The Next Stage in Our (Religious) Evolution

I was just thinking about a similar concept for language, how language evolves and what we can expect in the future. I think religion has some parallels, so please bear with me for the first bit.I think that the modern age, with convenient transport, communication, and unprecedented levels of literacy will serve to stop the evolution of language cold. This isn't to say that there will not be variations in delivery between generations as culture changes, but I think that the presence of easily-accessed records of previous language will prevent extensive language mutation. For instance, around the time of the USA's founding the spelling of words was essentially left to the whim of the writer. Print and increased literacy has served to nail them down quite nicely, despite what the l33t-speek crowd would lead you to believe.Cross-language sharing will not increase enough to merge languages any time soon, but the modern world serves to reduce mutation in existent language "species".Now for how this relates to religion: The same technological advances that increase knowledge of language also increase knowledge of religion, and this is extremely damaging to their development. It is no longer possible to simply lie about the origin of a religion and get away with it, and claims of miraculous happenings are subject to a much higher level of scrutiny. For instance, with a web camera in every home it can be wondered why Joseph Smith Jr. did not Twitter the joyful news "with sauce" as they say.In my view religions are universally based on ignorance and deception, things which become harder the more information is available. Existing religions will continue to be altered according to the whims of their practitioners however, as those from different views intermarry and the religions conform to the changing expectations of society (while stridently denying it). Still, I expect that the rate of mutation within religions will decrease with the increases in communication, but that the sharing of concepts between religions will increase dramatically.

Absolutely. But the connection between geographically distant populations means that language is extremely unlikely to "speciate" into incompatibility, or spawn isolated populations. Usually the interests of the deceiver.

Exactly, it became that way because they were geographically isolated enough to prevent frequent communication. This allowed the language to diverge; with more frequent communication the divergence would not occur which is why the dude from the Bronx can understand other dudes from the Bronx, and the old lady from Sussex fits right into Sussex. I think that technology allowing easy and frequent long-distance communication will reduce such things tremendously. It varies depending on the situation. Why would you be under the impression I was referring to a specific individual?

On a message board where they discuss techniques for micro-gardens in low-light conditions. The Bronx dude's crop is probably a little different that what the Sussex lady expects...Or a myriad of other places and topics. Why should I have to justify specific instances where your hypothetical people would communicate? My point is that their social circles *can* communicate. It might be the Sussex lady's grandson who actually talks to the Bronx dude. If I say that thieves thieve because they are tempted by the prospect of gain through less difficult channels than normal, I don't think it is required that I specify a specific thief. I don't think it would be assumed that I was talking about a specific thief.All you are trying to do is demand unreasonable proofs. For instance, you said "Language has always evolved, i.e. adapted to be useful in new environments, and language experts are agreed that this will always be the case." Well, state which language expert exactly says this will always be the case. Tell me how that expert can divine the future, or is it just the speculation of one person?My statement was about many people, and no, I cannot define them individually. Nor do I have to, or would generally be expected to. If you do not agree then you can make your argument like a reasonable person, rather than being a contentious nit.

You think so, compared to say the Dark Ages, or Japan before the 1500s? Western society is now more aware, concerned, and knowledgeable about foreign cultures than any other time in the history of the planet. Is every westerner an expert on every society in the world? No. But my point still stands. Thanks for an excellent example of the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy. Also, people already ask "Where is the moral fiber of skeptics?", or are you new to these boards?Besides, how about we discuss your moral fortitude when you choose a grandmother from Sussex to refute my predictions about modern communication. Choosing a hypothetical character who is unlikely to actually use said technology seems an awfully shifty tactic for someone who is trying to claim the high ground.Furthermore, you are specifically instructed to debate the argument and not the arguer. Stop telling me what my point is and come up with your own concept. Present the concept as best you can, and shut your pie hole about what I must *really* be saying and meaning.

Actually, I would say: "quod erat demonstrandum"