Religion may not survive the internet

[pellegrino]

NPR is running a series about religion's death spiral in America. Today was about the problem of evil and suffering. Specifically, the segment focused on people who'd lost their faith as a result of terrible tragedy and religion's failure to provide any true solace. The segment was brutal, really tough stuff.

Among those interviewed was a woman who lost her beloved husband after he was burned over most of his body including the horrible disfugurement of his face. As he lingered for 36 days in the hostpital before he ultimately died, a priest prayed over him. The woman spoke bitterly about how the priest and other religious people blithely told her that her husband was being "called home" and would be in a better place. Finally the grief stricken wife could bear no more of such banality, and orderd the priest out of the room. She was left alone to raise to two young daughters. She said that today she believes her husband is gone forever, and she will not see him again, except that she experiences indescribable joy seeing her husband in the face of her daughters.

Also interviewed were parents who had lost children violently, etc. One woman, whose 21 year old son was gunned down by an acquaintance after the son returned form serving in the military overseas, said that she finally realized she'd have to find a healing for her horrible continuing grief all by herself, because religion and its banalities and nonsense could not help her. She has been able to recover somewhat becoming a licensed counselor for other parents who have lost children to violence.

This made me think, everyone could use a true poet or sage at times of deep personal loss. Wouldn't it be great to have that, whatever you believed about the Creation or virgin birth. The problem is that God's representatives are so utterly prosaic. Religion needs to offer more spiritual and intellectual nourishment in THIS life.

I assume many here saw this article written by an evangelical pastor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/op...?smid=pl-share

Religion is toast. But fortunately human beings are finding plenty of meaning and reason to be decent and practice the golden rule outside religion.

Well said. I think the pastor nailed it when he talked about the backlash against Evangelicals. I don't dislike Evangelicals because of what they believe, but how they go about professing their beliefs and the political nature that has assumed. The same could be said about most orthodox Mormons. It's not what they believe, it's the way the go about it.

[Sleeping in EQ]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/reli..._the_internet/

Several references to LDS church.

I think religion will survive, but it will most definitely be transformed.

I agree with you, and there are plenty of scholars in this area who do too. I would compare the transformation to the one that accompanied the arrival of the printing press. Hierarchies could transform radically.

[Sleeping in EQ]

They were aping religious movements. They had their own made up religions. But you know that; many here have tried to explain it to you.

If I may interject, these atheistic movements shared a common element with religious movements. The philosopher Ernest Gellner describes how some ideas resonate with us so deeply that they "crystallize," and we don't set them aside easily. We have faith in them beyond reason. He describes how Wittgensteinian linguistics, psychoanalysis, Marxism, and fundamentalisms of various sorts all have this common element.

An upshot of what Gellner argues (and in my view, persuasively) is that neither atheists nor religionists get to play the moral trump card. We are all living in the glass house, so to speak.

[SeattleUte]

If I may interject, these atheistic movements shared a common element with religious movements. The philosopher Ernest Gellner describes how some ideas resonate with us so deeply that they "crystallize," and we don't set them aside easily. We have faith in them beyond reason. He describes how Wittgensteinian linguistics, psychoanalysis, Marxism, and fundamentalisms of various sorts all have this common element.

An upshot of what Gellner argues (and in my view, persuasively) is that neither atheists nor religionists get to play the moral trump card. We are all living in the glass house, so to speak.

I think you first have to define your terms. Based on the part of my post to which you were responding its seems you are equating atheists with Nazis and Communists. That is ridiculous.

Here's the thing. I seem to be missing a chip. I don't have that religious belief itch, I don't miss the religious community (the subject of today's NPR death of religion segment), in fact it's the religious community that makes religion unpalatable to me, and I perceive plenty of reason, motivation, and emotional and psychic urge to do good deeds without religion telling me to do it (religion is a non-factor for me in this respect). Maybe I'm an outlier.

[tooblue]

If I may interject, these atheistic movements shared a common element with religious movements. The philosopher Ernest Gellner describes how some ideas resonate with us so deeply that they "crystallize," and we don't set them aside easily. We have faith in them beyond reason. He describes how Wittgensteinian linguistics, psychoanalysis, Marxism, and fundamentalisms of various sorts all have this common element.

An upshot of what Gellner argues (and in my view, persuasively) is that neither atheists nor religionists get to play the moral trump card. We are all living in the glass house, so to speak.

Are you a Gellner-ite of sorts? A follower; a sympathizer? If so, for me, it explains a lot—even, perhaps, your board name.

[DrumNFeather]

I think you first have to define your terms. Based on the part of my post to which you were responding its seems you are equating atheists with Nazis and Communists. That is ridiculous.

Here's the thing. I seem to be missing a chip. I don't have that religious belief itch, I don't miss the religious community (the subject of today's NPR death of religion segment), in fact it's the religious community that makes religion unpalatable to me, and I perceive plenty of reason, motivation, and emotional and psychic urge to do good deeds without religion telling me to do it (religion is a non-factor for me in this respect). Maybe I'm an outlier.

And yet here you are, interacting with a bunch of people who, have all come together on a message board because they are currently or once were a part of a religious community. So doesn't that make you in some small way still a part of the community...even if it is limited to an internet message board that discusses said community?

I'm not being snarky, I'm just curious to know how you compartmentalize this place as it pertains to a religious community?

[SeattleUte]

And yet here you are, interacting with a bunch of people who, have all come together on a message board because they are currently or once were a part of a religious community. So doesn't that make you in some small way still a part of the community...even if it is limited to an internet message board that discusses said community?

I'm not being snarky, I'm just curious to know how you compartmentalize this place as it pertains to a religious community?

Granted. There is nothing I'd rather do than meet at the Magnolia pub with a bunch of exmos and progmos, throw back a few adult beverages, watch a good game, and talk some religion, current events, smart phones and history.

[byu71]

I think you first have to define your terms. Based on the part of my post to which you were responding its seems you are equating atheists with Nazis and Communists. That is ridiculous.

Here's the thing. I seem to be missing a chip. I don't have that religious belief itch, I don't miss the religious community (the subject of today's NPR death of religion segment), in fact it's the religious community that makes religion unpalatable to me, and I perceive plenty of reason, motivation, and emotional and psychic urge to do good deeds without religion telling me to do it (religion is a non-factor for me in this respect). Maybe I'm an outlier.

Do you feel the need to get acceptance from the religious community. In other words if they patted you on the back and said, we appreciate you just the way you are, do you think you would still have the angst you seem to carry?

I ask because I have been there. Belonged to a tribe and disagree with some very basic things the tribe believes. I feel the need to show the tribes failings every chance I get to justify my position.

It is easier when I just let it go and not really care if the tribe accepts what I think or not.

It won't matter to you, but I accept you just the way you are and I really don't care if you ever become religious or not. I believe you can be a very good person and be an agnostic, atheist or whatever.

[UtahDan]

Do you feel the need to get acceptance from the religious community. In other words if they patted you on the back and said, we appreciate you just the way you are, do you think you would still have the angst you seem to carry?

I ask because I have been there. Belonged to a tribe and disagree with some very basic things the tribe believes. I feel the need to show the tribes failings every chance I get to justify my position.

It is easier when I just let it go and not really care if the tribe accepts what I think or not.

It won't matter to you, but I accept you just the way you are and I really don't care if you ever become religious or not. I believe you can be a very good person and be an agnostic, atheist or whatever.

I think most people get there in time if they can. A lot of it is a function of how much you are forced to still swim in those waters. I've noticed the transformation in my own feelings that you are describing (though its not complete) though I have the luxury of having basically nothing in my life that stirs that up or antagonizes it in any way. But I have a friend who very basically disagrees with the tribe, as you say, whose husband is a tribe member, she lives in a smallish Utah town where everyone else is too, where she is a constant project and other kids aren't allowed to play with her kids (the only thing she has really done publicly is support the pants thing). She's not in anyone's face, but word has gotten around. I don't think she is going to have as easy a time getting to zen as you and I.

[SeattleUte]

Do you feel the need to get acceptance from the religious community. In other words if they patted you on the back and said, we appreciate you just the way you are, do you think you would still have the angst you seem to carry?

I ask because I have been there. Belonged to a tribe and disagree with some very basic things the tribe believes. I feel the need to show the tribes failings every chance I get to justify my position.

It is easier when I just let it go and not really care if the tribe accepts what I think or not.

It won't matter to you, but I accept you just the way you are and I really don't care if you ever become religious or not. I believe you can be a very good person and be an agnostic, atheist or whatever.

I don't crave acceptance from the tribe. I crave being my authentic me.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I think you first have to define your terms. Based on the part of my post to which you were responding its seems you are equating atheists with Nazis and Communists. That is ridiculous.

Here's the thing. I seem to be missing a chip. I don't have that religious belief itch, I don't miss the religious community (the subject of today's NPR death of religion segment), in fact it's the religious community that makes religion unpalatable to me, and I perceive plenty of reason, motivation, and emotional and psychic urge to do good deeds without religion telling me to do it (religion is a non-factor for me in this respect). Maybe I'm an outlier.

I am not equating atheists with Nazis and Communists. I appreciate what you are saying, but don't see how it connects with my comment. Maybe I'm just obtuse today.

[byu71]

I don't crave acceptance from the tribe. I crave being my authentic me.

Not being a philosopher or linguist I may not understand the correct interpretation of the term "crave".

To me if I am craving something it would by definition be something I don't have. How can I not be the authentic me unless I am acting or being what someone else wants.

So that leads to my question. When you are craving being your authentic self whose influence are you under that causes you not to be and aren't you naturally angry at them?

[byu71]

But I have a friend who very basically disagrees with the tribe, as you say, whose husband is a tribe member, she lives in a smallish Utah town where everyone else is too, where she is a constant project and other kids aren't allowed to play with her kids (the only thing she has really done publicly is support the pants thing). She's not in anyone's face, but word has gotten around. I don't think she is going to have as easy a time getting to zen as you and I.

I truly feel for people who find themselves in this situation. It frustrates me to think that those who shun her actually think they are doing what God would have them do. I couldn't convince them otherwise, but as far as I am concerned they have a very warped sense of who their creator and savior are.

[SeattleUte]

I think most people get there in time if they can. A lot of it is a function of how much you are forced to still swim in those waters. I've noticed the transformation in my own feelings that you are describing (though its not complete) though I have the luxury of having basically nothing in my life that stirs that up or antagonizes it in any way. But I have a friend who very basically disagrees with the tribe, as you say, whose husband is a tribe member, she lives in a smallish Utah town where everyone else is too, where she is a constant project and other kids aren't allowed to play with her kids (the only thing she has really done publicly is support the pants thing). She's not in anyone's face, but word has gotten around. I don't think she is going to have as easy a time getting to zen as you and I.

If you took that little town and transported it perfectly intact to another planet, pretty soon they would stone her. Mormonism is a bizarre anachronism here in 21st century America (hence Americans' interest in the dull stuff of the Book of Mormon musical), but Mormonism's moderation is the result of its being unavoidably steeped in our secular American society.

[wally]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/reli..._the_internet/

Several references to LDS church.

I think religion will survive, but it will most definitely be transformed.

Not surpisingly, I agree with another engineer.

Conversation here has touched on the ability of people to find meaning in their lives, and be good people without religious influence or observation. I agree with this, and I think that to transcend to this level of self actualization requires significant introspection.

But I also wonder if the introspective mind has problems with the fact that there is no answer to the "why?" of our existence, that religion attempts to resolve. To a certain extent, we answer the "why?" ourselves and we find our own meaning sometimes through raising children, mentoring, or other giving endeavor, but that doesn't answer the "why did life begin, or to what end?" questions. These questions have no scientific answer. Maybe some day they will, but likely not soon.

I also wonder if these types of articles are an artifact of a maturing millenial generation that, above all, is infatuated with itself and its own worldview. I wonder how millenials will handle their mortality and their aging, and whether there will be a mass return to religion when it becomes more useful to them in 40-50 years.

Or maybe by then the internet will help them cope with their impending deaths and their facebook pages will be left as a virtual autobiography of their impact on the world securing their immortality in a sense.