Guardian: No religion and an end to war: how thinkers see the future

[stopbush]

No religion and an end to war: how thinkers see the future

Alok Jha, science correspondent
Monday January 1, 2007
The Guardian

People's fascination for religion and superstition will disappear within a few decades as television and the internet make it easier to get information, and scientists get closer to discovering a final theory of everything, leading thinkers argue today.
The web magazine Edge (www.edge.org) asked more than 150 scientists and intellectuals: "What are you optimistic about?" Answers included hope for an extended human life span, a bright future for autistic children, and an end to violent conflicts around the world.

Philosopher Daniel Denett believes that within 25 years religion will command little of the awe it seems to instil today. The spread of information through the internet and mobile phones will "gently, irresistibly, undermine the mindsets requisite for religious fanaticism and intolerance".

Biologist Richard Dawkins said that physicists would give religion another problem: a theory of everything that would complete Albert Einstein's dream of unifying the fundamental laws of physics. "This final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue death blow to religion and other juvenile superstitions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1980978,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

[Dudley_DUright]

1. I am afraid that this prediction is naive at best and highly unlikely (unfortunately),

and I am a Ph.D. physicist myself.

[Bill McBlueState]

2. what does Dawkins mean by a theory of everything?

Does he mean a theory that explains how gravity was united with the other forces just after the Big Bang?

Because the average religious believer won't understand that, much less take it as a compelling reason to stop believing in his or her god(s). Darwin explained the origin of species without recourse to gods 150 years ago, and that hasn't kept people from believing what they want about biology.

People have been predicting the end of religion for a long time, but it keeps hanging on.

[stopbush]

9. The theory of everything was Einstein's Third Great Theory.

See here for a backgrounder: http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/articles/kaku.asp

[murray hill farm]

12. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, thank you!

That was a marvelous read!

[Kerrytravelers]

3. I'd like to think the use and manipulation of religion as a tool of power will disappear.

I personally don't see all forms of religion as a threat to a free society. Not everyone is marching goose step along the christo-fascist zombie-brigade.

[tularetom]

4. Future wars will be fought over the earth's dwindling resources

Religion may cease to be a rationale but unless the growth of the human population of the earth is contained we will continue to war over oil, water, and food.

[shrike]

15. People have always fought for all kinds of reasons

And dwindling resources is one of them. It's as old as the hills: history is full of examples of peoples with identical spiritual beliefs who fought viciously for decades, even centuries.

But that said, you're absolutely right. And even if religion is out of the picture as a "rationale" others will pop up in its place.

And, quite frankly, it frightens me to think of that kind of struggle on a global scale.

[struggle4progress]

18. And all sorts of non-religious superstitions will be associated with our resource wars:

Americans will continue to fight for Middle Eastern oil under the glorious banners of "spreading democracy" and "saving the world from WMDs"

[ixion]

5. "a few decades" is optimistic, at best, IMO

Institutionalized religion is difficult to shake off, especially if you don't have a support group of some sort handy to help you through.

[endarkenment]

6. Huh?

"fascination for religion and superstition will disappear within a few decades as television and the internet "

Like for example in the USA where the pervasive influence of television over the last 50 years and the growing pervasiveness of the internet have been directly correlated to a decrease in religion and superstition? Oh wait, that is not true at all. In fact a good case could be made for exactly the opposite conclusion.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. I pray that this comes true.

[Evoman]

25. Lol..the irony is killing me.

[Warpy]

8. Perhaps as more charismatic relgious leaders are exposed

as total frauds who preach the opposite of what the religions they claim intended, we'll see a whole lot less political power wielded by churches and a lot less bullying by their members.

Anyone who has ever watched a roomful of gamblers knows we're basically a superstitious species, relying on ritual as much as luck. Religion is never going to go away, in other words.

However, the problem seems to be the degree of organization it is able to maintain. It's reasonably benign at the level of a local church. When it extends beyond that, developing a hierarchy and buying up property, it becomes both powerful and pernicious.

We will reduce this with every charlatan who is exposed, every large religious organization that is exposed as a scam dedicated to extorting money from the poor to fatten the dishonest, will result in a decrease in the organization's ability to do serious mischief.

[murray hill farm]

10. I believe it!

religion serves to give people an explaination of what they do not know or understand...it calms the dread of not knowing...as explanations come to light, understanding the everything will replace the need for religion. there will come a point..and there is a scientific name for it that I do not recall, but it is the moment in time..predicted to occur around 2012, when computer ability will double itself once every minute....and all questions will be answered.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. The Singularity; a.k.a. The Rapture for Rationalists

Certainly, not all rationalists; but the idea has a surprisingly large and passionate base of believers among those who fancy themselves as entirely rational thinkers.

--p!

[Phredicles]

13. 2012? Isn't that when the world is supposed to end according to

the Aztec calendar (or is it Mayan)?

Not that I really read anything into that, mind you.

[sarge43]

14. "The dream of reason produces monsters" Goya

:

[happyslug]

16. This has been predicted since at least the time of the Civil War.

It has NOT happened yet, the reason is the people advocated this do not understand "Religion". Religion is more than a belief is God (In fact Religion will survive even if everyone stops believing in God). Religion is a "World View" i.e. how you think the world is and should be. Computers can not change such world view (i.e. do you believe it is better to help someone suffering, or to leave them to die on the grounds that is the function of "Survival of the Fittest"?), computers may provide more information, and complete gaps in our knowledge of the Nature and the Universe, but NOT how we view our place among our fellow humans (and our relationship to Nature and the Universe).

Most of the people advocating that Religion will disappear have a world view and want people to adopt that world view. In affect such people do not want to end religion but have all of the people adopt their "Religion" as the one and true religion. That religion holds scientist like the High Priests of old, that "Science" should be the highest form of Study and that any thing that does NOT meet these requirements is "False" (Just like the Catholic Church during the Middle ages). Now these Scientist have not defined what this new religion will be, they can not agree on the exact dogma, but believe that with some more research these disputes will be resolved and you will have a "Universal" rule of how the world works, and once these rules are found, everyone will adopt them.

Rosa Luxembourg wrote a paper close to this subject in 1903 (and expanded on it in 1905). In both papers she went into details about the nature of the Church and Society and how the Christian Church has changed since the time of Christ (This later idea is in her 1905 paper not her 1903 paper). In Both papers she opposed the Church as an agency of the State being used to keep the working class down. On the other hand she also opposed the "Anti-Clericalism" that was common in France in that time period. Luxemburg attack Anti-Clericalism as a ploy to separate the Working Class from adopting Socialism by providing a false set of opposition between the "Bourgeoisies" and the Catholic Church. This false opposition had been caused by the raise of "Bourgeoisies Atheism" (A term used by another Writer of the time period) which differentiated from "Proletariat Atheism" in that the later permitted and did not interfere with (or encouraged) private belief, while "Bourgeoisies Atheism" wanted no belief in anything (let alone God), if such beliefs interfered with the Bourgeoisies control over the Working class.

Luxemburg and her fellow Social-Democrats of the time period opposed discrimination for or against any religion, but also opposed attempts to suppress such beliefs as NOT being in the best interest of the Working class. In simple terms there is NO GOOD REASON TO ADVOCATE ENDING OR SUPPRESSING ANY RELIGION BELIEFS, if that is to occur it will occur in its own good time. On the other hand people who express opposition to religion often have other agendas, including denying the working class the ability to organized themselves by denying them access to forums NOT under the control of the Bourgeoisies.

In many way Luxemburg was right, most people advocating the ending of "religion" often have an agenda that puts them in control. In many ways, these Group of Scientists are frustrated that a huge segment of the population do not treat them as our rightful leaders, instead looking to Religious, Cult, family, Lawyers, Politicians and even their neighbors for guidance on how to view the world.

You can see this in that these scientist are frustrated that once the Church lost it function as the main form of communication (Which it was till the mid-1800s when pulp paper and high speed presses made what we today would call a "newspapers" possible). Despite being replaced as the primary News distributor by Newspaper in the mid01800s, the church survived as part of the social fabric. This frustration can be seen when the "Scientists" comment about the Internet and Television, finally doing what the Newspaper and the radio did not do, replace completely the pulpit as a information source. Despite the replacement of the pulpit by other (and better) news distribution systems many people's world view is still govern by what they hear from a pulpit, as opposed to what these Scientist say their world view should be.

What these scientists failed to accept is while we may get a much better understanding of how Nature and the Universe works, most people will NOT be able to understand those concept themselves, not because they can not, but they do NOT HAVE THE TIME. Religion provides a world view that helps people live their lives day to day. Religion provides enough information for most people to operate very efficiently. As Doyle had Sherlock Holmes observed in one of his Books, Holmes did not know or care if the earth went around the sun or the sun around the earth, either way the sunlight reached the earth and Holmes could use that information to solve the problems he was facing. If Holmes needed more he would then and only then get more information, but Holmes refused to keep in his brain any information that was of no value to him. Thus Holmes did not know (at least in the Doyle Books of Sherlock Holmes) that the Earth traveled around the Sun.

The same for most people who live today or 20 years (or 200years from now) from now, how a Cell Phone work is NOT important to them, as long as it works. How the universe relates to itself is unimportant, unless the information is of some use to the person who receives the information. That everything can be explained using a complex calculation does nothing to help a person stuck in rush hour traffic.

My point is what these Scientists are saying will occur, is based on a false premise, that these Scientist KNOW why people believe in one religion or another (or don't Believe). That Belief is based on gaps in our knowledge of how the world works and once those gaps are filled, religion will no longer be sustainable. The problem with this presumption is that Religion is NOT just a set of beliefs design to explain the unknown, but how people are to live with each other, how does one view one's place in society. Do you believe it is better for people to die, so that the more fit can survive, or do you believe you are your brother's keeper? Both are religions beliefs, the first is Social Darwinism, the later traditional Human beliefs as our function as a member of society. Increase knowledge of how Nature and the Universe works will NOT determine which set of world view we want our fellow humans to have and as such Religion will Survive for a very long time to come.

For Rosa Luxemburg 1903 Article " An anti-clerical policy of Socialism" See the following:.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1903/01/01.htm

Some of her other writings:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/index.htm

More on Luxemburg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg#Further_reading

[struggle4progress]

17. The Great War in 1914 took Victorian optimists by complete surprise ..

.. since they expected that the enormous scientific progress of the late nineteenth century would remove all reasons for war.

Even the Marxists, who had in the years before 1914 predicted the war based on their economic analyses and who had discussed in detail what their response should be, were incapable of believing their own predictions and ultimately were surprised as anyone else when the war actually began.

[Silent3]

19. About as much as I'd venture to hope is possible...

...is that, as a result of atheists speaking out loudly and clearly and letting everyone know we're here, that we aren't dangerous, and that if you feel inclined toward atheism you aren't alone, religion will loosen its grip a bit on American culture. I'm cautiously hopeful that in 20-30 years someone could run for high office in the US without hiding his or her atheism and win.

[Danger Mouse]

21. That would be awesome.

Every U.S. president has been:
1.) white
2.) male
3.) Christian

I am curious as to which of these three trends will be broken first.

[Danger Mouse]

20. 'Juvenile superstitions'?

I'd like Dawkins a lot more if he wasn't such a dick about it...sheez...
Anyways, keep dreaming guys, people are ALWAYS going to kill each other. Always. Even if religion is out of the picture. They will find other reasons to kill each other.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Exactly! The following phenomena have served as pretexts for wars and

civil strife:

1) Land and resources: the Biggie. Would U.S. troops be in Iraq now if it didn't have oil?

2) Ethnicity (both sides in Darfur are Muslim)

3) Language: Civil strife in India, Canada and Belgium over the rights of linguistic minorities

4) Clan loyalties (Somalia)

[Danger Mouse]

23. Some people...

...hate religion so much that they blame ALL of our problems on it...eliminating religion will not magically make all people enlightened beings that are governed by reason and solve their problems through rational discourse rather than violence. There are plenty of evil atheists out there, too, proving that human beings don't need religion as an excuse to be evil.
It certainly helps, though.
Anyway, the supposition itself is waaay too optimistic.

[varkam]

27. Why not go after it anyway?

I'm an advocate for tighter gun control because I believe that if there are fewer guns, then fewer people will die even though I know people are still going to be killing each other. I'm also an advocate for economic empowerment of impoverished areas, even though I know crime will continue for other reasons.

My point is this - if you think that religion is one reason why people kill other people, and even one reason we might be able to do something about, why say that we shouldn't worry about it? I agree that there are other reasons people kill but religion is, hands-down, the most senseless reason of all (and, one should reason, the easiest to deal with).

[Danger Mouse]

28. Yeah, but you're never going to get rid of it, totally.

At least, not in the foreseeable future. Maybe if we reach some sort of super enlightened age at some point...if that ever happens...
The most logical goals right now, are to restrict the power and influence of the religious right, and to get more recognition and understanding for atheists.

[varkam]

29. We're never going to get rid of guns or poverty totally, either.

To use your words, at least, not in the foreseeable future. I agree with the goals that you mention, and I think that would be a big step to making things a little bit better in this country. However there are many places in the world that could do with a maximum-strength dose of sanity.

[Danger Mouse]

30. Agreed on that one

=)

[Evoman]

24. There does seem to be a trend towards progressiveness

but these scientists are being overly optimistic. I mean...people in first world countries, who have been exposed to science in school (formal setting), still would rather believe in the idiocy of creationism, rather than the fact of evolution. What does this say? You think that some TV or internet is going to change anything?

I've been completely disillusioned in that respect. I went to the bookstore the other day...a bookstore with a good selection of science books, and history book. Was anybody buying them? No. People were to busy buying books about Auras and tarot cards.

You can't educate people who don't want to be educated, no matter how much media is available to them. And there is no bigger force for anti-intellectualism than religion.

And an end to war...not likely. Wars won't end until people stop fucking themselves into greater, and greater populations. Resources are finite. People are greedy assholes. Wars will never end.

There is only ONE way I would predict war would end...and thats if we invented some sort of Replicator (like in Star Trek). If somoene would invent that, and then we managed to get it out to the people without some asshole cheney-ish leader taking control of it, then maybe we have a chance. Otherwise, dream on.

[kiahzero]

26. Some philosopher

Philosopher Daniel Denett believes that within 25 years religion will command little of the awe it seems to instil today. The spread of information through the internet and mobile phones will "gently, irresistibly, undermine the mindsets requisite for religious fanaticism and intolerance".

Non sequitur.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Since many people in European-derived societies still believe in astrology

about 1700 years after Christianity, a belief that is logically incompatible with astrology, became a major force in the Roman Empire, I think religion will hang around in some form for a few thousand years yet. People's aptitude for doublethink can be quite amazing at times.