll just wait for someone else to step in, shall I? Otherwise the three of us should better take this to pm, eh? But Dendri & Ziad - yes, I take the opposing position in this clash. You pretend your position is the only one valid - I pretend the same for my position. Thus we can meet in the middle and agree that we're good pals.

Dendri: good for you to know Broder. No one has to agree with him - but it's always good to widen the perspective. Just one thing: is being an ex-leftist-now-redeemed, cynic and jester the only thing that speaks against him? Kind of a weak argument...

Besides, all of the above (read "Interesting how the three monotheistic religions are so prone to fundamentalism and zealots. Perhaps because of the inherent intolerance that there is only one god, only one truth and only one path to 'deliverance") you claim is trouble caused by religions - no way. It is trouble caused by humans being human beings. With religion as a shield. Strip away religion and you still have a faulty human.

 

There's a difference between 'targetting' schools and collateral damage. The US have only aimed for MILITARY targets, not civilian. Many a time have terrorists hidden behind civilians. You might as well place an howitzer in the middle of a school, use it to fire upon US troops then call the US Army a bunch of monsters for damaging the school when they took out the howitzer. The US don't carpet bomb, they use precision strikes, sometimes they miss (not by much when you consider how difficult it would be to strike a target from that far away).

 

Please, why would you assume that it is good for me to know of Broder? Is there something only he has to teach us?
Certainly you don’t think that he is the only one warning of unfair judgement of Israel. Some sort of lone Cassandra in the wilderness.
The only thing which makes him stand out is his way of doing it.
Many others do it, including politicians of every coleur. Or is it that certain people find something more thrilling to listen to when old Europeans turn their attention to the suicide bombers and condemn them.
Speaking about widening one’s perspective. Stereotypes can come in handy.

Weak argument? Only if you skipped the rest.
Actually, I have nothing against him. He is entertaining and right in his cautioning of too harsh treatment of Israel. Cant never have enough of those people.

Naw, we don’t need to pm. I doubt anything new would be said.
Lets just be pals.

 

As far as I remember the only religions, which were used as an excuse or a reason for holy war (in european and middle eastern history at least, my knowledge on asian history is rather limited), are Christianity and Islam, which by coincidence are originated from judaism. Before the appearance of these two religions, the priests blessed the armies of their country, warriors destroyed enemy's temples but wars had never been fought for religious reasons.

@Abomination

This is off topic but how about the TV tower or the chinese empasy in Belgrade? Or the civilian train in Kossovo? Were terrorists hiding there as well? Also, I don't think that the use of cluster bombs and DU shells can be considered "precision strikes"

 

WW2 style carpet bombing might not be used but cluster bombs are widely used. You know those bombs who explode into hundreds of small cute little bomblets used to spread wide devasation. One drawback is that quite a large percentage of those little bomblets do not explode right away but stick around and chill on the ground until someone picks it up or something like that, mostly children who wonder what that cool little metal thingy is. There was a call for banning those but some countries refused to sign, for instance the US and a bunch of unsavory dictatorships.

Whatever you think of the reasons of the US bombing places do not delude yourself into thinking it is nice and clean and only hits and injures "valid" targets. You cannot wage a war and minimize "collateral damage" it is impossible. If you bomb you *will* kill atleast two bystanders for every "valid" target.

 

Short answer: No.

Long answer: I don't think religion is dying per se. I think it's evolving (and in some cases, mutating).

The reasons why human beings came up with mysticism was to explain things we couldn't understand. To begin with, we had a simple set of categories: things to eat, thing to run from, things to have sex with, things we don't understand, and rocks (apologies to Terry Pratchett for shameless plagiarism). Mysticism got a bit more complex, we decided that there must be a reasoning behind everything. Naturally, this implies that someone or something controls anything/everything, and the best way to avoid the disfavour of any potentially volatile entity is through supplication and worship. Whether monotheistic or polytheistic, religions developed codes and methods of observation, which in turn implies that there are better and worse ways of showing one's devotion, which in turn explains why there is not just one branch of most established religions.

I don't think that religion is dying. I think it needs to reinvent itself, to reestablish its own basing. Capitalism, in particular, has done more to erode traditional beliefs in Western societies than anything else. I don't think this is an entirely bad thing; organised religion and the concept of a priesthood who are uniquely capable of interceding on the congregation's behalf to a greater power was corruption waiting to happen. However, it means that people have less respect for one another, less fear of intangible consequences. Predatory crime may be lower in a less secular society, I don't know (and I'm studying criminology!). I think Machiavelli said it best: it is better to be feared than loved. Both are great motivators, but you can control when people fear you. Now, the only things we have to fear are each other, a threat which is a hell of a lot more immediate than any deity.

I do feel that secular ideologies are taking the place of theology for many. The religion of liberalism is self-interest; the religion of capitalism is wealth. These have greater appeal to a world living under the fear of terrorism, of poverty, of war and of famine, or any other number of real, tangible threats. God's Judgement is devalued in importance, because God isn't assassinating people or smiting important buildings - people are. I wouldn't characterise myself as religious, although I'm nominally Christian, celebrate the main Christian holidays and do not drink or eat meat on Good Friday. The basic tenets of the religion are good ideas, and I don't need a belief structure to adhere to them.

That said, I think people are turning back to it for some comfort and security, and in a more committed way. Religion can make sense of what is ultimately a frightening world for many people. To believe that God exists and loves you is a wonderful thing, and I don't condemn anyone for such beliefs. The growth of religious extremism is a concern, but I think it's inevitable when you need to either purify or diversify doctrine. In the West, Christianity is nowhere near as powerful as once it was, and I believe this to be a good thing. The church and the state should be formally separate, and people should be free to go to Hell any way they choose (so long as they don't hurt anyone else) without being ostracised for their beliefs or lack thereof. Elsewhere, radical Islam is growing in strength and this is not a good thing, since most varieties are centred upon justifying violence, inflexibility and hatred rather than any concept of a divine creator.

To conclude: religion is not dying. It will never die until people either decide to justify their actions based on substantiable facts, become open-minded and critical of their own world views and opinions, or until people give up on the basic concept of the supernatural. Even then, it will not remove the entrenchment in laws around the world that are derived from morality (constructed social harms) that are in turn derived from religious proscriptions and ethics, whether they be the Covenant, the Ten Commandments, or the words of the prophet.

 

Something just occurred to me while reading NonSequitur's post (the last phrase in particular). Up to now the assumption was that religion is "dying" or "changing" or whatever by focusing on how the 3 monotheistic religions are changing. How about the new wave of Far Eastern religions in the USA? I don't know to what extent this is true in Europe, but Buddhism, Taoism, and Zen are becoming more and more popular in the US (though I guess it's very far from becoming a dominant phenomenon). While you could argue that they're only crossing to the US in a "mutated" form, that's still one "religion" replacing another, not religion per se dying.

 

So far I think many people in this thread gave the word 'dying' the same meaning as 'losing influence'. If you interpreted it this way, it's true. But I think it's more like Big Tank said:

The 'big' religions are losing influence because less people tend to follow them, or better said: less people follow them in the way the official churches prescribe it to them. Religion is becoming a more personal experience. In experiencing their religion people are less likely to follow a preacher or an imam anymore. They don't want to be part of a group of believers or community anymore. Instead they experience religion in an individual way.

These developments lead to a declining influence of the traditional 'big' religions as established powers in society. Religions used to have a great influence upon society because they were organised and many people followed them. Nowadays religious believe is becoming more 'disintegrated' and less organised, leading to a decline of its influence.

People confuse that with 'the dying of religion'. Like Big Tank, NonSequitur and Ziad I don't think religion is dying, merely that it's evolving.

 

Religion is a farce Here, you should read this book I think.

 

Now *that* is something I agree with...

I had been indoctrinated into Christianity and had been thaught it's morals and lessons since childhood, however in my 16th year, I lost faith and I don't look back. It was a child's dream, something that simply does not exist.

Religious influence is lessening, but the personal is becomming predominant. I do not believe in an over-arching, abstract and unifying God, I do believe in something else, something not quite a God, more of a human spirit, the human nature and the humans around me, how they influence eachover as beings...

Yes, in my opinion the great religions are suffering from a downward spiral, and whether they will recover this time, I do not know, but I do know that people are becoming more informed, but more imporatantly, more sensitive to that which is around them.

When I read this, I thought it sounded familiar, I had the same type of situation, don't question. I did. I left.

 

I think that dogma has a tendency to drive people away nowadays. Anything with strict rules is going to be questioned, and sometimes things just don't make a lot of sense (of course, this depends on how one interprets them).

I'd agree that religion and spirituality are 'evolving', rather than dying.