As religion is ever-evolving (much like nature), where do you think that we will be in a few million years- if we survive that long? Do you think any religous texts will have survived or will they have been utterly forgetten or changed irrevocably (like Dune's Orange Catholic Bible). Will there be a "new Christianity"- as in a new huge religion? As new ideas spring up, will we do without, preserve the old, or create the new? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Sorry there's so much in the post to answer.
Edited by Admin, : Fix spelling in title.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in - Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
quote:religion is ever-evolving (much like nature)
Nature's evolution is imperceptible to ordinary observation. Fundamentalists can deny its occurrence for that reason. One can say the same thing of religions, most religions, without the ridicule that fundamentalists inevitably attract. That is because religions, on the whole, do not evolve. Good religion and evolution are incompatible. A religion that is seen to change with its environment is seen as unprincipled; 'evolving religion' is a contradiction in terms.
A few religions do 'evolve', or, to be less polite, trim their sails according to prevailing winds, and suffer as a consequence. Catholicism, Mormonism and JWism are the obvious examples, obvious from checking their histories, or even current publications. Calvinism gave up some of its absurdities in the first centuries of its existence, but it has remained the same since, its leaders of a few centuries ago having the same influence now. But these are exceptions. Hindus do as Hindus did, Buddhists do as Buddhists did, Muslims do as Muslims did, more or less. Protestants cite and quote the views of John Wycliffe, 'the Morning Star of the Reformation' who wrote almost 700 years ago, and actually compete in attempting to simulate the early church. No change there. Religions can be said to be the most static phenomena of all, bar the laws of physics.
quote:Do you think any religous texts will have survived
Why would they not survive, assuming that there is no totalitarian world government that destroys every last copy of a text or texts? If one means to ask if people will cease to believe in texts, is there any present and significant trend in that direction? Religious texts continue to have consequences in many ways, in politics, in legal matters, in health matters, in practical everyday events. Admittedly, some of these consequences may seem mind-bogglingly inappropriate to those who do not share confidence in a particular text, but the fact is that scriptures of one sort or another are taken as seriously as ever, and still by a majority, outside China, anyway.
Nature's evolution is imperceptible to ordinary observation. Fundamentalists can deny its occurrence for that reason. One can say the same thing of religions, most religions, without the ridicule that fundamentalists inevitably attract. That is because religions, on the whole, do not evolve. Good religion and evolution are incompatible. A religion that is seen to change with its environment is seen as unprincipled; 'evolving religion' is a contradiction in terms.
Sorry about that ochaye: "evolution" was an unfortunate choice of words. Yes, you are right in that I meant it in the context of catholic -> protestant -> mormon, etc. What I was asking was, in a couple millenia, will anything be the same or will it be changed beyond all recognition? For example, will we have new sects/religions, and what could they be like? Just in the past 2000 years, Christianity and Islam have been born and Hinduism and Buddhism have spread to the West- not to mention scientology!
Why would they not survive, assuming that there is no totalitarian world government that destroys every last copy of a text or texts? If one means to ask if people will cease to believe in texts, is there any present and significant trend in that direction? Religious texts continue to have consequences in many ways, in politics, in legal matters, in health matters, in practical everyday events. Admittedly, some of these consequences may seem mind-bogglingly inappropriate to those who do not share confidence in a particular text, but the fact is that scriptures of one sort or another are taken as seriously as ever, and still by a majority, outside China, anyway.
Ah, but remember that I was talking about millenia. It's only been about a thousand years since Christianity has really been on the world stage, whereas it's been even shorter for Islam. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, look at Judaism- it's 6,000 years old and yet only makes up 3% of the world's population. Hinduism is a subversion of this though- it's a little older than Judaism yet makes up about 20% of the world's population.
Hi ochaye, don't believe I've seen any of your other posts, so welceome to the fray.
Not sure if you have a consistent argument here:
... That is because religions, on the whole, do not evolve. Good religion and evolution are incompatible. A religion that is seen to change with its environment is seen as unprincipled; 'evolving religion' is a contradiction in terms.
A few religions do 'evolve', or, to be less polite, trim their sails according to prevailing winds, and suffer as a consequence. Catholicism, Mormonism and JWism are the obvious examples, obvious from checking their histories, or even current publications. ...
So you readily admit that some evolution in religion has been observed.
Curiously, all the ones you mention are still around, so I'm not sure how they have suffered as a result of adaptation to their environment. Yes, the religions that survive are those ones selected by their followers as the best fit between the church and the followers world view. The ones that were not selected have gone extinct. Greek and Roman religions come to mind. Aztec, Olmec, and the like as well.
Protestants cite and quote the views of John Wycliffe, 'the Morning Star of the Reformation' who wrote almost 700 years ago, and actually compete in attempting to simulate the early church. No change there.
Curiously, what you refer to here is a version of christianity, a branch that has evolved away from the parent population, a speciation event.
Religions can be said to be the most static phenomena of all, bar the laws of physics.
Ah, so they all still believe in a geocentric universe?
Why would they not survive, assuming that there is no totalitarian world government that destroys every last copy of a text or texts?
But that isn't necessary for the text to be changed. Compare the texts of all the different sects of christianity and you will see differences, adaptations, variations. Some will be selected and some will be discarded.
quote:Yes, you are right in that I meant it in the context of catholic -> protestant -> mormon
That is not what I wrote, is it, which I very much hope you don't find disappointing. There is suspicion here of associating two religions that in truth are diametrically opposed.
That is a chronology, but nothing more. The arrows do not represent the truth, if any sort of development is implied. Protestantism (less Calvinism) was the statement (re-statement of the gospel, pro testamentum, according to Protestants) that mankind is justified by faith. This flatly contradicted the Vatican, that was set up by a Roman emperor, and maintained by others far more interested in pelf than the next world, to propagate the notion that justification came only courtesy of the emperor's tame priests. Rome then perceived with the greatest alarm a loss of control of its meek and muzzled populations, an instinct that has never completely disappeared, even now.
Every single Reformer (and Calvinists too, who could not resist jumping on the bandwagon) described Catholicism as of the Antichrist, and their own beliefs in no way a development of Catholicism. The immediate response of the Vatican to attempt to murder them clearly demonstrates that they were all agreed upon that point. Many moderns of course don't like to read that, because they are just as afraid of Protestantism as the Vatican was (and is). It's just that murder is not so easy now, in Western countries, anyway. (Christians are quite often murdered in Islamic and other non-Western countries.)
Mormonism was a re-statement of the Catholic view that justification is by works, and may have been a response to the comparative failure of Catholicism in the USA. So Mormonism may be 'modern Catholicism', though of course both religions have been forced to 'modernise', or catch up with science, democracy and Protestantism. So you can have Catholic -> Mormon as a quite likely historic development, but not much more than that, other than Catholic -> JW. And Catholicism is really a recycling of the Pharisees who attempted to circumcise the Galatians, whom Paul called 'dogs'. Nothing new under the sun, as the prophet wrote.
quote:It's only been about a thousand years since Christianity has really been on the world stage, whereas it's been even shorter for Islam. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, look at Judaism- it's 6,000 years old and yet only makes up 3% of the world's population.
Who is to say that Christianity did not begin 6000 years ago? Abraham was justified as righteous by faith, which makes Protestantism the only Abrahamic religion. If Judaism is right, then Christianity is imaginary; and vice versa. One can't say that Christianity exists as a valid belief and that it began 2000 years ago (where you get 1000 years ago, I don't know).
quote:Hinduism is a subversion of this though- it's a little older than Judaism yet makes up about 20% of the world's population.
Do you know what the word 'subversion' means? The most ancient texts of Hinduism are indistinguishable from those of any ancient religion- and remember that religious instinct is the universal feature of ancient civilisations, according to archaeologists. Those texts are very general and unsophisticated, often adoring nature, as the Vedas do. It is after the date of Moses that Hinduism develops into more than that (and in ways that at times look very similar to the OT).
One could say that it is feasible that Christianity was the first modern religion, that has influenced all others. It has certainly influenced all new arrivals in the last 2000 years, and a completely new religion, one that does not either claim to be 'real' Christianity, or to be its legitimate successor, seems unlikely in the future. One often sees new corruptions of Christianity, claiming to be Christianity, that are usually of passing influence because they are plain silly, on the whole. The internet is probably the major vector in this process today, though even the 'respectable' media, press and TV, can be just as silly with an alleged academic as any semi-educated guy with an idea and a computer.
quote:So you readily admit that some evolution in religion has been observed.
Can you not read advanced English? What do these things- '' mean? I assume that you are not malicious, and simply misunderstood.
Biological evolution implies advance. Catholicism has changed at the expense of credibility. Rather than increase in population, as with biological organisms, the reverse occurred and is ongoing. The present leader of the Catholics has sensibly been talking about a slimmed down Catholicism in the future, even as he makes almost simultaneous, mutually contradictory statements about his own religion. He is fully aware of his impossible position, that is exacerbated by the long-held belief of the faithful that Rome represented the eternal, the immutable. A religion that is seen to change with its environment is seen as unprincipled; 'evolving religion' is a contradiction in terms. A deity who changes his mind is hardly worth following, and the Vatican tries hard to cover up this fact with its casuistry, as do the lesser cults.
Hi ochaye, seems we have a communication problem. Let's see if we can clear it up.
Can you not read advanced English?
Curiously, I am well studied in reading and comprehending what is written. Perhaps the lack of clarity is on your part. For clarity on my part I'll use the advanced english used in biology and evolution to discuss this issue.
So my comment that "you readily admit that some evolution in religion has been observed" would be consistent with that statement of yours.
Biological evolution implies advance.
Sorry, but you are misinformed: this is absolutely false.
Biological evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. There is no implication for "advance" in these words. If you disagree with my definition, then I suggest you refer to:
quote:Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
Note: there is no implication of "advance" in that definition, OR
quote:Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation or The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity.
Note: there is no implication of "advance" in those words either. Note further that these are from the websites used by these universities to teach biological evolution.
Catholicism has changed at the expense of credibility.
And yet you still recognize that it has changed. Fascinating.
The issue of credibility is your personal opinion, and, curiously, opinion does not affect reality. There are still many practicing catholics, so obviously - for them - it is still credible. Their belief is unaffected by your opinion.
Rather than increase in population, as with biological organisms, the reverse occurred and is ongoing.
Again you make an uninformed, ignorant or misinformed statement about biology and evolution.
The reduction of populations in biology is an often observed phenomenon, and it occurs whenever a population cannot adapt to a changing environment (including competition). The ultimate result is extinction, as has occurred to most species in the natural history of earth.
The present leader of the Catholics has sensibly been talking about a slimmed down Catholicism in the future, even as he makes almost simultaneous, mutually contradictory statements about his own religion. He is fully aware of his impossible position, that is exacerbated by the long-held belief of the faithful that Rome represented the eternal, the immutable.
More opinion. Yawn.
A religion that is seen to change with its environment is seen as unprincipled; 'evolving religion' is a contradiction in terms.
And yet you have once again expressed an opinion, and interestingly, it is contradicted by the fact that religions have been seen to evolve. This would not, could not, happen if your opinion were correct, as the existence of a single changing religion renders your statement false.
Christianity is obviously an adaptation of new beliefs while deleting some old beliefs compared to Judaism, otherwise there would be no need to include only part of the old testament. You could say that it is judaism with a mutant jesus strain: all daughter populations of christianity carry the jesus mutation, and none of the remaining populations of judaism carry the mutation. The parent population has been divided into daughter populations, and judaism has since evolved separately from christianity.
Likewise, considering your previous example of Protestant in Message 3
... Protestants cite and quote the views of John Wycliffe, 'the Morning Star of the Reformation' who wrote almost 700 years ago,...
quote:Protestantism is a branch within Christianity, containing many denominations of different practices and doctrines, that originated in the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation. It is considered to be one of the primary divisions within the original Christian church,...
All daughter populations of protestantism carry the reformation mutation, and none of the remaining populations of (catholic) christianity carry the same mutations (Wycliffe, Calvin, Luther) in the same proportions. The parent population has been divided into daughter populations, and (catholic) christianity has since evolved separately from protestantism, including brances into other different forms of christianity.
You can form a family tree of all the various christian and jewish sects and cults, showing descent from a common ancestor. This is evidence that evolution has occurred.
A deity who changes his mind is hardly worth following, ...
And you know the mind of this deity completely and understand his total position on every aspect? Wow.
... , as do the lesser cults.
Sideshoots from the main bush, other variations, new mutations. Some may survive, many will perish. One could include the next "John Wycliffe" or "Joseph Smith" ... it will be interesting to see what evolves.
quote:Hi ochaye, seems we have a communication problem.
Only the one who failed to answer or even quote the crucial question has a problem, which may have nothing to do with English comprehension.
There is, moreover, no accuracy about biology, so I will read your output no further. Should any other reader suppose that this poster has made a constructive comment on any relevant matter, do raise it.
Only the one who failed to answer or even quote the crucial question has a problem, which may have nothing to do with English comprehension.
Sorry but your failure to deal with the issues I've raised, supported by actual evidence of the correctness of the way the issues are presented, just means that you have no rebuttal.
There is, moreover, no accuracy about biology,
Fascinatingly, two universities that teach biology disagree with you, while (interestingly) they agree with me. You will find many others that disagree with you on this issue.
Taz (Message 11) for starters. One wonders how many times you will ignore the evidence that your understanding of biology in general, and evolution in particular, is flawed, uniformed, and misinformed
Such as avoidance of any further discussion with people that bring up uncomfortable information, and especially those that support it with evidence.
so I will read your output no further. ...
Well so much for your vaunted (Message 9) "Understanding through Discussion" -- or do you only discuss things with people that already agree with you? Of course then you would be guilty of:
™ Version 4.2