Will we get a syncretistic religion?

Lev_Muishkin · August 24, 2015, 12:38pm

Arminius:

You are wrong again. Try to read this thread or at least the following text:

Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions. This can occur for many reasons, and the latter scenario happens quite commonly in areas where multiple religious traditions exist in proximity and function actively in the culture, or when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but do not succeed in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, practices.

Religions may have syncretic elements to their beliefs or history, but adherents of so-labeled systems often frown on applying the label, especially adherents who belong to “revealed” religious systems, such as the Abrahamic religions, or any system that exhibits an exclusivist approach. Such adherents sometimes see syncretism as a betrayal of their pure truth. By this reasoning, adding an incompatible belief corrupts the original religion, rendering it no longer true. Indeed, critics of a specific syncretistic trend may sometimes use the word “syncretism” as a disparaging epithet, as a charge implying that those who seek to incorporate a new view, belief, or practice into a religious system actually distort the original faith. Non-exclusivist systems of belief, on the other hand, may feel quite free to incorporate other traditions into their own. Others state that the term syncretism is an elusive one, and can be applied to refer to substitution or modification of the central elements of a dominant religion by beliefs or practices introduced from somewhere else. The consequence under this definition, according to Keith Ferdinando, is a fatal compromise of the dominant religion’s integrity.

In modern secular society, religious innovators sometimes create new religions syncretically as a mechanism to reduce inter-religious tension and enmity, often with the effect of offending the original religions in question. Such religions, however, do maintain some appeal to a less exclusivist audience.

If you are not interested in this thread, then search for another thread.

What planet are you from?
Why is there Father Christmas, Yule tide Logs, Robins, Mistletoe, Holly and Ivy, and the Trinity; in a Middle Eastern Religion when NONE of these appear in the Bible?
Answer all religions including Christianity are cobbled together from other ones.

Lev_Muishkin · August 24, 2015, 12:40pm

What is it that you don’t understand about the syncretistic images that you have posted?

Arminius · August 25, 2015, 2:54am

Yes, that was my assumption. The problem is that they do not always know what lie and what truth is.

Every human has a self-interest, a drive to be recognised, a will to live - you may also call it a “will to power”.

phoneutria · August 25, 2015, 6:50am

We think of religion of a political tool, just as any “belonging to” any group is a political tool.
These just so happen to be such effective tools because our impulse to belong is so strong.
Not only that , but religion combines this desire to be under a banner with another deep set impulse, the desire to marvel and be overwhelmed and take a glimpse at something of transcendent beauty and importance.
Religion, for that reason, will always exist. If the ones that we have now are not good enough, we’ll make up other ones to replace them. If our civilization is wiped out, and with it our gods, other gods will come to take its place.
However, on the question of wether we will have one religion composed of all others, I think probably not, as this desire to say “I am like these” is meaningless without the ability to say “I am unlike those”.

Arminius · August 25, 2015, 4:16pm

phoneutria:

We think of religion of a political tool, just as any “belonging to” any group is a political tool.
These just so happen to be such effective tools because our impulse to belong is so strong.
Not only that , but religion combines this desire to be under a banner with another deep set impulse, the desire to marvel and be overwhelmed and take a glimpse at something of transcendent beauty and importance.
Religion, for that reason, will always exist. If the ones that we have now are not good enough, we’ll make up other ones to replace them. If our civilization is wiped out, and with it our gods, other gods will come to take its place.
However, on the question of wether we will have one religion composed of all others, I think probably not, as this desire to say “I am like these” is meaningless without the ability to say “I am unlike those”.

I agree. Humans want the difference - even if we call religions „misunderstood spiritual exercise systems“ (Peter Sloterdijk). So they will exist as long as human beings or other religious beings will exist.

Arminius · August 26, 2015, 9:52pm

Religions, 2010-2050:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187825&p=2534656#p2534656 .

James_S_Saint · August 30, 2015, 11:27pm

I guess the USA’s national religion, “Human Secularism” is classified under “Other Religions” in those charts. I have to wonder why they speculate that it will grow so slowly.

Arminius · September 4, 2015, 5:00pm

The “Other Religions” of the United States will increase from 0.6% (2010) to 1.5% (2050):

The Jews (1.8% => 1.4%) and the Christians (78.3% => 66.4%) are the two religious communities that will decrease, whereas all other religious communities will increase. The Jews will decrease by 22.22% and the Christians by 15.20%, whereas the Buddhists will increase by 16.67%, the so-called “Unaffiliated” by 56.10%, the Hindus by 100%, the Muslims by 133.33%, the so-called “Folk Religions” by 150%, and the so-called “Other Religions” by 150%. So the so-called “Folk Religions” (0.2% => 0.5%) and the so-called “Other Religions” (0.6% => 1.5%) will relatively increase most (60%), whereas the so-called “Unaffiliated” (16.4% => 25.6%) will absolutely increase most (9.2%), the Buddhists (1.2% => 1.4%) will absolutely increase least (0.2%); and the Christians (78.3% => 66.4%) will absolutely decrease most (11.9%), whereas the Jews (1.8% => 1.4%) will absolutely decrease least (0.4%).

Christians and Jews: 80.1% (2010) => 67.8% (2050); decrease (in percent points: 12.3) by 15.36%
All other religious communities: 19.9% (2010) => 32,3% (2050); increase (in percent points: 12.4) by 62.31%.

In 2010 the numerical relationship was about 4:1.
In 2050 the numerical relationship will be about 2:1.

James_S_Saint · September 5, 2015, 4:08am

Those graphs depict “straight line”, uneventful futures. If for example, the USA economy crumbles as intended, those lines will be disturbed.

Arminius · September 5, 2015, 5:34pm

Economic aspects correlate with demographic aspects.

Do you know how trustworthy the people of the so-called “PEW Research Center” and their statements are? They predict that the fertility rates and the age distribution of the religious groups (incl. the global average) will develop as follows:

Mulims: 3.1 (2010) => 2.3 (2050), thus —0.8;
Christians: 2.7 (2010) => 2.3 (2050), thus —0.3;
Global average: 2.5 (2010) => 2.1 (2050), thus —0.4;
Hindus: 2.4 (2010) => 1.8 (2050), thus —0.6;
Jews: 2.3 (2010) => 2.1 (2050), thus —0.2;
Folk Religions: 1.8 (2010) => 2.0 (2050), thus +0.2;
Unaffiliated: 1,7 (2010) => 1.9 (2050), thus +0.2;
Other Religions: 1,7 (2010) => 1.8 (2050), thus +0.1;
Buddhists: 1,6 (2010) => 1.7 (2050), thus +0.1.

Source: pewforum.org/2015/04/02/main … on-growth/ .

iambiguous · September 5, 2015, 6:10pm

Arminius:

James S Saint:

Those graphs depict “straight line”, uneventful futures. If for example, the USA economy crumbles as intended, those lines will be disturbed.

Economic aspects correlate with demographic aspects.

Do you know how trustworthy the people of the so-called “PEW Research Center” and their statements are? They predict that the fertility rates and the age distribution of the religious groups (incl. the global average) will develop as follows:

Mulims: 3.1 (2010) => 2.3 (2050), thus —0.8;
Christians: 2.7 (2010) => 2.3 (2050), thus —0.3;
Global average: 2.5 (2010) => 2.1 (2050), thus —0.4;
Hindus: 2.4 (2010) => 1.8 (2050), thus —0.6;
Jews: 2.3 (2010) => 2.1 (2050), thus —0.2;
Folk Religions: 1.8 (2010) => 2.0 (2050), thus +0.2;
Unaffiliated: 1,7 (2010) => 1.9 (2050), thus +0.2;
Other Religions: 1,7 (2010) => 1.8 (2050), thus +0.1;
Buddhists: 1,6 (2010) => 1.7 (2050), thus +0.1.

Source: pewforum.org/2015/04/02/main … on-growth/ .

The largest net movement is expected to be out of Christianity (66 million people), including the net departure of twice as many men (44 million) as women (22 million). Similarly, net gains among the unaffiliated (61 million) are projected to be more than twice as large for men (43 million) as for women (19 million). Muslims and followers of folk religions and other religions are expected to experience modest gains due to religious switching. Jews and Buddhists are expected to experience modest net losses through religious switching.

Source: pewforum.org/2015/04/02/main … on-growth/ .

Of course there’s still that part about actually demonstrating the existence of whatever God does come out on top in 2050.

I know, I know: that’s not the point of this thread. Sorry. It just seems important to some to bring that up.

So, by all means, carry on. [-o<

Arminius · September 5, 2015, 9:22pm

[size=140]“Unaffiliated”.[/size]

Change in the 10 countries with the largest unaffiliated populations.

Projected Population Change in Countries With Largest Unaffiliated Populations in 2010All 10 countries on this list are expected to see their overall populations decline as a share of the world’s population. Collectively, these countries held 33% of the world’s population in 2010. By 2050, their share of the global population is expected to decline to 25%. China alone is expected to shift from having nearly 20% of the world’s population in 2010 to 14% in 2050.

In six of these countries (Japan, the United States, Vietnam, Germany, France and the United Kingdom), the share of the population that is unaffiliated is expected to increase in the coming decades. But the potential growth of the unaffiliated is constrained by the fact that these are all countries with overall populations that are shrinking as a share of the world’s people.

The religiously unaffiliated are heavily concentrated in relatively few countries. As of 2010, about 86% lived in the 10 countries with the largest unaffiliated populations. Consequently, the demographic trajectory of these countries will help shape the projected size of the global unaffiliated population in the decades to come.

In 2010, more than six-in-ten (62%) of the world’s religiously unaffiliated people lived in China. The next largest religiously unaffiliated populations were in Japan (6% of the global total), the United States (5%), Vietnam (2%) and Russia (2%).

In 2050, China is expected to remain home to a majority (54%) of the world’s unaffiliated population. The United States is expected to have the world’s second-largest unaffiliated population (8%), surpassing Japan (6%).

Age structure an religious switching.

Age Distribution, 2010Globally, the religiously unaffiliated population was older (median age of 34) than the overall population (median age of 28) as of 2010. In Asia and the Pacific, where most of the unaffiliated live, the median age of the unaffiliated (35) was six years higher than the regional median (29). While sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the youngest median age of religiously unaffiliated people (20), the region’s overall median age is even younger (18).

Age Distribution of Unaffiliated by Region, 2010In other regions, the unaffiliated tend to be younger than the general population. In North America, the median age of the unaffiliated (30) is seven years younger than the regional median (37). In Europe, the median age of the unaffiliated (37) is three years below the overall median (40). And in Latin America and the Caribbean, the median age of the unaffiliated (26) is one year younger than the regional median (27).

Source: pewforum.org/2015/04/02/reli … ffiliated/ .

Arminius · September 5, 2015, 11:14pm

The people of the so-called “PEW Research Center” do not stop their projections at the year 2050:

Beyond the Year 2050.

Long-Term Projections of Christian and Muslim Shares of World’s PopulationThis report describes how the global religious landscape would change if current demographic trends continue. With each passing year, however, there is a chance that unforeseen events – war, famine, disease, technological innovation, political upheaval, etc. – will alter the size of one religious group or another. Owing to the difficulty of peering more than a few decades into the future, the projections stop at 2050.

Readers may wonder, though, what would happen to the population trajectories highlighted in this report if they were projected into the second half of this century. Given the rapid projected increase from 2010 to 2050 in the Muslim share of the world’s population, would Muslims eventually outnumber Christians? And, if so, when?

The answer depends on continuation of the trends described in Chapter 1. If the main projection model is extended beyond 2050, the Muslim share of the world’s population would equal the Christian share, at roughly 32% each, around 2070. After that, the number of Muslims would exceed the number of Christians, but both religious groups would grow, roughly in tandem, as shown in the graph above. By the year 2100, about 1% more of the world’s population would be Muslim (35%) than Christian (34%).

The projected growth of Muslims and Christians would be driven largely by the continued expansion of Africa’s population. Due to the heavy concentration of Christians and Muslims in this high-fertility region, both groups would increase as a percentage of the global population. Combined, the world’s two largest religious groups would make up more than two-thirds of the global population in 2100 (69%), up from 61% in 2050 and 55% in 2010.

It bears repeating, however, that many factors could alter these trajectories. For example, if a large share of China’s population were to switch to Christianity (as discussed in this sidebar), that shift alone could bolster Christianity’s current position as the world’s most populous religion. Or if disaffiliation were to become common in countries with large Muslim populations – as it is now in some countries with large Christian populations – that trend could slow or reverse the increase in Muslim numbers.

Source: pewforum.org/2015/04/02/reli … -year-2050 .

Arminius · September 7, 2015, 1:27am

The title of the said text of the PEW Research Center is: “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050”. Its subtitle is: “Why Muslims Are Rising Fastest and the Unaffiliated Are Shrinking as a Share of the World’s Population”. If until 2050 the Muslims will rise fastest and the Unaffiliated shrink as a share of the world population, then we will probably not get a syncretistic religion before 2050 but war before 2050, because additionally the Christians as a share of the world population will neither rise nor shrink (2010: 31.4% ; 2050: 31.4%), the Jews as a share of the world population will neither rise nor shrink (2010: 0.2% ; 2050: 0.2%), the Hindus as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 15.0% ; 2050: 14.9%), the Other Religions as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 0.8% ; 2050: 0.7%), the Folk Religions as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 5.9% ; 2050: 4.8%), the Buddhists as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 7.1% ; 2050: 5.2%), and - as I already said - the Unaffiliated as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 16.4%; 2050: 13.2%). So merely the Muslims will rise both absolutely (2010: 1.6 billions; 2050: 2.76 billions) and relatively, thus as a share of the world population (2010: 23.2; 2050: 29.7). That will not necessarily but probably lead to war, namely to more war than we already have.

James_S_Saint · September 7, 2015, 1:35am

The more darkly manipulated the world becomes, the more Islam will run it. Islam represents the more rigid force, blocking some of the more critical causes of entropy, while not being ashamed of creating entropy outside itself, like Judaism.

Most religions are selfish (not merely self-interested). Christianity has the disadvantage of being not merely selfish, the easier route.

Innovice · September 7, 2015, 5:23am

I think that we will get a syncretistic religion as we conceive of religions today. However, by the time we get this syncretistic religion, I’m pretty sure that what it means to be a syncretistic religion will have changed to something that is more than a congregation of today’s religions. Let’s say that in 500 years christianity, buddhism, animism, hinduism, taoism, zoroastrianism, strong/weak atheism, etc… will have been reconciled. Perhaps something new will exist then - that we will have to intend to reconcile with this convergence.

Kriswest · September 8, 2015, 12:06am

What if humans agree to seperate and peacefully go down seperate paths becoming truly different breeds? Why must humans be the same to have peace?

Arminius · September 8, 2015, 2:23am

I think that seperate paths are not possible now and will not be possible in the near future. This current impossibility is a symptom of our times.

Because no real ruler wants then to have peace. Humans can never be the same, so the real rulers and their functionaries are always saying “humans must be the same to have peace”, because the real rulers know that that is impossible. It has always to do with the control of the 99%.

James_S_Saint · September 8, 2015, 9:45am

James S Saint:

A part of the effort to conform all of Mankind into one big happy family, a mono-particle, involves removing all symbols of individual national, civic, and personal identity: one money, one religion, one language, one ontology, one spirit, and one mind. It is imagined as a single positive monoparticle floating in space. Such will require either a mechanized, blind servitude (constituting the only single life on the planet) or a state of Hell on Earth for all inhabitants. To avoid the Hell on Earth scenario, androids will be required, not merely preferred. The definition of “human” (the hue of Man) must become the same as that of “Android”.

Alternately, rather than having a mono-particle, a poly-particle can be formed wherein there are slightly distinguishable nations that are largely interdependent. Each nation would be constructive, but with different emphasis on purpose and function, much like the organs of a body. This arrangement would constitute the common nucleus of an atom.

But what happens with you get a single positive particle floating in space? A negative particle WILL find it. And if that positive particle is a large poly-particle, it quite naturally breaks apart (becomes radioactive), forming a multitude of separate positive particles with strong aversion to each other - back to where the world started, multi-nationalism or even tribalism.

If the goal is not to be “positive” (in this case “constructive” or “advancing”), the entire world of Man could become neutral, very busily accomplishing nothing at all, having as much negative, “deconstruction”, within as positive, “construction or advancement”. In that case, an additional negative influence would not be attracted to it. But then again, nothing would ever be accomplished or accomplish-able by it either.

There are only two possible states for such a particle.

The first being a chaos of mindless conflicting activity = “Hell on Earth”. The second being a harmony of distinguishable positive and negative portions; nations or organizations. In such a case, the organizations must (and will) always remain very distant yet ever hovering around each other, an “atom floating in space”. The larger portion would be like a positive, constructive nucleus and the others would be independent “terrorist organizations”. And whatever good was accomplished by the nucleus of the world, would be destroyed by the necessary orbiting terrorist organizations. The terrorist organizations would be required and thus manufactured if not naturally formed and maintained.

This atomic structure for Mankind would never know true peace and still be composed of merely a few actual life forms, the positive particle(s) and negative(s). Within each particle, either Hell or absolute servitude would still reign. And if invaded from outside, would not be able to accomplish anything in any intelligent or conscious manner.

In all of these case, the Man being manufactured, although filled with great knowledge, would not be a conscious entity. Mankind, as a whole, would be a scrambling, buzzing, mindless particle as seen from the outside.

Such simple minded overall structures for Mankind prevents any hope for Man to be a living conscious and coherent creature from the purview of the universe or visiting life forms. For Mankind as a whole to function as perhaps a living coherent and intelligent creature, a much more complex structure of very many separate components (organizations) must be arranged, more like a DNA molecule and its housing cell multiplied millions of times and networked together, independent, but cooperative.

And that type of order is what I have been referring to as “Social Anentropic Molecularisation” formed of largely independent anentropic “families”, “small groups”, or “small corporations” networked together by proximity and each taking care of itself for sake of itself. Not requiring a single religion, single mind, single money, single language, single ontology, or single spirit. Each family constitutes a particle, some positive, some negative, of varied colors and types and in harmony merely because of the one thing common among them - an understanding of how to be an anentropic corporal life.

The state of Heaven on Earth, is a state wherein millions of mostly independent lives are making their own choices in accord with their own situational needs, not in servitude of an artificial higher design, not in fear of death or torment, not in blind faith of some higher purpose, but rather in consequential service to an aberrant higher order, never designed, merely formed by the needs of reality - the very definition of a living creature.

Arminius · September 23, 2015, 3:06am

The societies with the lowest fertility are not the wealthiest societies: