Religion "will endure"

[ant]

Here is an interesting statement written by the "father" of sociobiology E.O. Wilson;

religion..will endure for a long time as a vital force in society. Like the mythical giant Anteus who drew from his mother, the earth, religion cannot be defeated by those who may cast it down. The spiritual weakness of scientific naturalism is due to the fact that it has no such primal source of power.. So the time has come to ask: does a way exist to divert the power of religion into the service of the great enterprise?

This quote may evoke strong feelings in those slanted toward the militant direction that new atheism promotes (public scourging of religion, antagonism, religious-like atheist congregations, etc. etc).

I think the recent fad of new atheism is irrationally attempting to find a way to "divert the power of religion" toward what may be described as the adoption of a "scientific wordview"
Could such a worldview ever become viable?


(Robert stepping in to promote and praise the scientific worldview as superior in 3, 2, 1...)

[youkrst]

Religion will endure?

i would have thought, of course, religion can, will and should endure.

but were some of the contents of some of the religions to endure, well that would be a shame, to say the least.

knives will endure, but hopefully unprovoked stabbings will decrease.

a "scientific wordview"
Could such a worldview ever become viable?

i think it already is.

[youkrst]

The spiritual weakness of scientific naturalism is due to the fact that it has no such primal source of power.

dont agree with that, "all that is" seems a primal scource of much power, and then some.

[Interbane]

This quote may evoke strong feelings in those slanted toward the militant direction that new atheism promotes (public scourging of religion, antagonism, religious-like atheist congregations, etc. etc).

I think the recent fad of new atheism is irrationally attempting to find a way to "divert the power of religion" toward what may be described as the adoption of a "scientific wordview"
Could such a worldview ever become viable?

I agree with the psychology, even if I don't get the metaphor in the quote. There is truth to naturalism lacking the spiritual power that some people seek. It's obvious from discussions on this forum that there are many people who are satisfied without religion, in a spiritual sense. But I don't know if that could apply to the majority.

I mentioned in another post that if some variant of a naturalistic worldview arises that can take the place of religion, it would need to have something that could be sanctified. It's my opinion that we could develop something similar to humanism with a core set of principles that would serve as 'oaths'. Even still, comparing a codified set of oaths to the idea of an infinite agency is a lopsided comparison. It's far easier to sanctify a worldview based in supernaturalism. That isn't to say it will always be that way.

[LanDroid]

...

[youkrst]

it would need to have something that could be sanctified.

how about everything? ie. sanctify the experience of life itself, or sanctify the universe.

just in the last few hours i have sanctified

doing the washing
todd rundgren messing with get lucky
daft punk get lucky
wp8
family interaction
a letter
thought
and a heap more.

i sensed power and awe in all these things.

one man's flat as a pancake is another man's numinous wonderland.

filled with mysteries, surrounded by wonder, free as a bird whilst still in prison.

simultaneously submerged in the oceans and flying amongst the stars.

it's the legend of the phoenix....

Like the legend of the Phoenix
All ends with beginnings
What keeps the planets spinning (uh)
The force from the beginning

the gospel according to daft punk

roll your own to taste.

let's ask the reverend Alex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQH8ZTgna3Q

[geo]

There is truth to naturalism lacking the spiritual power that some people seek. It's obvious from discussions on this forum that there are many people who are satisfied without religion, in a spiritual sense. But I don't know if that could apply to the majority.

One thing seems sure, there will never be a one-size-fits-all approach. Nor do I think that would ever be desirable. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. Some people gravitate towards supernaturalism and others towards naturalism. There are obviously those, like myself, who grew up with religion and simply reject it for themselves. Again, I think it’s important to recognize that not everyone sees the world as you do. It is perhaps a very human tendency to see your way as the best.

Ant asks if a "scientific worldview" could ever become viable? Well, yes, of course. I think it already is viable for many people. As a society, it behooves us to understand that worldview is the very subjective way we experience the world and also that there is a wide spectrum of worldviews. In that sense there is no right way or wrong worldview. However, it’s also clear that extreme beliefs can lead us astray. Which end of the worldview spectrum is more conducive to a realistic view of the world? And is that important?

As an aside, I don't know if there are more atheists now than at any other time in history, but it’s probably true that atheists are no longer fearful of societal retribution or are otherwise restricted from discussing their views. Also the internet seems to bring out a bluntness in all areas that would have been shocking in years past. So it may seem that the atheist movement is growing, but perhaps it is simply more vocal.

[ant]

There is truth to naturalism lacking the spiritual power that some people seek. It's obvious from discussions on this forum that there are many people who are satisfied without religion, in a spiritual sense. But I don't know if that could apply to the majority

That's a good point.

If the mechanism to promote naturalism to the majority is science, then the promoters of science and a so-called scientific "rational" worldview are dependent upon the psychological conditions of the aforementioned majority.
But the psych conditions of our society are not interested in science. It is not a popular institution. It never has been and never will be in the way some puritanical rationalists wish it were.

A largely secularized society does not find spirituality in an institution it is indifferent with.

The argument for a scientific worldview leaves the majority unmoved because it is not science that influences people spiritually. Puritanical rationalists (celebrity atheists most prominent) are aware of this. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to turn reason into propaganda (and coercion ie book tours and movies)

[Kevin]

I think ~

Beethoven will endure
Dostoyevsky will endure
Einstein will endure

and everything else that endures can be fit into these categories as need be.

No offense to E.O. Wilson, as I have read one of his books and enjoyed it very much even if I cannot recall its title. Some things endure while others leave an aftertaste!

[ant]

I think ~

Beethoven will endure
Dostoyevsky will endure
Einstein will endure

and everything else that endures can be fit into these categories as need be.

No offense to E.O. Wilson, as I have read one of his books and enjoyed it very much even if I cannot recall its title. Some things endure while others leave an aftertaste!

That's nice but people ultimately turn to institutional constructs for meaning and purpose.

I doubt Einstein, Beethoven, Dostoyevsky, or even Pee-Wee Herman will ever provide a worldview that gives meaning, purpose and value to life on their own.

And part of my point was that science never has, and to this day does not capture the psyche of culture.
Evidently Justin Bieber is more popular than both Einstein and the institution of Science itself.
Hence, the promotion of rationality desperately turns to propaganda and vitriol in an effort to arose "interest" and overthrow religion and stars like Bieber


In light of that, good look with that "rational" scientific worldview and the pipe dream that religion will one day be eclipsed by rational naturalism.