Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief, or faced a hazard as powerful as that posed by modernity.
How is organized religion going to regain the true, choice-based initiative when only one of them is growing, and it is doing so with reproductive activity rather than by convincing the masses to join in, when no major faith is proving able to grow as they break out of their ancestral lands via mass conversion, and when securely prosperous democracies appear immune to mass devotion? The religious industry simply lacks a reliable stratagem for defeating disbelief in the 21st century.
Phil Zuckerman and Paul Gregory in The Edge
Interesting idea, but they don’t give evidence for their assertion. If you listen to people in Europe they will assert that all that has happened is that believers have abandoned the bricks and mortar and the priests (particularly the Catholic Church and the Church of England) , and are meeting informally in each other’s homes. This hasn’t happened yet to the same extent in the US, where priests and bricks and mortar are central to communities, indeed, the only centers – – if you don’t go to church you may not have any social life at all in the mid-West and South. I think their victory lap is somewhat premature.
Religions problem, today, is that it is in denial. Religion needs to be more science based In other words, we need a religion that welcomes objective evidence, not ones that reject objective evidence if favor of dogma.
To quote: “It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn’t know the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure.”
This is the number one problem with religion to day.
I doubt anyone could find a scientific basis for religion, but one can only try.
Easy! Base it on the teachings of Epicurus. Take no position on God. In other words, say “we don’t claim to know what God is like”. But then say “we DO claim, however, to know the WAY to find out what God is like”. And that way, is science, and objective knowledge.
The church would oppose only superstition in other religions.
I dream of the day, when a group of religious figures gather to advise the President. Would it not be fine, to have among them, one who demands science, and objective knowledge? Who castigates the others for superstitions, and delaying the progress of mankind? Would be nice. It’s a religion a scientist could join.
In this way, the chasm between science and religion is briged.