The Future of Religions

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:11 am

"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. :-)

"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. :)
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:33 pm

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. :)
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.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11180
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:19 pm

phyllo wrote:So what will be different?

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?
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby promethean75 » Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:27 pm

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.
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:50 pm

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
ancient-statue-of-kek-the-prophecy-of-kek-computer-internet-6488136.png (74.49 KiB) Viewed 9909 times
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:40 pm

promethean75 wrote: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.

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.
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:42 pm

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

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?
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:43 pm

You think that people will not change significantly? Have there not been some changes through history?
Small changes if any.
Or do you think that despite evolution humankind will basically remain the same?
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.
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?
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, ...
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11180
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:42 pm

phyllo wrote:Evolution takes many generations and for humans that translates in hundreds of thousands of years.

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?

phyllo wrote:Sure, technology has changed but human beings have not.

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.
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby barbarianhorde » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:45 pm

Del Ivers wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:And no there is no great difference between an Egyptian scribe and people here.

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?

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.

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

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:

http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t5 ... r-calendar
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/s ... p?t=110629
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:24 pm

barbarianhorde wrote: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.

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

barbarianhorde wrote:I dont fancy myself superior to King Solomon or Thales of Milete, lol. No man, we didn't exactly advance.

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?
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby barbarianhorde » Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:53 pm

Del Ivers wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote: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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Btw, you're an astrologer?

Yes.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:12 pm

Del Ivers wrote:
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.
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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby barbarianhorde » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:20 pm

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.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:26 pm

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

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'.

barbarianhorde wrote:I can just state that I do have such a standard.

What is your standard based on?

barbarianhorde wrote: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.

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?
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:48 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:We didn't, a small few came up with the wheel and a small few came up with sending people to outer space.


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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.

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.
Last edited by Del Ivers on Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:29 pm

Del Ivers wrote: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 uses the tools, at least the wheel. But that doesn't mean their consciousness changed much or at all or in a good direction.

The 'we' validated the individual's idea as much as the fish who followed the first fish.
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.

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.
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.

There is no standard of improvement, unless one cares to equate personal standards with cosmic ones. Not an uncommon occurrence.
You seemed to have some standard, what is it?

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.
So twhat makes people's consciousness better as a whole now, and how do we know this.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:32 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:
Btw, you're an astrologer?

Yes.
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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:49 pm

Del Ivers wrote:
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.
What does the bolded phrase mean?
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. :)
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?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:26 pm

Is anything free of labels?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7249
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:28 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.

In many ways the old question of 'what is consciousness' still goes unanswered. The same would go for questions about whether its direction is good or bad. The only 'direction' that we as human beings have is the one that led us to where we are today. And where we are today is the result of points along the way where we thought something would be better than the something before it. That still goes on today. You don't even have to go far afield collectively to see that, you can see it in yourself as an individual in that every day there is something in you that seeks 'better' in some form or another.

In order to use the 'tools', consciousness had to change. If consciousness changed, then we changed. I know this is a little time 'travelish', but if I went up to a hunter-gatherer and placed a chain saw in his hands and then I turned it on, he would freak out and could possibly cause damage to himself and others nearby. The hunter-gatherer's consciousness was not prepared for that. But in time the hunter-gatherers evolved and the knowledge of tools became widespread. Nowadays if I handed you a chain saw you'd probably know immediately what it is, its uses, the caution to be taken, etc. Consciousness had to change not only in regard to tools but with many other things. Is the consciousness of one person perhaps a little slower than others? That's possible, but even there you'd be hard pressed for a conclusion since we don't know the origin nor conclusive direction consciousness is traveling.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.

It has everything to do with the consciousness of others if it is to become a success or even a relative success. There are endless example of this but lets keep it near and say that if I just typed these words without giving any importance to what others may think of it, then why the hell am I even typing? Every question, statement, answer, on this forum depends on the consciousness at large of the participants here. As you begin to formulate what your own response to my statements will be, a part of you is depending on the consciousness at large, and depending on what the feedback may be it serves as an indicator of your awareness - or not - of consciousness at large. If you didn't care about any of that, then why would you even engage here or anywhere else for that matter? You can certainly be the only person on an island, but evolution sooner or later tells you to build a raft.

And no, you cannot use a car if you're brain-dead; consider that a, 'standard'. A clerk over at the DMV would let the Neanderthal, or whomever exhibiting such characteristics know that they can't even get a learner's permit. Validation at large would be all the licenses and permits that are given out. And let us not forget the perfect example of the cooperation of consciousness that is needed for all those driver's out there, 24/7, to contend with the activity of vehicular traffic.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Evolution is something completely other.

Evolution made us. What is the character of evolution and how do you see it as 'other'? Why would evolution regard dumbness and distraction as optimal? And who or what is doing the 'rewarding'? Are you saying that evolution is more of an 'agent' in its relationship with us, instead of us as co-agents? By the way, and not saying you are such, doesn't that have the whiff of those religious institutionalists who figured there would be better control by separating the human being from notions about 'co-agent'? Yes, that veers a bit from the point here but I think it worthy of note.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You seemed to have some standard, what is it?

One of the definitions of 'standard' is: "..an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations." Look at that definition and it fits what all of us are doing every minute of our lives. We would have an awful time if we did not have standards of some sort. Even when we philosophize about 'A STANDARD, or plainly seek out something more mundane, we are employing however many standards we have in our existential repertoire. But yo ask about me personally? The only standard is that at this moment I am alive, fit of mind and physicality to type out this response, and thereon continue another day of existence. Hey, I know it doesn't sound flashy, chopping wood and carrying water is not meant to be done in an Armani suit. But regardless, it is the standard that allows me, allows my experience of consciousness to continue. I can philosophize about that from here till kingdom come, but the reality - and I think a reality for many - is just being thankful for the experience of life. Oh, and no, I don't have an Armani suit. But I did find a jacket in a thrift-store once with an awesome sage-color, removable wool lining and thin, tucked away hood. And guess where that jacket was made? Egypt! Think of the many actions that happened between the fabrication of it and when I first held it in my hands. Did consciousness move that garment along until I wore it? How many tools did it take to get it all the way from Egypt to Las Vegas, Nevada?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:So what makes people's consciousness better as a whole now, and how do we know this.

For one, the fact that we're existing together in such large numbers. Add to that all that is needed to make that premise effective and productive and you begin to get an idea of how the whole has to operate so the individual can likewise benefit on his or her own scale. If it were not for people's consciousness being better, in whatever measure, your life wouldn't be as 'manageable' as it is now. For none of us it would be as manageable.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:What does the bolded phrase mean?

Actually, it was supposed to be only the word, 'itself'. I guess the BB code strayed a bit.

When humankind recognizes that the value of its existence surpasses the value of all representations, doctrines, models, and cosmo-theological speculations, then there is the chance for a deeply substantial awareness of ourselves. It won't be happening in my lifetime, but it's good if it happens whenever.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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?

Can I dream? Can I hope? Can I have ideas? Sure, I can do all of that. But I also have to recognize that existence continues and will be doing so long after I'm gone. I can do a lot of thinking in the physical time-window that I'm allotted, even magical thinking if such is my intent, but I have to remember where I'm standing. And I am standing along with 7 billion or so others on this planet. And each one of them with dreams, hopes, and ideas. Remember our marionette discussion? Well, 7 billion makes for a lot of strings and possible entanglements. Maybe that's why I like hiking in the desert. Few strings to deal with and sometimes I even forget what controls what.

And even out there and for all its solitude, if it had not been for consciousness at large, for the highways it made, for the vehicles , for the services, and so on, then chances are I wouldn't be hiking around in the desert. So, it's funny that I am enjoying solitude and a respite from the very condition that made it possible for that enjoyment. :)
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:34 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Is anything free of labels?

That depends on what the labels mean to you. Everyone has their own 'indicators'.

A world without labels and labellers would be one where the indicators are not needed, you'd know straightaway what it, whatever, is.

Think of it as unfiltered existence. Am I at that stage? No. But it's nice to think what it would be like. :)
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:49 pm

Del Ivers wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.

In many ways the old question of 'what is consciousness' still goes unanswered.
I'm not even looking for an answer to the deep question, just what you are referring to. People often mean with the word consciousness:
1) being aware, experiencing, subjective life - something most people grant to animals also, at least mammals.
2) being self-aware, in the sense of being aware one is an individual, this one, thinking of oneself. Most biologists grant that certain primates and dolphins, some birds like the crow family have this also.
3) then consciousness get used used in all the vague ways that can come up in phrases like 'raising consciousness' or 'higher consciousness'. Where for me they are now talking about the contents of consciousness, what people's values are.

These meanings get all muddled up, and I think the last one is a muddle in itself.

You don't even have to go far afield collectively to see that, you can see it in yourself as an individual in that every day there is something in you that seeks 'better' in some form or another.
I don't see this in people in general. I see most as seeking more. I mean, they may think more is better, but I don't see this as making them in some way superior to hunter gatherers.

In order to use the 'tools', consciousness had to change. If consciousness changed, then we changed. I know this is a little time 'travelish', but if I went up to a hunter-gatherer and placed a chain saw in his hands and then I turned it on, he would freak out and could possibly cause damage to himself and others nearby.
To me introducing the word consciousness into this issue is confused. I can probably work with it, but to me I think it is more likely that other words would be better. And a modern person dealing with a bear or fording a stream or getting lost in the desert might harm themselves and others.

Are we really going to hinge some meaningful cognitive development on chain saw use? I know it was probably a random example and you likely have ones that might be deeper, but I think it would be good to whip them out so we can get clear where the superiority comes from. A hunter gatherer walking through the woods will notice many real things and indications that we would not. He or she is probably much more alive to the moment than most moderns. More aware of the feeling states of the others moving through the woods, if for nothing else because his or her head is not stuck between earpods and spotify.

Let's really get down into this word consciousness and what has improved.


It has everything to do with the consciousness of others if it is to become a success or even a relative success. There are endless example of this but lets keep it near and say that if I just typed these words without giving any importance to what others may think of it, then why the hell am I even typing? Every question, statement, answer, on this forum depends on the consciousness at large of the participants here.
To me tribal groups seem to have been extremelyh conscious of community. Less distracted, obvoiusly more face to face in dealing with it. Less distracted. People typing words here do not strike me as having more or better consciousness.

As you begin to formulate what your own response to my statements will be, a part of you is depending on the consciousness at large, and depending on what the feedback may be it serves as an indicator of your awareness - or not - of consciousness at large. If you didn't care about any of that, then why would you even engage here or anywhere else for that matter? You can certainly be the only person on an island, but evolution sooner or later tells you to build a raft.
I am not sure where this is coming from. I do think people can communicate. I just see little to indicate we do it better now or with more consciousness.

And no, you cannot use a car if you're brain-dead; consider that a, 'standard'.
Obviously an neanderthal can't drive a car, but he would exhibit at least as much consciousness participating in a hunt, fashioning a tool, raising a child, as someone driving a car. In terms of consciousness, I see no reason, regardless of the defnition of consciousness, to see a modern person driving a car is exhibiting anything more profound than a neanderthal or cromagnon person dealing with problems and travel in their lives. And pretty soon we will have AI driven cars.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Evolution is something completely other.

Evolution made us. What is the character of evolution and how do you see it as 'other'? Why would evolution regard dumbness and distraction as optimal?
It doesn't but corporations and governments to a great extent do see this as optimal.

And who or what is doing the 'rewarding'?
Powerful people.

Are you saying that evolution is more of an 'agent' in its relationship with us, instead of us as co-agents?
Evolution takes place over very long periods. I don't think the invention of the chainsaw evolved us, upwardly or any way.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:So what makes people's consciousness better as a whole now, and how do we know this.

For one, the fact that we're existing together in such large numbers. Add to that all that is needed to make that premise effective and productive and you begin to get an idea of how the whole has to operate so the individual can likewise benefit on his or her own scale. If it were not for people's consciousness being better, in whatever measure, your life wouldn't be as 'manageable' as it is now. For none of us it would be as manageable.
Thanks for giving me something specific and in a sense concrete. I don't know if that is better. I am not sure what that has to do with consciousness. I think a definition (not and explanation) of what you mean by the term would be useful. A lot of being civilized has had reductions in consciousness for individuals - I am not against civilization per se, though I have a lot of criticism of the current version of it. But it seems to me that earlier humans fit their situation and had habits and heuristics that fit that, and we have habits and heuristics that fit ours. Sure, if you threw a hunter gather group in Manhatten theywould have problems. Likewise if you threw manhattanites deep in the Amazon. I am not sure where superiority comes from. I just see cultural and heuristic adaptions made by versatile organisms.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:53 pm

Del Ivers wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:Is anything free of labels?

That depends on what the labels mean to you. Everyone has their own 'indicators'.

A world without labels and labellers would be one where the indicators are not needed, you'd know straightaway what it, whatever, is.

Think of it as unfiltered existence. Am I at that stage? No. But it's nice to think what it would be like. :)
This seems much less likely in modern humans. Hunter gather groups had more liesure time. They were very aware of their environments and the various life forms in them. They had less distractions and they depended on the people around them in a variety of social, psychological and physical ways. As opposed to how we need to be aware of our neighbors or the people on the subway or even the people in the other cubicles.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:37 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Let's really get down into this word consciousness and what has improved.

Consciousness is awareness. Awareness of self and awareness of the self at large in the world. Consciousness can mean all the definitions you note, just as it can mean all the people and the definitions they note. Round up all of those definitions and you can see where consciousness is hardly something separate from us. We are the contents of consciousness. The very place you're living in right now would not be possible if it were not for the "we" who have facilitated electricity, water, gas, food and other supplies to markets, enforcement of laws, and even the banks where you keep the money for all of it, then you wouldn't exist. Your parents depended on that "We", so do you.

No matter how removed you may consider yourself in terms of specific consciousness, you are subject to the consciousness at large of the people near you, the city you're living in, and from there out the world. That "we" have improved, means that you and I have improved. That "we" built a highway that allows me to get out to the desert for an enjoyable day is an improvement I owe to the consciousness of that "we".

The analogy I get from your comments, especially, "We didn't, a small few came up with the wheel and a small few came up with sending people to outer space" is that of a ship at sea. The captain, engineer, and perhaps a couple of others are the ones that know how the ship operates. The rest, passengers, etc., don't need to know and probably wouldn't know how to operate the ship. But in the larger context of such, the captain depends on the "we" of the situation, of all of those on the ship. If he doesn't deliver the "we" safely to port (the port of an even bigger "We") then Cappy may find himself pushing tugboats around Manhattan, or worse. Thus, it is the "we" that checks and balances the 'improvements'. Cappy would be an unemployed idiot to not take that into account.

If that is not how you see it, then show an analogy, description, whatever, which shows how consciousness is separate from the human being, how the individual is in no way dependent on consciousness at large.

Oh, and one more thing:
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I am not sure where superiority comes from.

Who does?

But you can see how some have used that uncertainty to promote religious dogma.
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Next

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users