3 ms·

In the short term- maybe, but in the long term, I don't think so. There was a time when the percentage of religious people was virtually 100%, but advances in

In the short term- maybe, but in the long term, I don't think so. There was a time when the percentage of religious people was virtually 100%, but advances in science have made religious explanations for a lot of things obsolete and that percentage has been steadily falling for decades. Right now religion is most common among people who just haven't been exposed to secular explanations for things. As the rest of the world develops and people in all the world's nations become better educated, I would imagine that religion would naturally fade away. Of course- conservatives realize this, and that's why they are seeking to prevent younger generations from getting too educated, or as they see it, spoiled by the sinful world. But you can't have both a modern economy and a deeply religious populace.

skissane 4y ago
> Right now religion is most common among people who just haven't been exposed to secular explanations for things Yet some people remain religious – or sometimes even become religious – despite having been extensively "exposed to secular explanations for things". How do you explain that?
- quantified 4y ago
  We all have our quirks.
- djokkataja 4y ago
  For people remaining religious: People often double down on their own arguments when they feel their beliefs are attacked. For people remaining or becoming religious: there are obvious benefits to being part of a community (assuming that the community isn't harmfully dysfunctional in any apparent way, from the perspective of the person considering it), and giving that up or turning that down can be very undesirable even if someone has considerable doubts. Religious traditions can also provide narratives that make various parts of living seem more meaningful and satisfying to people who buy into them. And again, even if someone has considerable doubts, they may choose to ignore them simply because they find a religious story more pleasant to consider.
  - skissane 4y ago
    I think the bigger reason is that "explanation" plays a far smaller role than many people think it does: in terms of the actual psychological drivers of religious belief, "explanation" is way down the list. And the conflict between "scientific explanations" and "religious explanations" is greatly overstated. A lot of this idea of a science-vs-religion conflict is fed by the "creationism" controversy. But many religions are relatively disinterested in the question of how the world came to be (much of Hinduism and Buddhism), and even among Christians, "creationism" was only ever a really big deal among a certain subsection of Protestants–the idea that Genesis should not be taken literally is ancient, St Augustine of Hippo was advocating it in the 5th century. Most of that conflict has largely been localised to the United States, with many non-Americans left wondering what all the fuss is about. Also, just as we don't need to take religious texts literally – we don't need to take science literally either. A person can take a realist approach to scientific theories (the Standard Model, Big Bang cosmology, evolution, whatever) and believe that their theoretical constructs literally exist "out there". Or, a person can simply view them as "useful myths", which may not be literally true, but it is useful for us to pretend that they are for certain purposes. The ultimate justification for the natural sciences is their productivity in advancing technology, but you can attain that productivity irrespective of whether you believe science to be "literally true" or "literally false but nonetheless a set of useful myths".
quantified 4y ago
Why is a modern economy at odds with a deeply religious populace? Wouldn't that depend on the religion? A completely Mormon world would still believe the earth is round, enabling GPS and intercontinental travel. Bad for alcoholic beverage sales, but are those part of the definition of a modern economy? They, for example, are a little less about the theology and more about the (rather intrusively) tight-knit community. Coming from an atheist here.
rayiner 4y ago
The deeply religious America of the 1950s—which was more religious than in decades before they due to a revival in the early 20th century—basically created the modern world. Also, you’re overlooking rising religiosity in countries like China, where that trend is happening as people are getting more educated: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is... Also I think you’re using an overly narrow definition of “religion.” Traditional Chinese beliefs, or Buddhism, for example, don’t necessarily have a strong supernatural component. Some of the defining features of christianity, moreover, aren’t supernatural at all. One thing that’s striking to me, as a foreigner, is how overtly Christian many atheists I know are. They don’t even realize that many of their views have distinct cChristian origins, instead of being part of some “universal morality.” For example: https://www.bible.com/bible/114/MAT.10.34-39.NKJV https://www.bible.com/bible/114/MAT.10.34-39.NKJV > Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. As an Asian I’m horrified by how some Americans talk about “confronting their racist uncle at thanksgiving” and generally placing abstract justice above blood ties. But it’s a distinctly Christian mindset.
akhivae 4y ago
Religious belief's primary goal has never been to explain things like 'why does it rain' or 'how old is the Earth' and most people who lost their faith didn't lose it because of these explanations. Religion has many roles, a system of social organization, a cultural identity marker and so forth. The anthropology of religion discusses this at length.

skissane 4y ago

> Right now religion is most common among people who just haven't been exposed to secular explanations for things Yet some people remain religious – or sometimes even become religious – despite having been extensively "exposed to secular explanations for things". How do you explain that?

quantified 4y ago
We all have our quirks.
djokkataja 4y ago
For people remaining religious: People often double down on their own arguments when they feel their beliefs are attacked. For people remaining or becoming religious: there are obvious benefits to being part of a community (assuming that the community isn't harmfully dysfunctional in any apparent way, from the perspective of the person considering it), and giving that up or turning that down can be very undesirable even if someone has considerable doubts. Religious traditions can also provide narratives that make various parts of living seem more meaningful and satisfying to people who buy into them. And again, even if someone has considerable doubts, they may choose to ignore them simply because they find a religious story more pleasant to consider.
- skissane 4y ago
  I think the bigger reason is that "explanation" plays a far smaller role than many people think it does: in terms of the actual psychological drivers of religious belief, "explanation" is way down the list. And the conflict between "scientific explanations" and "religious explanations" is greatly overstated. A lot of this idea of a science-vs-religion conflict is fed by the "creationism" controversy. But many religions are relatively disinterested in the question of how the world came to be (much of Hinduism and Buddhism), and even among Christians, "creationism" was only ever a really big deal among a certain subsection of Protestants–the idea that Genesis should not be taken literally is ancient, St Augustine of Hippo was advocating it in the 5th century. Most of that conflict has largely been localised to the United States, with many non-Americans left wondering what all the fuss is about. Also, just as we don't need to take religious texts literally – we don't need to take science literally either. A person can take a realist approach to scientific theories (the Standard Model, Big Bang cosmology, evolution, whatever) and believe that their theoretical constructs literally exist "out there". Or, a person can simply view them as "useful myths", which may not be literally true, but it is useful for us to pretend that they are for certain purposes. The ultimate justification for the natural sciences is their productivity in advancing technology, but you can attain that productivity irrespective of whether you believe science to be "literally true" or "literally false but nonetheless a set of useful myths".

quantified 4y ago

Why is a modern economy at odds with a deeply religious populace? Wouldn't that depend on the religion? A completely Mormon world would still believe the earth is round, enabling GPS and intercontinental travel. Bad for alcoholic beverage sales, but are those part of the definition of a modern economy? They, for example, are a little less about the theology and more about the (rather intrusively) tight-knit community. Coming from an atheist here.

rayiner 4y ago

The deeply religious America of the 1950s—which was more religious than in decades before they due to a revival in the early 20th century—basically created the modern world. Also, you’re overlooking rising religiosity in countries like China, where that trend is happening as people are getting more educated: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is... Also I think you’re using an overly narrow definition of “religion.” Traditional Chinese beliefs, or Buddhism, for example, don’t necessarily have a strong supernatural component. Some of the defining features of christianity, moreover, aren’t supernatural at all. One thing that’s striking to me, as a foreigner, is how overtly Christian many atheists I know are. They don’t even realize that many of their views have distinct cChristian origins, instead of being part of some “universal morality.” For example: https://www.bible.com/bible/114/MAT.10.34-39.NKJV https://www.bible.com/bible/114/MAT.10.34-39.NKJV > Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. As an Asian I’m horrified by how some Americans talk about “confronting their racist uncle at thanksgiving” and generally placing abstract justice above blood ties. But it’s a distinctly Christian mindset.

akhivae 4y ago

Religious belief's primary goal has never been to explain things like 'why does it rain' or 'how old is the Earth' and most people who lost their faith didn't lose it because of these explanations. Religion has many roles, a system of social organization, a cultural identity marker and so forth. The anthropology of religion discusses this at length.