My hypothesis

[Pat Mustard]

The problem with your theory is that the "information age" has not given any info about the nonexistence of God. So, religion will thrive until it does. And if extinction is in the cards, it won't be because of Christians. It will be in spite of them.

The problem with your conjecture is assuming that religion is thriving, when it is not. In most countries religion is dying, albeit slowly in most. But the fact that apostasy is very high even in religions where the penalties for doing so is high (for example in the UK the highest growth community for atheism is amongst second and third generation immigrants from muslim majority countries), and the fact that most of Europe is either officially majority arreligious (like the UK, France or Czech Republic), or functionally majority arreligious (like Ireland or the Netherlands) and many other countries not far behind (for example in the US the fastest growing religious position is atheist/agnostic encompassing c.20% of the population) shows this to be a fact clear as day.

In fact it is only in theocratic dictatorships or other countries which enforce death penalties do we see religion clinging on, and oftentimes the arreligious in those countries are keeping their heads down and mouthing the appropriate policies out of fear of losing their heads.

[ronedee]

Well, that could be any group. The major question goes unanswered.

It depends on how you phrase the question;
If you go for a generic, deistic deity it is effectively impossible to disprove, it's also effectively meaningless.

However the Abrahamic deity comes with a whole load of baggage, primarily in the form of scripture. So you can ask 'Is the scriptural account accurate?'
The answer is an emphatic no based on the archaeology. There isn't a single accurate statement from Genesis to Ezra, the whole lot including all the prophets and the existence of the monotheistic kingdom of Solomon are utter fabrications.
As such the entire Abrahamic concept has to be called into doubt and without serious evidence should be dismissed.

But, there again is a lack of proof or hard evidence for a host of subjects in history. Religion far out paces anything else in writing!

Its tremendously hard to believe NONE of it is true, given the voluminous editions its received over several millennia! 

I don't believe anyone thought of preserving much of anything architecturally 2000-4000 years ago....but maybe the Egyptians, Aztecs etc? 

And some parchment, with handed down thoughts, and revelations in words were considered enough for people that believed God would preserve His word somehow for them. In many ways they were right!

---

The problem with your theory is that the "information age" has not given any info about the nonexistence of God. So, religion will thrive until it does. And if extinction is in the cards, it won't be because of Christians. It will be in spite of them.

The problem with your conjecture is assuming that religion is thriving, when it is not. In most countries religion is dying, albeit slowly in most. But the fact that apostasy is very high even in religions where the penalties for doing so is high (for example in the UK the highest growth community for atheism is amongst second and third generation immigrants from muslim majority countries), and the fact that most of Europe is either officially majority arreligious (like the UK, France or Czech Republic), or functionally majority arreligious (like Ireland or the Netherlands) and many other countries not far behind (for example in the US the fastest growing religious position is atheist/agnostic encompassing c.20% of the population) shows this to be a fact clear as day.

In fact it is only in theocratic dictatorships or other countries which enforce death penalties do we see religion clinging on, and oftentimes the arreligious in those countries are keeping their heads down and mouthing the appropriate policies out of fear of losing their heads.

I don't see the Christian religions dwindling at all. In fact, just the opposite! I remember 30 years ago the pastor at our evening Mass saying, "it wasn't worth keeping the lights on these days".... because there were 3 people there! Fast forward now, where the house is full. No seats! Also, recently I went to a protestant gathering with a friend, who wanted me to witness the turnout of young people. I could not believe my eyes. The place which holds about 1000, was full to capacity! It was like a Rock concert! Incredible. 

So, religion may be dying as you say in some areas. But, its certainly rising in others! The new generation of "young" pastors know how to appeal to the younger generation! And its working. Believe me indeed its working. 

A new angle is the "Love" movement! You will see this soon! And it makes perfect sense. In a spiritual way, and from marketing stand-point. People are just plain worn out from all the violence and hate. And Jesus is the answer, again to the masses!

[Mr Greene]

Alas that is blatant misinformation. It isn't merely a case of a lack of corroboration, the archaeological evidence overwhelmingly and directly contradicts the narrative in scripture. Thus you either take the position that Genesis to Ezra is metaphorical or that physical evidence doesn't matter to you.
In a soundbite; Ezra lied through his teeth, deal with it.

[MTL]

I'm starting to feel like a one-trick pony on this forum,
and I'm sorry if its tedious...


....but again, I feel the difference between RELIGION and GOD needs to be pointed out.

ronadee said,

The problem with your theory is that the "information age" has not given any info about the nonexistence of God. So, religion will thrive until it does.

Science had long been giving information discrediting many points of RELIGION, though, if not disproving the existence of GOD, himself.

For example, over the centuries, Religion has been proven wrong on many counts,

such as the Sun revolving around the Earth;

or Anatomists being burned for witches for describing the circulation of blood through the body, because it went against the religious thinking of the time;

Science has steadily been chipping away at RELIGION.

What I, as an Agnostic, am continually pointing out the Theists is that if there actually IS a God out there to be conclusively found and PROVEN to exist, it will be through Science that we find Him....NOT through Religion.

Religion really has nothing to do with God.

Religion professes to be about serving God, but in reality, Religion does not serve God.

Religion serves Religion.

It is not really GOD that I have a problem with...if there IS a God out there,
I won't hold Him responsible for the stupidity of Religion.

What Theists need to really grasp is the idea that it is entirely possible that there IS a God out there,
and that He may turn out to be NOTHING like what your religion says He is.

Personally, I feel it is most likely that there either is no God at all,

or if there IS a God, he is very likely a completely amoral being who is not at all concerned with the choices of our everyday lives or what we believe or don't believe about Him
...I feel it is most likely He is more like a Scientist, than anything else.

And as a Scientific being, then, if anything, He may even HATE your religion
....for teaching people to state unproven theories as if they are facts,
and then coercing other people not to question those unproven theories.

Because, again:

IF there actually IS a God out there to be conclusively found and PROVEN to exist,
it will be through Science that we find Him....NOT through Religion.

So no, science has not yet disproven the existence of god;

Who knows, Science may even be the way we PROVE the existence of GOD.

But what Information and Science HAS done already and continues to do, is discredit RELIGION.

[Mister Agenda]

Religion is like a parasitic organism and its ideal environment is an ignorant society. It is dying in our information age.

Two or more religions can form a daughter religion and over time a religion will reproduce itself with variation in a population according to selective pressures (known scientific facts).

This model predicts that many religions should appear spontaneously in ancient history (no selective pressures) despite low population and that religion should go extinct in the near future despite high population.

So essentially, the population of evolution deniers is dwindling according to principles of evolution.

I'm not sure about the 'near future' bit, but your analogy has merit. If you consider religions a subclass of ideologies, the same reasoning applies to ideologies in general.

It's the nature of a meme (in the Dawkinsian sense) to 'try to survive', and what you're describing is a selection pressure. Religions/ideologies better adapted to the changes in social environment will persist. For extinction to occur, the environmental change must be so devastating that no permutation can survive in it. I'm not sure the information age will suffice to do so; especially since it seems to have ever-more-effective fake news as a by-product. New religious movements appear all the time, it seems. Transhumanism could be considered a religious movement. Maybe the 'new normal' will be shopping cart religiosity, people picking the set of beliefs that best suit them instead of sticking with the set they picked up from their parents.

On the other hand, it's hard to see a new winning religious ideology emerging and acquiring the devoted following of a significant percentage of the world's population: religious humanism follows the evidence and so is proof against being demolished by ready access to information; but that's part of what makes it too boring to really catch on. Parody religions are fun, but don't fill cravings for real meaning. I imagine the predominant 'religion' of the future will be a sort of default 'casual humanism': sort of a general attitude acquired by cultural osmosis. But we should be aware that other ideologies will always be struggling to emerge. It's human nature, and maybe one will hit on a 'golden combination' of teachings that will enable it to spread significantly, even in the information age.

[Nihilist Virus]

Religion is like a parasitic organism and its ideal environment is an ignorant society. It is dying in our information age.

Two or more religions can form a daughter religion and over time a religion will reproduce itself with variation in a population according to selective pressures (known scientific facts).

This model predicts that many religions should appear spontaneously in ancient history (no selective pressures) despite low population and that religion should go extinct in the near future despite high population.

So essentially, the population of evolution deniers is dwindling according to principles of evolution.

I'm not sure about the 'near future' bit, but your analogy has merit. If you consider religions a subclass of ideologies, the same reasoning applies to ideologies in general.

It's the nature of a meme (in the Dawkinsian sense) to 'try to survive', and what you're describing is a selection pressure. Religions/ideologies better adapted to the changes in social environment will persist. For extinction to occur, the environmental change must be so devastating that no permutation can survive in it. I'm not sure the information age will suffice to do so; especially since it seems to have ever-more-effective fake news as a by-product. New religious movements appear all the time, it seems. Transhumanism could be considered a religious movement. Maybe the 'new normal' will be shopping cart religiosity, people picking the set of beliefs that best suit them instead of sticking with the set they picked up from their parents.

On the other hand, it's hard to see a new winning religious ideology emerging and acquiring the devoted following of a significant percentage of the world's population: religious humanism follows the evidence and so is proof against being demolished by ready access to information; but that's part of what makes it too boring to really catch on. Parody religions are fun, but don't fill cravings for real meaning. I imagine the predominant 'religion' of the future will be a sort of default 'casual humanism': sort of a general attitude acquired by cultural osmosis. But we should be aware that other ideologies will always be struggling to emerge. It's human nature, and maybe one will hit on a 'golden combination' of teachings that will enable it to spread significantly, even in the information age.

A religion must contain some kind of supernatural belief. Most religions contain one or more deities, miracles/magic, and an essence of the self that persists through death.

If the list of oughts and ought nots of secular humanism constitute a religion, then what about law? Is law also a religion?

By my reckoning, the majority of people with a PhD have no beliefs in deities, miracles/magic, or an essence of the self that persists through death. Therefore such people are without religion regardless of what they believe.

If the standard of education reaches the point where a high school education becomes equivalent to today's PhD, and if you combine this with the trend that we already see of people leaving religion, then the extinction is inevitable.

All we really need is for Islamic nations to modernize because in their current state there is virtually no selective pressure on Islam.

[Pat Mustard]

I don't see the Christian religions dwindling at all.

That's because you've willed yourself to be blind. There have been numerous studies and polls showing that christians are fast declining in the US, and atheism on the rise.

1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14...77031.html

2) A piece written by a man who seems to believe that it is discriminatory and wrong to not legislate according to the "morals" in the bible, citing a different study. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/alex-m...-america-0

3) A Grauniad piece which looks at different evidences showing how low religiousness (rather than religiosity, which is simply a profession of belief without any meaning) is in the US, citing studies showing that as little as 20% of Americans go to church on a Sunday (something pretty much all christian denominations demand as a necessary). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/o...ious-right

I don't mind if you want to delude yourself about the health of religious belief in your country. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[downbeatplumb]

Religion is like a parasitic organism and its ideal environment is an ignorant society. [b]It is dying in our information age.[/]

Two or more religions can form a daughter religion and over time a religion will reproduce itself with variation in a population according to selective pressures (known scientific facts).

This model predicts that many religions should appear spontaneously in ancient history (no selective pressures) despite low population and that religion should go extinct in the near future despite high population.

So essentially, the population of evolution deniers is dwindling according to principles of evolution.

We are now entering a dis-informtion age.
Thats perfect for the incubation of religions.

[The Industrial Atheist]

You might like Victor Stenger's "God the failed hypothesis." Some of the deep science went over my head. But it took the characteristics of the God of the Abrahamic religions and tested whether our world reflects this. It cites double-blind studies to see if God answers prayer. Surprise! He doesn't. Creationists still however, cite a study that suggests it does. However the guy who did the study had previously been convicted of fraud, and the other two scientists whose names were on the study didn't even know about the study until the results were published.

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk

[ronedee]

I'm not sure about the 'near future' bit, but your analogy has merit. If you consider religions a subclass of ideologies, the same reasoning applies to ideologies in general.

It's the nature of a meme (in the Dawkinsian sense) to 'try to survive', and what you're describing is a selection pressure. Religions/ideologies better adapted to the changes in social environment will persist. For extinction to occur, the environmental change must be so devastating that no permutation can survive in it. I'm not sure the information age will suffice to do so; especially since it seems to have ever-more-effective fake news as a by-product. New religious movements appear all the time, it seems. Transhumanism could be considered a religious movement. Maybe the 'new normal' will be shopping cart religiosity, people picking the set of beliefs that best suit them instead of sticking with the set they picked up from their parents.

On the other hand, it's hard to see a new winning religious ideology emerging and acquiring the devoted following of a significant percentage of the world's population: religious humanism follows the evidence and so is proof against being demolished by ready access to information; but that's part of what makes it too boring to really catch on. Parody religions are fun, but don't fill cravings for real meaning. I imagine the predominant 'religion' of the future will be a sort of default 'casual humanism': sort of a general attitude acquired by cultural osmosis. But we should be aware that other ideologies will always be struggling to emerge. It's human nature, and maybe one will hit on a 'golden combination' of teachings that will enable it to spread significantly, even in the information age.

A religion must contain some kind of supernatural belief.  Most religions contain one or more deities, miracles/magic, and an essence of the self that persists through death.

If the list of oughts and ought nots of secular humanism constitute a religion, then what about law?  Is law also a religion?

By my reckoning, the majority of people with a PhD have no beliefs in deities, miracles/magic, or an essence of the self that persists through death. Therefore such people are without religion regardless of what they believe.

If the standard of education reaches the point where a high school education becomes equivalent to today's PhD, and if you combine this with the trend that we already see of people leaving religion, then the extinction is inevitable.

All we really need is for Islamic nations to modernize because in their current state there is virtually no selective pressure on Islam.

LOL! You post one article from WOPO 2012, listing data from 2008. And another from the Barna Group that has been criticized for their botched data!

Who's pissing on who's leg?

Believe what you want. I am there! In the church and congregation..... so don't tell me anything if you are NOT!