"They are not bad because of their religion". And yet, all religions teach that their followers are special, and worth more, and will be favoured by whatever superstitious entity will bestow blessings, and wealth, and even eternal life. It is the selfish appeal of religion. Ordinary people are transformed in their own heads by them into ubermenschen, better than their neighbours, who they, like their god, can despise for believing wrong things. In an ethno-supremacist state like Israel, where unbelievers are openly called 'subhuman animals', it becomes the foundation upon which racism and bigotry are built. It underpins the notion that the untermenschen are fair game, that they can be genocided and ethnically cleansed because that's what the superstitious entity everyone believes exists will do anyway. As Steven Weinberg observed: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” We are all, most certainly, products of our conditioning, but in racist, bigoted, savage states like Israel, surely it is not unreasonable to accept that religion plays an awful part in the dehumanising process? The Israeli lobby, after all, had not the slightest qualm about insisting Islam is evil. The world bought it, the media went along for the ride, politicians just added the lie to their repertoire. Surely the religion that today facilitates the shredding of infants, in refugee camps where they were promised they would be safe, and the anal gang raping of doctors to death, and a catalog of other atrocities, should be recognised for its part in the brutalisation of a people and, to a depressing extent, the world?
It's why I always tell people I am an perpetual "cheerleader", always rooting, for the complete eradication of organized religion itself... which has absolutely nothing to do with whether one believes, or doesn't believe, or isn't sure about, some type of existence of a "god", and how we got here, what our individual and collective purpose(s) is/are... basically, philosophy in general... which seems only natural for all of us humans to start wondering about, somewhere around the time of our own personal awareness of existence on this planet.
Assuming our species can make it thru the next hundred or maybe two hundred years or so (which is highly questionable, perhaps doubtful), without blowing ourselves up with nukes, or perhaps killing ourselves with climate destruction (or something like that), I really don't see the whole concept of organized religion making it another couple hundred years. We (us commenters) won't be around to see its slow eradication but at least it's an encouraging thought (to me anyway). And then hopefully replaced with some type of logical, far less destructive (less tribalistic), form of collective bonding.
The probability of belief in God and religions being around forever is very high (if one reads enough world history - including from a cultural and anthropologistical perspective).
Humans are creatures of storytelling - of myths, of narratives. That is how humans have evolved to think. And the belief in God and religions (irrespective of my atheist beliefs) has always been the primary narratives at the core of human civilizations (regardless of technological advancements or science).
Hence, it would be folly to underestimate the staying power of such beliefs.
I often really like many of your comments, and find them very thought-provoking but this one, not so much.
While I agree that a belief in some type of a "god" may be around a very long time, maybe forever (assuming we don't some how discover a better, or scientific, answer to big questions like.. how/why we're here, etc?), I purposely disconnected the issues of a "belief in a god" and organized "religion". One does not have to be religious at all to have a belief in some type of god (personally, I have no idea what I believe, in that respect.. some times I do, sometimes I don't, sometimes on the fence, depends upon the day I guess... and it rarely, if ever, comes into play in my life).
I think your use of "folly" might be kind of a strong word to use in this regard, as there seems to be quite a bit of current data supporting the idea of "declining religious affiliation", irrespective of any "cultural and anthropological perspective". But this does make me wonder about any new data regarding a belief in some type of god. I'll have to see if there is any new research on that.
If I had to guess, I would say that (even though the percentage of humans with "religious affiliations and observance" seems to be declining), the percentage of humans believing in some type of a god, higher power, etc (whatever anyone wants to label it), has probably not fluctuated much over the fairly recent years, like maybe last 50 or 100 or so(?) perhaps (because the two are different issues, and also... it seems to me to make perfect sense to believe, or not believe, or to be on the fence, about some type of a god... at least until/if we've somehow managed to arrive at some type of definitive answer).
>>"(assuming we don't some how discover a better, or scientific, answer to big questions like.. how/why we're here, etc?)"
But that's precisely the point that you miss - it's not about the science (or facts, etc.). That's why it's called having 'FAITH' - it's a belief system that doesn't need science/logic/etc. to support it.
>>"current data supporting the idea of "declining religious affiliation", irrespective of any "cultural and anthropological perspective""
I've never come across any COMPREHENSIVE data (current or otherwise) that has accurately been able to gauge the world-wide (8 billion+) support of beliefs in God or religion. For instance, if you consider religiosity of a country like India (1.5 billion), it has only increased in the last 30+ years. I would be HIGHLY suspicious of ANY data that makes ANY claims in ANY direction.
Also, new religions (especially new-age religions) are cropping up all the time all over the place. What you seem to miss (and Yuval Noah Harari is a good source on this), is that humans are creatures of stories/narratives/myths/etc. and religions are a primary source of such stories and storytelling - they often serve as the threads that bind human societies together.
I would suggest taking a more comprehensive view of religion (and its impact on human civilizations) instead of considering it under myopic facets if you wish to understand the role religion has played in the past and will CONTINUE to play in human societies into the future (rightly or wrongly).
Just a cursory search, produced this result which seems to suggest that religious affiliation is declining in the U.S. and Western nations (whether Pew Research can be considered reliable, I don't know?):
I will still always root for the demise of organized religion, and in this particular case (although I very often find your perspectives really interesting, and thought-provoking), this time, I do not find your position too compelling because it doesn't seem to me that it takes into consideration the rapid increase in the rate of science/technology development (a measure which I think will also affect religious affiliation percentage).
Anyway, I'm going to hang onto my original "opinion" about the eventual demise of organized (god-based) religion (which is the only point that my initial comment was trying to make) because I have not read anything in these comments to feel otherwise (irrespective of your position that one needs to have a "comprehensive" view of religion to make a prediction about its future... whatever you may mean by "comprehensive", or whether that is even possible to have), or to refute other articles/research I have read.
(1) Comprehensive means (a) not limited to just the US or the West, but global in nature (b) not limited to small slices of time but rather larger periods of history and social movements (c) means how religions affect even the most basic of human interactions (religions are a largest source of morality - rightly or wrongly) (d) how religions and religious beliefs affect all areas of study - politics, science, sociology, economics (eg. behavioral economics), psychology, and so much more...
(2) You do understand that the Earth holds 8+ billion people right? And that the US (and the West) are but a minority of this population. So any 'insights' about religion based on a minority of the population is inherently inaccurate.
(3) You obviously do not understand even the fundamentals of religion - it is NOT based on facts/science/etc. It's a BELIEF SYSTEM. What do you find so difficult to understand about that? Yet you keep harping about 'science/technology/new information/etc.' as if that has much of an impact on religions. If anything, that would have an impact on 'the belief about the existence of God', and religions have always found novel ways to ignore any such objections to the existence of God.
(4) You seem to have missed my point about the data collection and analytics and their limitations/biases/etc. for studies that point to either an increase or decrease of participation in religious beliefs. To wit, it is impossible to accurately sample 8 billion+ people to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to the increase/decrease of religious participation globally.
Your response contains a few strawman arguements ->
(1) You conveniently try to limit the scope to just the US and the West
(2) You disregard religions and religious organizations and institutions that are not based on God (eg. nontheistic religions like Buddhism, Christian atheism, nontheist Quakers, Jainism, Taoism). Many of these nontheistic religions share the same problems as the theistic religions that you seem to have issues with (and rightly so).
(3) Your opinion of my comments (past) is irrelevant to this discussion (but thank you for trying to use flattery to buttress your argument).
As I said before, your knowledge of 'religions' seems to be severely limited. Hence I suggest understanding religions of the world (current and throughout history) so that you understand better the subject that you are trying to have a discussion on and are able to make more informed arguments (or you can talk to people that have a background in religious studies for gaining a better perspective).
>>"But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
That's a logically fallacious statement (I understand it was made for rhetorical effect and not on the basis of logical validity or truth).
Good people can do evil things for many reasons (just as sometimes evil people do good things) besides religion. How about money, survival, self-interest, exploitation in the name of Captialism, and so many more reasons that have nothing to do with religion?
As I've said before, (https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/not-taking-a-position-on-gaza-is/comment/111311323), "Religion is often the scapegoat - the excuse - that people use to justify WHATEVER they want. NO religion supports Genocide. NO religion supports killing innocent people. But people will interpret religions in ways that support their goals - be it power, money, control, fame, whatever."
Mr. Weinberg's simple point, it seems to me, is that religion has an extraordinary capacity to allow people to feel good about themselves whilst committing acts of evil. With their god ladling love upon them, the religious can worship themselves whilst doing unspeakable things. See Israelis. It is precisely this that makes it such a valuable manipulator's tool. But: a scapegoat? Do you mean there would be no genocide or ethnic cleansing of Palestine if there were no religion? Surely the answer must be: probably? The atrocities in Palestine are more than a land grab, they are being done specifically and overtly in the name of a people who define themselves via religion, in order to rid the land of people they see as 'subhuman animals' because of religion. Israelis want land, their manipulators use religion to make them feel good about the inhuman means they use to steal it. Their most brutal battalions are the fundamentalist ones. The 'not in my name' protesters recognise this, and are rightly disgusted that their religion has been hijacked. Apparently quite a few religions teach that the world would be a much better place without unbelievers - does this mean religions actually do support genocide? Finally: surely no truly Good person would do evil for the love of money, survival, self-interest, exploitation in the name of Capitalism, etc? Good people put others first, even sometimes sacrificing themselves for the good of others, they don't rip them off, steal from them, or starve them to death. Whereas religious people certainly do.
"They are not bad because of their religion". And yet, all religions teach that their followers are special, and worth more, and will be favoured by whatever superstitious entity will bestow blessings, and wealth, and even eternal life. It is the selfish appeal of religion. Ordinary people are transformed in their own heads by them into ubermenschen, better than their neighbours, who they, like their god, can despise for believing wrong things. In an ethno-supremacist state like Israel, where unbelievers are openly called 'subhuman animals', it becomes the foundation upon which racism and bigotry are built. It underpins the notion that the untermenschen are fair game, that they can be genocided and ethnically cleansed because that's what the superstitious entity everyone believes exists will do anyway. As Steven Weinberg observed: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” We are all, most certainly, products of our conditioning, but in racist, bigoted, savage states like Israel, surely it is not unreasonable to accept that religion plays an awful part in the dehumanising process? The Israeli lobby, after all, had not the slightest qualm about insisting Islam is evil. The world bought it, the media went along for the ride, politicians just added the lie to their repertoire. Surely the religion that today facilitates the shredding of infants, in refugee camps where they were promised they would be safe, and the anal gang raping of doctors to death, and a catalog of other atrocities, should be recognised for its part in the brutalisation of a people and, to a depressing extent, the world?
Very well said.
It's why I always tell people I am an perpetual "cheerleader", always rooting, for the complete eradication of organized religion itself... which has absolutely nothing to do with whether one believes, or doesn't believe, or isn't sure about, some type of existence of a "god", and how we got here, what our individual and collective purpose(s) is/are... basically, philosophy in general... which seems only natural for all of us humans to start wondering about, somewhere around the time of our own personal awareness of existence on this planet.
Assuming our species can make it thru the next hundred or maybe two hundred years or so (which is highly questionable, perhaps doubtful), without blowing ourselves up with nukes, or perhaps killing ourselves with climate destruction (or something like that), I really don't see the whole concept of organized religion making it another couple hundred years. We (us commenters) won't be around to see its slow eradication but at least it's an encouraging thought (to me anyway). And then hopefully replaced with some type of logical, far less destructive (less tribalistic), form of collective bonding.
The probability of belief in God and religions being around forever is very high (if one reads enough world history - including from a cultural and anthropologistical perspective).
Humans are creatures of storytelling - of myths, of narratives. That is how humans have evolved to think. And the belief in God and religions (irrespective of my atheist beliefs) has always been the primary narratives at the core of human civilizations (regardless of technological advancements or science).
Hence, it would be folly to underestimate the staying power of such beliefs.
I often really like many of your comments, and find them very thought-provoking but this one, not so much.
While I agree that a belief in some type of a "god" may be around a very long time, maybe forever (assuming we don't some how discover a better, or scientific, answer to big questions like.. how/why we're here, etc?), I purposely disconnected the issues of a "belief in a god" and organized "religion". One does not have to be religious at all to have a belief in some type of god (personally, I have no idea what I believe, in that respect.. some times I do, sometimes I don't, sometimes on the fence, depends upon the day I guess... and it rarely, if ever, comes into play in my life).
I think your use of "folly" might be kind of a strong word to use in this regard, as there seems to be quite a bit of current data supporting the idea of "declining religious affiliation", irrespective of any "cultural and anthropological perspective". But this does make me wonder about any new data regarding a belief in some type of god. I'll have to see if there is any new research on that.
If I had to guess, I would say that (even though the percentage of humans with "religious affiliations and observance" seems to be declining), the percentage of humans believing in some type of a god, higher power, etc (whatever anyone wants to label it), has probably not fluctuated much over the fairly recent years, like maybe last 50 or 100 or so(?) perhaps (because the two are different issues, and also... it seems to me to make perfect sense to believe, or not believe, or to be on the fence, about some type of a god... at least until/if we've somehow managed to arrive at some type of definitive answer).
>>"(assuming we don't some how discover a better, or scientific, answer to big questions like.. how/why we're here, etc?)"
But that's precisely the point that you miss - it's not about the science (or facts, etc.). That's why it's called having 'FAITH' - it's a belief system that doesn't need science/logic/etc. to support it.
>>"current data supporting the idea of "declining religious affiliation", irrespective of any "cultural and anthropological perspective""
I've never come across any COMPREHENSIVE data (current or otherwise) that has accurately been able to gauge the world-wide (8 billion+) support of beliefs in God or religion. For instance, if you consider religiosity of a country like India (1.5 billion), it has only increased in the last 30+ years. I would be HIGHLY suspicious of ANY data that makes ANY claims in ANY direction.
Also, new religions (especially new-age religions) are cropping up all the time all over the place. What you seem to miss (and Yuval Noah Harari is a good source on this), is that humans are creatures of stories/narratives/myths/etc. and religions are a primary source of such stories and storytelling - they often serve as the threads that bind human societies together.
I would suggest taking a more comprehensive view of religion (and its impact on human civilizations) instead of considering it under myopic facets if you wish to understand the role religion has played in the past and will CONTINUE to play in human societies into the future (rightly or wrongly).
Just a cursory search, produced this result which seems to suggest that religious affiliation is declining in the U.S. and Western nations (whether Pew Research can be considered reliable, I don't know?):
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/12/21/key-findings-from-the-global-religious-futures-project/
Btw, I found this Slate article from many years ago, "An Agnostic Manifesto", very interesting (and perhaps you might as well): https://slate.com/human-interest/2010/06/the-rise-of-the-new-agnostics.html
I will still always root for the demise of organized religion, and in this particular case (although I very often find your perspectives really interesting, and thought-provoking), this time, I do not find your position too compelling because it doesn't seem to me that it takes into consideration the rapid increase in the rate of science/technology development (a measure which I think will also affect religious affiliation percentage).
Anyway, I'm going to hang onto my original "opinion" about the eventual demise of organized (god-based) religion (which is the only point that my initial comment was trying to make) because I have not read anything in these comments to feel otherwise (irrespective of your position that one needs to have a "comprehensive" view of religion to make a prediction about its future... whatever you may mean by "comprehensive", or whether that is even possible to have), or to refute other articles/research I have read.
Some issues you seem to have missed/ignored ->
(1) Comprehensive means (a) not limited to just the US or the West, but global in nature (b) not limited to small slices of time but rather larger periods of history and social movements (c) means how religions affect even the most basic of human interactions (religions are a largest source of morality - rightly or wrongly) (d) how religions and religious beliefs affect all areas of study - politics, science, sociology, economics (eg. behavioral economics), psychology, and so much more...
(2) You do understand that the Earth holds 8+ billion people right? And that the US (and the West) are but a minority of this population. So any 'insights' about religion based on a minority of the population is inherently inaccurate.
(3) You obviously do not understand even the fundamentals of religion - it is NOT based on facts/science/etc. It's a BELIEF SYSTEM. What do you find so difficult to understand about that? Yet you keep harping about 'science/technology/new information/etc.' as if that has much of an impact on religions. If anything, that would have an impact on 'the belief about the existence of God', and religions have always found novel ways to ignore any such objections to the existence of God.
(4) You seem to have missed my point about the data collection and analytics and their limitations/biases/etc. for studies that point to either an increase or decrease of participation in religious beliefs. To wit, it is impossible to accurately sample 8 billion+ people to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to the increase/decrease of religious participation globally.
Your response contains a few strawman arguements ->
(1) You conveniently try to limit the scope to just the US and the West
(2) You disregard religions and religious organizations and institutions that are not based on God (eg. nontheistic religions like Buddhism, Christian atheism, nontheist Quakers, Jainism, Taoism). Many of these nontheistic religions share the same problems as the theistic religions that you seem to have issues with (and rightly so).
(3) Your opinion of my comments (past) is irrelevant to this discussion (but thank you for trying to use flattery to buttress your argument).
As I said before, your knowledge of 'religions' seems to be severely limited. Hence I suggest understanding religions of the world (current and throughout history) so that you understand better the subject that you are trying to have a discussion on and are able to make more informed arguments (or you can talk to people that have a background in religious studies for gaining a better perspective).
>>"But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
That's a logically fallacious statement (I understand it was made for rhetorical effect and not on the basis of logical validity or truth).
Good people can do evil things for many reasons (just as sometimes evil people do good things) besides religion. How about money, survival, self-interest, exploitation in the name of Captialism, and so many more reasons that have nothing to do with religion?
As I've said before, (https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/not-taking-a-position-on-gaza-is/comment/111311323), "Religion is often the scapegoat - the excuse - that people use to justify WHATEVER they want. NO religion supports Genocide. NO religion supports killing innocent people. But people will interpret religions in ways that support their goals - be it power, money, control, fame, whatever."
Mr. Weinberg's simple point, it seems to me, is that religion has an extraordinary capacity to allow people to feel good about themselves whilst committing acts of evil. With their god ladling love upon them, the religious can worship themselves whilst doing unspeakable things. See Israelis. It is precisely this that makes it such a valuable manipulator's tool. But: a scapegoat? Do you mean there would be no genocide or ethnic cleansing of Palestine if there were no religion? Surely the answer must be: probably? The atrocities in Palestine are more than a land grab, they are being done specifically and overtly in the name of a people who define themselves via religion, in order to rid the land of people they see as 'subhuman animals' because of religion. Israelis want land, their manipulators use religion to make them feel good about the inhuman means they use to steal it. Their most brutal battalions are the fundamentalist ones. The 'not in my name' protesters recognise this, and are rightly disgusted that their religion has been hijacked. Apparently quite a few religions teach that the world would be a much better place without unbelievers - does this mean religions actually do support genocide? Finally: surely no truly Good person would do evil for the love of money, survival, self-interest, exploitation in the name of Capitalism, etc? Good people put others first, even sometimes sacrificing themselves for the good of others, they don't rip them off, steal from them, or starve them to death. Whereas religious people certainly do.
Rod:
As well as the concept of “Manifest Destiny”.