The Future of Religions

"The religious profile of the world is rapidly changing, driven primarily by differences in fertility rates and the size of youth populations among the world’s major religions, as well as by people switching faiths. Over the next four decades, Christians will remain the largest religious group, but Islam will grow faster than any other major religion. If current trends continue, by 2050 …

  • The number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world.
  • Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.
  • The global Buddhist population will be about the same size it was in 2010, while the Hindu and Jewish populations will be larger than they are today.
  • In Europe, Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.
  • India will retain a Hindu majority but also will have the largest Muslim population of any country in the world, surpassing Indonesia.
  • In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, and Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion. Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.
  • Four out of every 10 Christians in the world will live in sub-Saharan Africa."

Above from:
The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050

Those are the statistics. But they do not say anything about what the character of those religions will be like. Will religions continue, dragging the traditional aspects along more out of habit than relevance? That would mean loss of control for priests and imans who would rather keep to old schedules regardless of modern velocities. Or will they update to adapt? For example, will particular future Muslims still be calling for all infidels to be killed or will they turn a new leaf and be cool even about the likeness of the prophet shown in humorous situations, or maybe t-shirts? In other words, future generations of Muslims might disregard the religious past as much as those of other religions have. As Judy Tenuta might have said: “It can happen!”

And what about atheists? You know, people like Ron Reagan Jr. (son of former prez) who is not afraid of burning in hell? Great PSA, Ron. :slight_smile:

“According to sociologist Phil Zuckerman, broad estimates of those who have an absence of belief in a God range from 500 to 750 million people worldwide. According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera’s review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world’s population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).” source

Up to 750 million? Seems like a stone’s throw from 1 billion. And I wonder, will we ever have an Atheist Party in politics? An atheist president? Will future generations of atheists change too? Will they have to tackle new issues like, ‘atheistic faith’? Will some author write, ‘The Grammar of Atheistic Assent’?

But wait, what happens if we’re visited by extraterrestrials with their own religion? Do we welcome them? Give them tax-exempt status? Coach them on the difference between ‘Happy Holidays’ and Merry Christmas? Convert them? What if they try to convert us?

Or is it that the world could never do without some kind of religious element?

I have felt for a long time that when humankind recognizes itself as the only religion then there could indeed be an enlightenment on many levels. But that prospect seems a long way off.

To be a child in a world where spirituality is free of labels and labellers, and easy as air. Sounds like it would be an interesting place to grow up in. :slight_smile:

So what will be different?

Seems to me that the characteristics of people are not going to change significantly, therefore it will be : same type of people, same type of problems.

You think that people will not change significantly? Have there not been some changes through history? Or do you think that despite evolution humankind will basically remain the same?

As you sit at your computer do you not feel there are differences between yourself and, let’s say, an Egyptian scribe of thousands of years ago?

it really depends on which direction economics will move in, since religions are derived from the circumstances of the material relations between people. feuerbach and marx couldn’t have been righter here. if the current model of global capitalism/corporatism continues expanding, most likely the abrahamic religions will maintain their popularity because of the functions they serve in moderating/regulating the relationship between the bourgeois and proletariat. capitalism, which is essentially the economic expression of social darwinian natural selection, greatly augments the cruder aspects of human nature in this respect, and in order to maintain and stabilize the relationship between the ruling class and the ruled class (which is in constant moral conflict with each other), something has to be believed that justifies the order of ranks and rights, something that sanctions the laws put in place to preserve the property rights that are in effect. for this task, religion is perfect; it provides an excuse for the rulers (e.g., the state is a representation of the divine order and edicts of ‘god’, etc.) and an opiate for the ruled (e.g., seek not ye riches and wealth and stuff, but do your job modestly and be rewarded in heaven, etc.)

on the other hand, if economics take a stronger socialist turn in the future, these deceptions will no longer be needed, because the state for which they were needed will no longer exist. people will no longer need to ‘spiritualize’ their life to give it meaning and/or make it bearable. it will be enough to have been able to live a mortal life and be happy about that.

still i’m an elitist libertine anarchist nihilist decadent who reports on the facts without the slightest interest in any of it save for a little amusement. part of me says mankind will always need religion, whether pagan or monotheistic of polytheistic or henotheistic of whatever other variation gives him solace and hope and cause to live for. the problem with the old religions is that with the inception of the new economic orders of the future, there will be some serious (and comically entertaining) argument and bickering over the new interpretations and doctrinal changes of each religion as they acclimatize to the new circumstances. problem is, you can’t do that. you can’t change a single detail without throwing the whole thing into confusing disarray. if you think christians, muslims and jews are quibbling over a bunch of nonsense now, wait another hundred years. you ain’t seen shit yet.

Religions will become more radical and more moderate at the same time. This nets a more radical overall landscape.

Some people are “falling from the tree” of Islam, turning to atheists, seculars. Some people are coming to the decision that if you’re religious it feels better to do it all the way.

Paganism has been glossed over, which is funny.

And no there is no great difference between an Egyptian scribe and people here.

ancient-statue-of-kek-the-prophecy-of-kek-computer-internet-6488136.png

Would there not be at that time those who would see it as nonsense that is no longer relevant? Especially considering the technological and social scenario of the world as it would be then? I mean, a hundred years ago a black person couldn’t use a water fountain used by whites. Now, we’ve had a black president.
Another example, if your posting had been brought to the attention of some of the 'authorities of the past, you would have ended up incarcerated or executed.

Consciousness changes. If it had not done so would we be where we are today? Granted, nowadays it seems like some are stuck on the reverse gear but how long can that be maintained? It’s a big freeway.

So in the example of Egypt, you’re saying there was no difference between a scribe in pharaonic times and someone like Naguib Mahfouz who won the 1988 Nobel Prize for Literature?

How about in your own case? Are you saying there’s no difference between you and one of your ancestors millennia ago?

Small changes if any.

Evolution takes many generations and for humans that translates in hundreds of thousands of years. Not much has physically changed in humans in say the last 15 thousand years.

Sure, technology has changed but human beings have not. I don’t think that I would have any problem understanding that scribe’s life nor he understanding my life - same needs, drives, joys and difficulties - shelter, food, sex, wives, children, disease, death, …

Yes, it could take awhile. Yet, I wonder if the rate of evolution is the same across the board. In other words, is it possible for the mind to evolve faster than the physicality?

How can that which made technology, not have changed itself? We went from the wheel to sending people into outer space. That qualifies for some changes in consciousness.

Not in any positive sense. Thought has just gotten more trivial, less consequential. Not one literary hero of today will be remembered in a hundred years, let alone a thousand. Because they all write about their feelings and the injustices done to them by their mom.

I dont fancy myself superior to King Solomon or Thales of Milete, lol. No man, we didn’t exactly advance. I try to live up to the ancients where I can, but most moderns are like the turning leaves pondering the inferiority of the roots. Trivial.

By the way this is my religion:

beforethelight.forumotion.com/t5 … r-calendar
astrologyweekly.com/forum/s … p?t=110629

So, in the example of philosophers both ancient and current, all had ‘mommy’ issues?

There’s no way for us to know exactly the character of Solomon or Thales nor the times and environment they lived in. And there’s no model of advancement for us to know what advancement is. Putting it another way, you would have to know what advancement is to know whether you’ve advanced or not. Since we don’t have such a model then we define the advancement after the fact, and note the difference from before the fact.

Before the fact the mountain loomed in the distance. After the fact, I now stand on the summit. I have a better idea of advancement. Not an absolute understanding of it, just a better idea.

Btw, you’re an astrologer?

Read more carefully sir. This is nothing like what I said.

You are saying that you have no value standard available for this kind of judgment.
Im not going to argue that with you. I can just state that I do have such a standard.

What comes first is Heart. We have much less of it than the Atheneians or the Thoraic Hebrews or the men at Kurukshretra, and so on — as I see it.

Yes.

We didn’t, a small few came up with the wheel and a small few came up with sending people to outer space. The wheel helped people, say, moving building materials or crops to the village for sale. Going to the moon helped people…? Most people are heavy social media users on tech, not the makers of that. But even those who make that tech are locked into making things that make advertiser and sellers happy. Which leads to a dumbing down.

I am not sure what you mean by consciousness, but I don’t think the mass of people are improving whatever you mean by that. I do think that the opportunities for knowledge allows a very few to improve. Very few, and probably not most of the one would expect might.

The great shallows are here and the shallows are sucking even the intelligent now.

Yeah I gotta agree with that.

Its a hell of a lot more enlightening to tend to your acres and discover, year through year, the nature of life there, than it is to watch Neal Armsrong jump around on the moon or some Hollywood studio.

There is a difference between literary heroes and philosophers? Or are you ascribing mother problems only to fiction writers? You cut a wide swath when you say, ‘all’.

What is your standard based on?

Having ‘heart’ is nice, but there’s no way to know if we have less or more than those you mention. For example: “We like to imagine the Athenians as devoted to freedom and the spirit of reason. Certainly there is much to praise about Athens, but the city could also be violent, irrational, xenophobic, misogynist, and brutally imperialist.” source ‘Heart’ is relative.

I like astrology. What confirms for you the validity of astrology?

Not all fish made the jump from water to shore? Yes, but both wheel and space travel have been integrated by the “we”. The ‘we’ validated the individual’s idea as much as the fish who followed the first fish. Did they know the first fish by name? “Hey, if Carl did it so can we”. No, it was already in the ‘we’ of evolution.

There is no standard of improvement, unless one cares to equate personal standards with cosmic ones. Not an uncommon occurrence.

The only gauge of ‘standard’ we’d have would be upon reflection: what was then, what is now, what is the difference. We do it in our lives as individuals, we also do it collectively.

The we uses the tools, at least the wheel. But that doesn’t mean their consciousness changed much or at all or in a good direction.

They use it. I don’t know what validation means. I wasn’t saying the people who made these things lacked validation. I just meant that their success need have nothing to do with anyone else’s consciousness. You can use a car and be as brain dead as a neanderthal, and probably a lot less elegant and alive as one.

Evolution is something completely other. And, in fact, the next phase may be dumber. It’s just about what is best adapted and I think being dumb and distracted is rewarded more and more. Of course you have to be able to do this or that job, but you can be shallow in every other way. Of course I have no illusions about the depths of the medieval farmer - though some may well have been deep - it’s just I do not see tech as necessarily or even in the main helping with consciousness - at least in most of the definitions I think of consciousness having.

You seemed to have some standard, what is it?

So twhat makes people’s consciousness better as a whole now, and how do we know this.

Ah, so that’s who you are. You’ve changed. Great. So much stays the same. I mean, not all development is good, obviously, but you seem to be coming into yourself. You seem more direct, clear, expressive, now as the horde.

What does the bolded phrase mean?

And what do you think this would be alike and can you already do this? if not, why not? if so, what is it like?

Is anything free of labels?