Religion is like opium. Too much opium can leave one dead in a ditch, but just the right amount can return function to the pain-crippled. — Mongrel

Too much religion will leave one dead in ditch?

I believe that, contrary to the recent(-ish) wave of positivism and the optimistic liberal prophets, humans are not as rational as they believe themselves to be, and that there is a significant aspect of the human psyche that requires ritual, symbolism and heroic narratives. Religion will not "win" in the end, but it will be maintained, even if it is transformed into the collective reverence of scientists (priests), the scientific method (ritual), the acquisition of "facts" that cannot be doubted (paradigm dogma), and the seductive idea that one day, some day, science (alongside liberal democracy, or Marxism, or anarchism, or whatever) will solve all of our problems and rescue us from death (the redemption myth). We already see this happening (and has been happening). Similar ritualistic behavior is found in the legal and economic systems.

So basically, to get rid of "religion" is to get rid of an integral part of the human psyche. It is not going to happen unless or until there is metamorphosis of sorts, probably when we all go extinct or something.

I hadn't thought of it that way. But yeah, I think you're right.

Religion will win in the end.

Agreed. Hedonism is and will be modernity's favorite new religion.

Oh good.

Thank you, your post really helped me to see how often "reason" simply supplants a religious authority (priests) for a scientific authority (scientists). It was also really illuminating to compare current technocratic theories like Kurzweil's singularity to good old redemption myths as they've always existed.
I still think, however, that there is something profoundly different between religion and science, because the scientific method, though ritualistic, calls for constant revision of observations and prevents an established dogma of facts to become sacrosanct. The Big Bang doesn’t ask me to rid my mind of all impurity so that its seed can blossom fully in the soil of my soul, and nothing I do can profane it's name. Although it is true that I rely more on faith in a scientific authority than on scientific beliefs, no single conclusion of science is essential to me. Only the scientific method itself is essential, this endless parade of hypotheses, all calling for my mind’s favor and none demanding my heart’s obedience.

Ah, so is hedonism where all begins and ends with, now? ;)

wut

smh

:-} By assuming that religion would be an integral part of the human psyche it is unsurprising that it appears to "win". But religions are cultural constructs, recall, systems of worship. To psychologize it, or describe established habits or methods in science as similar to religious rituals is not only exaggerated and seditious but false. Atheism, for instance, is not yet another religion.

Seditious? Anyway, there's a difference between science and atheism.

You're sounding kind of aged. Damn youngsters and their hedonism!

It might interest you that 'salve' and 'salvation' have the same root (obvious, when pointed out.) But I think from a philosophy of religion viewpoint, the question that needs to be asked is, what is the source of the 'salve' which religion claims to provide?

religions are cultural constructs — jkop

It might interest you that 'salve' and 'salvation' have the same root (obvious, when pointed out.) But I think from a philosophy of religion viewpoint, the question that needs to be asked is, what is the source of the 'salve' which religion claims to provide? — Wayfarer

When I took Latin in high school salvo meant "sustain", more or less. So, salvation would entail whatever might be permanently sustained, such as, in the Christian tradition, one's lower being residing within God after death, for example - this predicated by faith whilst living, of course. In this sense you can see why the bodily flesh, technology, or mere human ingenuity can become God-like constructs, "things" that can be thought to sustain pleasure, life, notions of progress, etc.

Interesting, and plausible.

It might also be a good place to recall the two derivations given for the word 'religion' when I studied comparative religion: the first, 'religio', attitude of awe and piety towards the Gods (Latin); the second, 'religare', from the root 'ligare', to join, meaning, to 're-join' or 'bind'. Similar in meaning to the Hindu 'yoga' meaning 'yolk or join'.

Again, religion has three main components: belief, theology, and ritual. The theology depends whether an individual's belief system can accept enough of the premises for it to be meaningful. Ritual has been found Important in society, and even the most vitriolic skeptics find themselves wanting wedding and death rituals, because the ritual provides an important normalizing factor in situations of extreme emotion.

Religion is like opium. — Mongrel

It's always a good idea to go back to the original text from which Marx's "opiate of the masses" came:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

There will always be theists and atheists. The reason there appear to be almost no atheists prior to the nineteenth century is that in most societies of that time public admission of one's atheism was tantamount to suicide.

Hence the apparently high levels of religiosity pre 19th C are a distortion caused by state enforcement of religion. Similarly the apparently high levels of atheism in the Soviet Union were a distortion caused by the reverse phenomenon.

I expect that, in the absence of coercion, the religious will be religious and the non-religious won't. Because of the natural wide variation in human psychologies, I expect neither group would drop below 25% of the population, and the split would vary within that range according to fashion and circumstance.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

..because through the Glorious Revolution, the workers will create Heaven on Earth, and have no further need of the imaginary Heaven of religion.

Marxism has an apocalyptic character. Apocalyptic religion is an Indoeuropean thing per Bernard Mcginn.

But the quote helps frame my point. I don't think the conditions that require illusion are ever going away...not for long anyway. Agree?

religious people handle adversity better than atheists, and I think it's because of the functionality-returning gift of anesthesia. — Mongrel

You have a very small worldview. If you want to talk about medicine, three million people die from vaccine-preventable diseases each year, child mortality in the tens of millions from poverty and hunger. Then you have millions upon millions dying in the Middle East.

Counter that with the millions of people who are still delusional enough to believe that competing with one another on Instagram somehow equates to superiority and self-worth. #hedonism where the sane start to appear insane to the masses.

When you broaden your worldview, all you see are vicious idiots everywhere. It is not religion that is the problem. It is humanity. We are cancer.

Religion is like opium. Too much opium can leave one dead in a ditch, but just the right amount can return function to the pain-crippled. I wouldn't say that this is hard and fast rule, but I've come to expect it: religious people handle adversity better than atheists, and I think it's because of the functionality-returning gift of anesthesia.

Religion thrives on the fear of "dead in a ditch". It transforms fear into hope for the faithful, for a life of bliss, a fetishized hope for eternal life. The faithful transubstantiate enduring present suffering as a means of achieving future bliss, this transubstantiation becomes the structure of the self.

The atheist does not escape this process, it became the structural bias of the future over the present in Western culture which is incorporated into our concept of progress. While the atheist does not have a transcendent escape route, it has science which it relies on to save it from suffering.

"Ditch" is an interesting word, it can mean a trench carved into the ground, or something we discard, or throw away, or an escape. A ditch almost like a wound to the earth as demonstrated in Maya Lin's Vietnam War Memorial, where the discarded names of the dead, enable our sentimental escape from their horrible realities.

I mostly agree, as the secularization thesis has now long been discredited. But I'm also not one to commit the tu quoque fallacy of calling secularism, atheism, etc "religions" as certain religious people are wont to do. If everything is a religion, then nothing is a religion.

All the same, irreligiosity has existed for not much more than a few generations in Europe, such that the dyed-in-the-wool non- or anti-religious atheist appears mostly as a creature born of post-Christian Western decadence and the rise of positivism (though I realize this does not make his or her position incorrect). At the moment, Europeans are not having enough children to maintain their expensive welfare programs and so have decided to accept massive numbers of immigrants, who are both religious and fertile. In East Asia, there are many atheists too, but unlike their European counterparts, they are still religious (usually following aspects of Buddhism, Taoism, and various indigenous religions). Hence, atheism need not be equated with irreligiosity.

When I took Latin in high school salvo meant "sustain", more or less. So, salvation would entail whatever might be permanently sustained, such as, in the Christian tradition, one's lower being residing within God after death, for example - this predicated by faith whilst living, of course. — Heister Eggcart

Well, perhaps salus is better as a word from which "salvation" is derived, which is to say "safety." So, believe in Jesus and you'll be safe in the after-life, or saved from Satan or sin or whatever naughty things all good Christians deplore. I prefer, though, to think of it as derived from Salve, a Latin greeting, which can be translated I'd think as "Hello!". Such a happy thought. So "salvation" would be the state of being able to say something along the lines of "Hi, Jesus!", as one would be a friend, a pal, of the Lord. Salve Regina is of course a Marianist hymn to his mother as queen of heaven.

Which of course is why religion will win. Everybody wants to be "a friend of Jesus" just as everybody wanted to be "a friend of Caesar."

I still think, however, that there is something profoundly different between religion and science, because the scientific method, though ritualistic, calls for constant revision of observations and prevents an established dogma of facts to become sacrosanct. — ichakas

You would think that, ideally, science would operate like this. But this is not really what happens. Established paradigms are pushed as dogma and alternative theories are not given their fair time. It isn't until an overwhelming amount of evidence, usually, that the scientific community will change its mind. A paradigm shift.

And further, although it is true that the "scientific method" (whatever that actually is...) is basically superior in most respects to straight-up religion, it nevertheless satisfies the need for ritual and the sacred, not just for the practitioners but the general public as well. Seriously, go take a look at some of the trending and bestselling books on science, especially physics and biology. The authors are falling over themselves attempting to show how "physics can set us free" or how "mathematics is the 'poetry' of reality" or the "greatest show on earth" or some incoherent lame-ass shallow bullshit. They have their head so far up their assholes with the belief that because they are scientists makes them qualified to publish their own shitty philosophical ideas as dogma. More often than not it's basically just self-help "look how beautiful the universe is! wow!" rhetoric that nauseates me to no end.

There is a recurring idea that scientists "know everything", or at least know a lot more than we common folk do. It's true, they do know more than the average person does in regards to their field. But my own experience and study of the history of science leads me to believe that scientists actually know more about the history of models than reality tout court.

It's hilarious to watch the mind gymnastics of those who claim to be superior in rationality and logic try to justify why they basically worship science in the way they do. There is no justification for the belief it will solve all our problems, and in fact there is a lot going against that idea. The "awe" and "wonder" one feels when doing science (or more likely, while looking at photoshopped pictures of dust clouds in space) is not "scientific" by any means and is the same thing the religious person feels, that "spiritual connection" with the One, the Absolute, the Singularity or whatever the hell you're into. The new trend, it seems, is to replace God with purple nebulae. m'kay.

Assuming my experience is not so far removed from the average, it looks as though science is an attempt at impartial and rational inquiry that either primarily or as an important byproduct satisfies religious needs: a community of like-minded individuals (ones' associates of fellow scientists), an emotional desire for the transcendent (the future apotheosis of human knowledge), ritualistic behavior meant to guarantee some consequence (the "scientific method"), spiritual leaders of knowledge (public scientists themselves), crusades of sorts (Age of Exploration, Space Race, nuclear power, medicine against diseases especially cancer, environmentalism, etc) that are prophecies for a future free of suffering and death (a "secular theodicy").

The point I'm making is not that science is bad, per se. Regardless of how effective science is, it nevertheless is not the product of our collective "unshackling" of religion - it's just another manifestation of this psychological need for religion. Without this need, science as we know it probably wouldn't even exist.

Everybody wants to be "a friend of Jesus" just as everybody wanted to be "a friend of Caesar." — Ciceronianus the White

But being a friend of Caesar isn't the same as being a "friend" of Jesus.

Secular theodicies be like:

I don't think the conditions that require illusion are ever going away...not for long anyway. — Mongrel

You've stepped into rather deep water, there.

Then you have millions upon millions dying in the Middle East. — TimeLine

How many "excess deaths" do you think there are?

The world death rate is 100% -- and has been for a long time. Of course there are people dying in the middle east. As well there should be; it's over populated, like much of the world. And in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, and South America people are also dying--millions upon millions. Do you realize that in our species' history, BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of people have died?

You'll be sounding like Carl Sagan, before long. "Billions and billions..."

When you broaden your worldview, all you see are vicious idiots everywhere. It is not religion that is the problem. It is humanity. We are cancer. — TimeLine

Oh, come now. Take a laxative and calm down.