As religion wanes, how do we replace it?
Edit: This thread went off the rails a little in that the top comment is an indictment of religion (and me as a purportedly religious person) rather than an answer to the question. For the record I am not, and have never been, religious. I did go through a spiritual period, long ago now, but it wasn't associated with religion or God. Cheers, though, to the non-proselytizing religious Tilderianites who are trying to be good humans.
Clearly I should have done a better job of anticipating the potential misunderstandings but the ship has sailed.
I didn't want to steer the conversation by leading with my own thoughts about what the answer might be, but I've posted them now that the thread, like religion, is waning.
Don't let it stop you from posting your own take!
The question, rephrased is: As religion plays a progressively smaller role in society, how will we fill on the gaps that leaves? See below for example gaps.
[/edit]
I realize that the title is maybe evocative because it presumes that religion is going to wane but statistically it's reasonable. The percentage of the population that identifies with a particular religion correlates inversely with the education level and wealth of a country.
As countries develop, religiosity decreases. There are probably exceptions, but I don't think the numbers leave room for much debate about whether or not religion is declining globally. In fact, if you look at just the western world, excluding developing countries where both religiosity and fertility are high, the numbers are even more stark. Presumably as education level and quality of life in developing countries improves they will have a similar decline in religion to other developed countries.
Assuming climate catastrophe doesn't dramatically set development back for everyone of course. Totally a possibility but humor me and, for purposes of this thread, let's not speculate too much about that.
I realize also that none of this is really new information, just establishing context, in that spirit...
Historically religion has served some very important needs. Among them:
-
Community. Religion has been a key part of community in much of the world. We know humans need it, for all sorts of reasons, and I believe that right now we can see some of the problems that arise when they don't get it.
-
Meaning. Vitally important to mental wellbeing and well covered by most religions. I think some of modern society's ills are partially attributable to the meaning void left by declining religion. Meaning here referring both to meaning in the personal sense as well as meaning in the larger sense of being part of something bigger than yourself that feels deeply important.
-
Mortality. A key selling point of most religions is that they answer the question of what do do with the problem of impermanence. I think it's clear that, under the surface, many people are deeply insecure about their mortality and that it subconsciously informs their behavior in often not so great ways. So solving that problem with eternal rewards or whatever has been very important to the health of societies.
-
Decency. Religion usually lays out what constitutes being a good or bad person and establishes rewards and punishments to encourage people to be good. Note that I'm not saying an external set of guidelines is required for people to be decent, only that historically that role has often fallen to religion. As a result, a lot of our modern values have their roots in ancient belief systems.
-
Organization. Religions have often been at the core of important initiatives to improve people's quality of life and step in during disaster. They provide an ostensibly well meaning third party around which to centralize efforts.
-
Faith. There are definitely downsides to believing things without evidence but as a temporary coping mechanism when things fall apart, faith is hard to beat.
And more of course, I'll stop there for brevity.
I'll skip laying out the downsides of religion, for better or worse it's declining and will likely continue to decline. I think that's enough for purposes of the question: How do we replace it?
What are we going to fill the voids opened up by waning religiousity with? I have a lot of thoughts about the topic but no real universal answers. And I think it's a question we're going to need answers for, especially as we go into worsening global insecurity caused by climate change, wealth inequality, fascism and so on.
We're going to need foundational shared values. Is that possible without a centralized authority?
I realize it's a giant topic, I won't bias it with my own thoughts going in, feel free to take it in any direction you want.
I wholeheartedly reject your premise that religion has to be replaced by something. I think you even hint in your own post that it shouldn't be replaced. "As countries develop, religiosity decreases." This is undoubtedly true. But why? It isn't happening because some authoritarian government decided that people need to be less religious. It has happened without any external intervention. This suggests that people unconsciously feel less need for religion. This goes against your premise that there are needs no longer being fulfilled by religion. It isn't that the needs are no longer being filled, it's that the needs no longer exist. If the need no longer exists, why should we try and shoe-horn any new institution into society?
If you don't mind sharing: are you religious? This reads to me like a religious person who can't fathom how people without religion manage, and thinks they must surely be missing in their lives. I can tell you that is not true. We do just fine in our lives without religion.
As for the specific categories you mention:
Community: I go rock climbing at a gym pretty regularly. This is just as valid of a community as a religious community. Many people, myself included, find a community in fellow societal outcasts. For me it is ADHD. For some people, it is LGBTQ+. For some it is other transgender people. These communities serve the same function as religion. And most of these communities are far more respectful and welcoming to outsiders than many organized religions.
Meaning: You make claims here that I, again, wholeheartedly reject. Does religion give some people a sense of meaning? Sure. Is it required to have a meaningful life? Absolutely not.
Mortality: Sure, I guess. But you don't need organized religion to believe in an afterlife. You also don't need to believe in an afterlife to be okay with mortality.
Decency: I feel like this is the weakest part of your argument. Religion is not required to be a decent person. In fact, I have seen many religious people, including people in my own family, fail to be decent to fellow human beings because of religion. You only need to look at how many christians support the current US president, who is utterly antithetical to the values that Jesus Christ preached. If you don't want to delve into modern US politics, which I absolutely understand, there are plenty more examples of religious people, especially christians, failing on the most basic "love thy neighbor" belief of christianity.
Organization: This one is a reasonable loss. Having a support network is something that modern society does very poorly. Many of these losses could be addressed with better government policies and support systems.
Faith: To each their own, but I don't see how this is necessary at all. What value does it provide? How can a delusion actually help in these situations? I have been on the receiving end of the "it's all part of God's plan" platitudes a few times. In my opinion, that makes it more difficult to endure trying situations, not less.
If people want religion, and they are nice to the rest of the world, that is fine. I have nothing wrong with that. But I don't see any value in trying to keep or replace religion for those of us that don't need it.
I didn't claim religion is required to have a meaningful life.
I'm not even a little bit religious. Wasn't even raised religious.
It sounds like you're imagining replacing it with something similar. Which is worth exploring but certainly not the only option. People already replace it with all sorts of dissimilar things.
Where are you getting keep from?
I chose to reply to a selection of the more extreme assumptions in your post, there are kind of a lot.
From my perspective you've rewritten my post, recast my role as author, and then enthusiastically replied to your own version.
Which happens on the internet sometimes... but weirdly a lot of people seem to be fans of your rewrite, which I'm not sure what to do with.
After reading your post, I had pretty much the same reaction/response as Weldawadyathink. You started off your post with the premise that religion needs to be replaced, then listed all the things that religion gives us in a way that seems like religion does it best and that there aren't any other great options.
If that wasn't your intent, then your post needs a rewrite. It seemed well written, but paired with this reply, it seems like it's not conveying the information in the manner or tone that you had intended.
No argument there, at least for some readers.
I've settled on a couple things as the biggest part of the explanation. The first is skimming. There's nothing in the language that implies or claims that religion is the only or best source for the things mentioned. Or if there is I can't find it.
However, read quickly and reactively I can kinda see that interpretation, there a few places I can see opportunites to project a pro-religion sentiment even if it's a bit of a stretch.
Which leads to the second reason: it's an emotional topic. It looks like I failed to fully account for that.
The irony is that I originally started out by briefly highlighting the downsides of religion and the reasons why I think the human race is outgrowing it, which of course would have avoided the misunderstanding. But I decided there was no point revisiting that already well covered territory when it doesn't have any bearing on the ultimate question of what comes after. It also felt needlessly mean spirited towards religious tilderianites.
My takeaway, and it seems I will forever be relearning this: Never underestimate the potential for misunderstanding when it comes to emotional topics that involve something which has hurt a lot of people. You don't need to be the thing (in this case religious or pro-religion) in order to end up becoming a stand in for the thing.
I’m staunchly anti-religious - as in, everything I’ve seen and experienced leads me to believe religion is a net harm to the world, even if many religious individuals still do good in isolation - but I actually think the original question and premise is a very good one.
To me, the community and organisation aspect is a huge societal void right now that hasn’t been adequately filled, and I agree with a lot of the discussion around that in reply to @ShroudedScribe’s comment below. We do each still find community in our own way, and what you say about finding it with fellow outcasts absolutely resonates for me, but I can’t help but think it would be good for us all if there were also something shared that wasn’t quite so self-selecting - it’d actually be nice if I knew my neighbours more, even the ones I have little in common with! For all that I love the close knit groups I’ve found, part of me also wants to be pushed into some kind of shared space to interact with the people who’d otherwise never cross my path, to put names to faces, and to understand just a little more of their lives too.
Faith and meaning are also interesting ones. I have no need for the former, and I’m comfortable in my “nihilist, but make it positive” take on the latter, but it’s clear that an awful lot of people do see these as a void too. I think that without understanding and fulfilling that need in people, we leave a gap that will be taken advantage of one way or another - either by magical thinking in any of its forms, religion included, or by secular tribalism being wielded by those who are skilled at exploiting it. The latter is an obvious danger, and the former is a major concern to me because the more of the people around me believe in magic, the fewer I can count on to actually put in the work and make things better when the hard evidence says they need to.
If we don’t understand and acknowledge some people’s desire to fill these needs in a positive way - even if they aren’t needs we feel ourselves - I think we end up automatically ceding influence to those who will fill them cynically for their own gain.
Yeah, people do find community in places other than religion, the difference is that as you said, those places are self selecting.
If I'm into rock climbing, I join a rock climbing gym. If I'm into painting, I join a painting class. If I'm into hiking, I join a hiking group.
I'll only ever meet other rock climbers, painters and hikers in those places though. And those will always tend to be a certain type of person.
Throughout most of history, church wasn't like this. It wasn't self selecting. It was just something you, your parents, and everyone in your community did. It wasn't only for people who had certain interests, or for people who lacked socialization in their day to day lives, or for people with specific problems, it was for everyone.
As societies became both more secular and diverse, that's stopped being the case.
I don't know if that means it's necessary missing, just that we no longer have an institution like that. While the idea of getting to know my neighbors is nice to me on paper, the idea of getting compelled to spend a chunk of my weekend doing it every single weekend doesn't sound like something I'd be into.
Yeah, it’s a tricky one and these are very good points! Being totally honest with myself, there’s every chance I wouldn’t actually put aside the time to engage fully with a broader community group if it were available to me, and I’d definitely resent it and go out of my way to avoid it if it had any of those pseudo-mandatory qualities that church had in decades past.
I guess what I’m saying is that I have a lot of concerns about the atomisation of society in general - there isn’t really a concept of a town/village/neighbourhood knowing each other and helping out in a lot of places - and for all its faults, my understanding is that church (and specifically the act of going to church, rather than anything to do with the religion per se) counteracted that a bit in the past.
I don’t have a great answer: anything I can think of either falls back to being self-selecting, which we already have options for, or ends up pressuring people to join, which seems like absolutely the wrong place to start a positive movement from. Maybe a focus on bringing back third spaces would be a good starting point - build it and they will come?
It’s a whole rabbit hole unto itself, but I wonder to what degree that being busy and free time coming at a premium factors into this. Would we feel more inclined to get to know our neighbors if we could all make ends meet on 4 work day 8 hour jobs with no overtime?
Good point about a gap that can be cynically taken advantage of, I think we can see examples of this happening already.
The magical thinking problem is particularly interesting. Not just because of spiritual bypass, but also because religion has been training people to accept fantastical explanations without evidence for 1000's of years. The impact of that will continue to echo even as people drift away from religion.
I feel basically the same and you said it better, so I'll just say that religion is making a strong case right now across the world that it should be replaced. The main issue is, how do you reason with someone who can't wait for this life to end because their eternal life in heaven will be so much better?
Without regurgitating some information from looking it up: I assume
I agree with the overall sentiment: you don't need "religion", you need "community". And the one around the Bible is one of the largest possible communities out there. One that generally tries to instill good moral values and behaviors upon society.
I'll also be overly cynical and just say that religion is one of the most convinient and cheap ways to gather and meet new people, all under a tax-exempt physical location that can drive in a lot of volunteer work. It's nowhere near as difficult to keep a functioning church as it is a functioning bar.
I will go against the grain of the comments so far and say that your concerns about community are valid.
While I am genuinely happy that others have successfully woven into groups based on their interests or identity, many, many people have not done so.
There are many articles about a missing "third place" for those who do not attend church. Add in remote work, and there's not even a 2nd place.
That's my own thought and main concern. The thing about "community" is that religion doesn't just present a group of people, it has physical places where people routinely convene. People can attend church services every week and socialize, or go there to seek extra support from the priests and staff.
Yes, you can meet up with people at other places, but religion provides a very easy way and place to find communities. You move to a new place and you have to do research on local groups for various hobbies or interests, and hope they're open to new members. They don't have the clockwork schedule of religious rites like Sunday mass, and locations for meetings can vary wildly. But you can identify churches at a glance, and know they'll meet up at least once a week. You'd still probably need to do some research and test visits to make sure it clicks, but there are also usually multiple options, which isn't always true of certain communities. And they're all free.
And when it clicks and it's a good one, the support from the community can be truly invaluable. I hear so many stories of people suffering horrible losses, and fellow churchgoers collecting money or food or other supplies. I remember a blind girl at my college lived in a house owned by her church at either a discounted or free rate, on the provision anyone living there attend services and do some volunteer work. Heck, my mom has a good friend who's a pastor and runs a thrift store selling clothes for $1 that started with donations from his church, but the idea quickly expanded to serve the whole community and moved to a separate building.
I don't really know of a secular equivalent, and I say this as a lapsed Catholic/borderline agnostic who hasn't attended a regular mass in probably over a decade. Religious institutions provide one of the few surefire, easy ways to meet new people and socialize. Even if you're nervous around strangers, it's easy enough to attend service in silence a few times until you feel more confident in striking up conversations. And just being around someone in silence can build a sense of camaraderie and connection.
Yeah, I think people are getting caught up in their feelings about religion and whether religion should exist, but I don’t think that was the question being asked. It’s not that there are no alternatives - clearly many have lived fulfilling, loved, and meaningful lives without religion through history. It’s the more general loss of a structure providing a clear default for these core life aspects to a massive population, most of whom were simply born as members, who now have to find personal alternatives. They have to figure out how to help their children navigate the world “independently” when for generations they’ve been guided by and wrapped in the comfort of religion. It’s all much more fragmented, niche, location dependent than just being in one of the major world religions.
As you mentioned, I’ve lost count how many “death of the third place”, “feeling increasingly lost / alone / struggling to find identity or purpose”, and similar articles.
I'm sympathetic to the current loneliness epidemic meta-trend but I'd also like to remind people that religion is communal when it has a monopoly on attention. When there are competing sects religion becomes divisive and thus the north side of town doesn't talk as much to the south side of town--or even taking into account strange aspects of organized religion where you could find the case study of Spring City, UT:
Most of the population are Mormon and everything is all communal but then the church HQ decides that the town needs another chapel so they decide to split the town with arbitrary lines. Suddenly, you are not talking to your neighbors (who live just across the street!) as much--even though you belong to the same sect--you are "required" to go to different chapels. This decision for this comes from hundreds, maybe thousands of miles away. It disrupts the natural spatially auto-correlated geographical schemata of human mingling.
I will get back to the point that I initially set out to make: religion (ostensibly) forces people to get out of their bubble and interact with people that they might not have a reason to otherwise--increasing the velocity of socialization. But this only really works well when every one is forced to do it--otherwise it may as well be Gold's Gym where people who like religion are doing religion. The extra socialization factor in this case is zero. That's not to say that it isn't creating a community--just that it may as well be a bar or anything else. It doesn't have to be a chapel.
Reading some of the replies, I seem to have made the incorrect assumption that at least some of the larger conversations, around third places, community, belonging, isolation and so on were common knowledge. I feel like this is something we've been grappling with culturally. There's research too.
Certainly most must have heard or read something about the issues an increasing number of young men are having with identity and belonging in the western world. It even played a part in a recent notable election.
As individuals, we can work on filling our own needs, but as a society we need accessible ways for the majority of people to get their needs met, otherwise it won't happen for a lot of people and that will impact all of us.
I have seen those topics discussed on Tildes before, and in great detail. I think some people have focused on the "religion" bit rather than the individual aspects you listed. Which... Can be a touchy subject for some people, since religions can be quite harmful, and many people have unfortunately experienced that directly.
But the fact is, religions have historically served multiple beneficial purposes beyond faith. Community is probably the most obvious and currently relevant one in modern society, because as I mentioned in another comment, there really isn't an equivalent option that's free and has a firm physical location with regular meeting times. A lot of people use churches to socialize, especially when they've just moved. Historically in smaller towns they'd basically be the community center where the whole town could convene.
That ties into your point about organization, too. Churches and other religious institutions like synagogues and mosques place a large emphasis on programs to help others. In some communities, those are the most accessible or even the only such programs and services available to people in need. I mentioned already the thrift shop my mom's friend started in his church, and when I vote at our nearby church it's also sometimes had an ongoing food drive. Hell, I've seen multiple news stories of churches actively fighting their city in court for the right to distribute food to the homeless or provide shelter in emergencies.
There are nonreligious nonprofits of course, but that's not really the point. My main point is you do raise some good points about roles that religion currently serve that have little or nothing to do with the faith aspect. Religion also provides the "easy" answers for those struggling with meaning. Some people can easily find a meaning to their life, either through being content with themselves or joining some greater organization or finding a cause they can impact—there are a lot of potential answers. But for others it's hard to find those answers, especially with modern society where we feel all too powerless. So, the idea we're all part of some greater picture painted by a higher power can satisfy that for some people. There are plenty of other answers to meaning, but there really isn't a direct equivalent to the type of answer that religion poses.
I'll stop there because it's 1:30 am and my brain is not currently equipped for putting such complex thoughts into words. Honestly, I half-expect someone to take offense to some part of this comment, so as a reminder: I am NOT religious and am not trying to say "religion is totally necessary to have a decent life and without it you will be miserable". But people do like to have a sense of belonging, in multiple senses of the word, and religion provides an easy avenue for that. There isn't really any singular secular alternative that covers the major points you mentioned. There are individual alternatives to each one, but not any that tie them all together in one package.
Thanks for making your fried brain do one last trick!
And yes, that's the premise.
I think this makes the assumption that non-religious folks aren't already happily finding community, meaning, etc in their lives already. The beauty of humanity is that there is no universal answer to "filling" all of a person's needs. How different we are is part of the spice of life and individual needs are going to encompass an incredible breadth of things.
Some find community in hobbies, some by locality, some from ideology, and most of us from a spectrum of those things. To me, the question is being framed as "how do we commune without religion", but I'd reframe it to say that even now religion is just one piece of an assortment of things that fulfill even the most religious amongst us. Southern Baptists from Alabama might find community in football. Irish Catholics might find it through music or a local pub. Even now there isn't a catch all for how we define ourselves, our principals, or even our politics.
As a microcosm example I'll run through my own:
Community - I've talked about it before and most of my community comes from folks who engage with nature, sports, and interests in a similar way to myself. Some are just neighbors close to my age, others are into the activities I spend most of my time on (swimming, biking, climbing, volleyball...), and others I've found through civil service (municipal politics or volunteering). We all have a different web of support, and everyone's will be unique.
Meaning - Sure, maybe folks don't have an edict to evangelize, but meaning takes so many forms. It can be found in shared time with friends and family. It can be found in dedication to a craft or perfecting a food. It can be found in making the world just a little bit more pleasant. Look at who are leading the protests in LA or are dedicating themselves to medical research. Meaning is personal and can have absolutely nothing to do with religion. And it isn't so fragile when it's not attached to faith.
Mortality - Like everything unpleasant most folks don't want to experience death, especially if you're having a good time on this spinning rock. If you're not, you might just run to it. I think a unifying delusion - forgive the term as we don't know what happens but I'm coming at this from a secular angle - is comforting, but it's just something we all need to grapple with. Scary things exist. Bad things happen. I don't think closing our eyes and saying otherwise is much of a help.
Decency - This is so subjective and conjures images of Parker Posey from White Lotus. The idea of decency and "properness" is a form of control. It's why we hear about "indecent" acts at the superbowl like Rihanna or Kendrick. Your community gets to decide what is decent, having a universal version only acts to constrain and degrade local culture.
Organization - While religious organizations, like the red cross, have been key in disaster relief, many of those same organizations are powered by secular volunteers. It's just how we used to do things and organize. We can do the same with an NGO, or better yet, well funded agencies like FEMA. As a collective we need to prioritize collective benefit and move away from rugged individualism. Religious support often already comes with strings attached - you may sleep here if you come to mass or let me proselytize at you. It's why you had to add ostensibly to the statement: They provide an ostensibly well meaning third party around which to centralize efforts.
Faith - Placebo is a hell of a drug. My answer to this loops back to community and support networks. Things are difficult and they are easier to weather together.
I believe things will be no better or no worse without religion, it will just be different. The sectarianism we find in religion we can find in sports teams, foods, or preferences in general. The community and camaraderie it brings people can be found in those same things. I hope that as we learn more as a collective, we're able to accept each other differences - which may be easier when it's about the Yankees vs Red Socks rather than the entire creator of the universe.
It sounds like you're refuting the value of religion?
If it helps to clarify, I don't think we need religion to fill these needs, I think that for much of our history it was how we filled them.
You included a great list of alternatives, which is a sort of answer to the question of what we replace religion with, so thanks for that.
I think you're right that a lot of people have full lives with all of the needs that religion might have otherwise met fully satisfied.
I think, also, that a lot of people don't. It's those people I was focused on in my OP, because societies need to take care of them in order to be healthy.
Sorry for the original tone - I think like others I read it as "how does society function without religion" in the way it often gets pitched with the implied answer of "it can't". Totally my misunderstanding.
You're right, I live a pretty privileged life in terms of community but have also had long stints of loneliness and a lack of support. I recall moving from Berkeley to SF and having to call a friend of a friend to help me get my mattress into the Uhaul I had rented. When she showed up I made an excuse on why I didn't have anyone else and she said "ah, don't worry rosco. you don't have to justify not having any friends." At the time it cut pretty hard. So I agree, there is so much room for improvement. As for what do we do about it, that is a tougher nut to crack.
Some amount of it is that with hyper-capitalization we've commodified the things that used to create and sustain community: favors. Before Uber, DoorDash, Wag et al., people relied on family, friends, and neighbors to take them to the airport, borrow a cup of sugar, or pop over and watch their dog. The reason community exists is to support one another, but when you can pay an underpaid person to do a task instead then you don't need to "bother" people in your network. But it's those little things that bind us and draw us closer together. Moving a couch, cooking meals for new parents, or just dropping off extra pastries you grabbed at the farmers market are all things we've outsourced. Sharing fun times is important too, but doing favors and asking folks for help is a sure fire way to build a support network. So instead of calling an Uber or getting on Taskrabbit, I always text our neighborhood whatsapp thread. In this day and age I'm very lucky to have it.
There are also fewer and fewer places that political overlap happen, particularly where organization are concerned. I volunteer as a planning commissioner for our little town and it's been interesting getting to know the political opinion of folks I'd never associate with in my day to day life. And vice verse for them and me. It's been difficult to try and get on the same page, even with non-polarized topics like bike lanes for school age kids or skate parks. But it has taught me that there are active groups that organize to sway what the town does, though I have been a little disheartened that the majority of them are populated with the 65+ crowd. It can be frustrating when they are making decision that will impact the next 30 years of our town - a period they will not likely see and have no younger family in the area. But it's also highlighted how important it is to get new blood involved. We started throwing a "kegger" whenever something important was coming up. The price of admission was making a comment at the city council meeting - no direct on what to say - just that you had to participate.
The other issue around a loss of community stems from our physical spaces. Living in historic towns or neighborhoods is incredibly sought after because of how they are laid out. There are stores and amenities mixed into housing. Walking and biking are often prioritized because they were built before the advent of the car. And everything isn't garage > parking lot > store > parking lot > garage. You have to interact with other people. You pass and look at other stores. There is a lot more "wandering" involved. All things that encourage interaction and community building. My loneliest eras were when I lived in new parts of big cities or suburbs.
Lastly, there are actually a number of groups thinking through how to try and reverse the process we're seeing. A huge shout of to Strong Towns who tackle the issue from an apolitical urban planning stance.
I realize I'm coming back to this late and am truly sorry for the initial passive aggressive tone. I'm super here for community building and hope any of the efforts tilderinos are working on are having an impact and improving their lives. Have you personally found any success in building community where you live?
Great insights about various ways modern life makes community building (among other things) more challenging. When I originally posted I thought about talking about a wider variety of ways that things are changing but decided to focus on religion as the (once) nearly universal sort of hub.
Thanks for the Strong Towns mention, that's one of the sorts of things I was hoping to learn about, ways that people are actively trying to make a difference.
To answer your question about community building, I feel like I have enough community in my life so it's not something I've really focused on personally.
I'll throw in one source of new groups of people that's played a part in my life: dating and relationships. It comes with an automatic in to circles of people you might never have otherwise encountered. Both through friend groups and families.
Hi I'm an Orthodox Christian who believes in One specific God.
Opinion only : we don't replace waning of religion with anything at all, we let religion all hollow itself out and/or burn to the ground. Religion itself doesn't do human beings any good : loving other unlovable human beings does1. Can human beings live in decent societies and be decent to one another without religion? In ancient times, my belief is that it was possible but far harder. In modern times, we all live under the common and rich inheritance of things like "don't do human sacrifices", "respect the person without prejudices", and "ethnic cleansing bad". We all have reading & writing now, and can read all the wise sayings and journeys of good teachers across thousands of years and cultures and languages. Demons do not rule our lives or promise riches; predictability via science does.
Y'all might not agree with me on if there is a God or if it's this God, but I think we can all agree that people's lives are pretty fairly comfortable with or without religion today. And when they are not, we all agree we should be trying to help. The effects of religion are now taken for granted and as a matter of course basis for all human life. Where religion still holds power, it has power to corrupt and enable evil, like any power always has.
I also believe human beings live in a blessed, orderly universe, under a loving God who blesses regardless of whether you worship Him or not2. If the structure of cultural homogeneous religious worship leads to better love between human beings, religion will prosper. But if the structure leads to war, crime, injustice, murder, covetousness etc, we'll see buildings empty and organisations rightfully get burned to the ground.3
But enough preamble. I believe organisesd religion is already being replaced by good parts of humanity such as functioning supportive families, friendship, the Internet, public schools, safe working environments, labour unions, community volunteering opportunities, military legion halls, community centres etc. The good practices of religion will endure forever, even when it becomes illegal and punishable by death to practice. The truest essences of religion exist in every act of kindness we enact to another human being and unto creation. But the bad parts are thistles and weeds that benefit all God fearing and free thinking people and everyone to wither away, the sooner the better.
Bible verses tw
1. Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (the gospel according to St Matthew 22:37-40)3 I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts,
They have become a burden to Me;
I am tired of bearing them.
So when you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Yes, even though you offer many prayers,
I will not be listening.
Your hands are covered with blood. (God, speaking via the Prophet Isaiah I:14-15)
I’m not convinced that religion ever came up with any form of morality. The most core values are universal and often even shared by our relatives like apes and dogs who have a complete lack of megachurches. Things like sharing and not hurting people for no reason. Religion has co-opted many of these values as if they have “discovered” them and then added new things (no other gods but me, no gays, no shellfish, human sacrifice, etc).
What religion has done is motivate following some of these rules by creating a metaphysical punishment incentive, whether it’s hellfire or karma or being struck by lightning. I think we can now, with the benefit of hindsight, see that there are other reasons to be moral that exist in this life and not the next.
I'm as far from an answer here as anyone, but I'll throw in one point of discussion that I've given some thought to over the years: familial obligation.
One separator between religion and other more intentionally constructed community structures is the expectations that ones children will be brought into the religion as they grow up. I'd go as far as saying that, for many people, their induction into a religion as a child is their strongest connection with it.
I grew up culturally Jewish, and attending Hebrew school or having a bar/bat-mitzvah was a shared experience that, while not chosen by the children themselves, gave many people a strong shared identity. This effect seemed to overpower any personal beliefs about faith, morality, or societal roles. It's always been strange for me to see, as many people I've known would outwardly espouse secular beliefs, make light of their own religion or religion in general, and then quietly accept that "well... of course I'll still marry someone of _______ faith and raise our children the same."
This expectation to pass down identity to future generations has been a key part of what as driven many, myself included, away from organized religion. It contains a fundamental disrespect for an individual's self-determination. This can be seen acutely in religions that bar the expression of different genders/sexualities, but also in many subtle ways when people will be pressured to make certain life choices about who they form relationships with, where they live, or what goals to set for themselves.
All the negatives aside, it truly seems hard to replace the ties that are formed by this early and persistent push towards associating with an identity. It doesn't always feel right, but forced interaction and social pressure do seem remarkably effective in building a sense of community and belonging.
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I'm no expert but, among the jewish people I've known, what you describe is the closest thing to a commonality. Most of them care quite a bit about jewish identity, community and tradition but much less about God and even church.
There's a funny mix of constructive and restrictive when it comes to tradition, and the belonging that goes with it. But if you look at its near universal place in human history it seems to be, if not a basic need, then basic need adjacent.
For most of our history we've had these pathways into community, belonging and tradition that were just sort of built in. A lot of us grow up resenting them, and for good reason, but the less toxic versions have value that we start to understand later in life. What does a world look like with less of those default pathways? What percentage of people won't find their own alternatives and how will that impact their lives and society by extension?
When it comes to the jewish community, from my outsider perspective, I think there's a good chance jewish people will still be honoring some of the traditions right up to the heat death of the universe. They don't need it to be about God. Which could maybe be a model for replacing religion.
The realistic answer is Tiktok and AI. We're definitely moving more and more to a society that simply does not interact outside of themselves. And we don't even get the cool futuristic VR pods with it. What a boring dystopia.
Historically, yes. This is why anarchy fails as a societal theory. Not because it can't work, but humans have this natural tendency to seek authority and hierarchy amongst each other.
It's not impossible, but very very hard to establish culture without some central place of meeting. But that meeting place doesn't need to be extravagent; even some dinky building you rent out can be the bastion of a new, small community.
But there is an underlying sentiment here: the space needs to be cheap or free, unless your community is only for the wealthy. Or we can resolve the labor market and give people more time and money for freedoms. Pick one. Things are getting more expensive, and if it's too expensive to go out to a bar (one of the last third places), people will simply no go out as much. That's simply an economic factor. At least church had the benefit of being free (with some social pressures to provide tithes).
There's a concerning amount of truth to this. Algorithms designed for profit as the new divinity.
I’m personally strongly agnostic (all you religious people and atheists are wrong, there is no epistemological certainty in life! #TongueInCheek), and I agree with many of your points about the role of religion historically.
I’m going to even more against the grain and say that I’m not convinced religion will continue to decrease further. In this economist article they point out that religiosity in the youth has increased since COVID.
I personally think that AI will have a big impact on the meaning of life in a negative way. People find meaning through work or value in society and if AI does replace jobs it will remove meaning for a lot of people. Hyper specialisation will also negatively impact on the meaning people derive from jobs. I see religion as gaining ground from here out, especially as western cultural dominance across the globe slows and more religious places (or spiritual at least) such as Africa and India gain in cultural exports.
Having said that, I do suspect this will be heterogenous, with some areas become more secularism. I think unfortunately that identity politics has taken over some of the community aspect (I think identity politics divides people too much). As for decency, I think people already have non religious entities defining their ethics for them.
I think the main sticking points for religion are meaning, mortality and faith. Although even mortality people are trying to beat with science (although it will only ever be delaying the inevitable).
Interesting take. I disagree, but you make a good case.
One of the reasons I disagree is that the most of the major religions evolved to serve the needs of a more ignorant humanity. We have less appetite for supernatural explanations than we once did. Though we do seem to have an increased appetite for supernatural entertainment. Someone elsewhere in the thread mentioned Disney. Is Marvel the new pantheon of Gods? Well I guess this year it's DC.
That said, we are likely to have an increasing appetite for the community, belonging and meaning that religion offers. Possibly the post covid resurgence you mentioned is evidence of that. It did follow behind extreme isolation.
Long term and large scale I expect religion will continue to decline but perhaps it's not a totally foregone conclusion.
I mean, you got the receipts, but my anecdotal experience has been that religions are on the rise, not on the decline. Take Christian nationalism in the United States. Islam is also growing, as are Eastern religions. Paganism is making a comeback in certain European nations.
Maybe I’m wrong though. I don’t care either way, and I say this as a Christian myself.
What will replace religion, if that ever happens, is politics. In fact, for many people, it has already replaced religion. Indeed, now that I think about it, this was true already for all of the past century. Political ideologies replaced religion. That’s how we got two world wars, a cold war, and all the other wars. Much of it was political (religious) fanaticism. Insert your ideology of choice into all of the examples you gave, and it basically works the same. You can even mythologize the people who started the movements.
So, the way I see it, humans will always worship something. If they don’t worship themselves, others, or material means, then they worship a deity or an ideology.
Silly example maybe, but think about the story of the first three Halo games. The writers clearly understood this principle. The “Covenant” was’t atheist. It was an alliance based on religion... among species with highly advanced technology and scientific knowledge. Even the Forerunners treated the “mantle” and the “domain” with quasi religious zeal.
I like your thought experiment, but I don’t think that any grand conclusions can be drawn from it. Religion (and/or political ideologies) are here to stay. For better or for worse, they will exist for as long as humans do.
Here's my answer: science.
No no, hear me out :) I don't mean science as a snap in replacement, it's entirely unsuited for that. Although if you reframe science as a belief system and put it next to belief systems like religions... it's the most successful in human history by a huge margin in terms of power to affect the behavior of the majority of the world's population. Bonus: As far as I know, no one has ever fought a war over interpretation of scientific findings.
Anyway, what I mean when I offer science as a replacement is that we can use the scientific method to establish a reasonably objective understanding of what human needs actually are, and how to meet them. Additionally the importance of meeting them.
I've found the topic interesting for years and, having followed relevant research in a variety of fields, I think we're already most of the way there. More research is needed in some areas (more research is always needed) but right now I believe a well funded working group could compile data, do some large scale meta-analysis and come up with a solid start to quantifying what people need in order to have a fair shot at thriving. And in addition a basic framework for how that should inform our collective values and priorities. The UN seems like the logical home for such an initiative.
When I say basic needs, I don't just mean the animal basic needs like food and shelter, but also deeper needs like community, meaning and purpose. How deep that goes into the nuance of psychology, neurochemistry and mental health would need consideration.
Why do we need to quantify these things scientifically? Because that's what precedes organized action. If we have a strong empirical framework to work from, it becomes easier to make the case that these things should be priorities at a societal level.
Even from an economic perspective it makes sense to meet people's needs. It makes them more productive, better at cooperation and less volatile. It also makes them less of a drain on expensive systems. But that's hand wavy and easy to dismiss without evidence to back it up.
So why not compile that evidence, under a neutral organization, and turn it into a platform that people could use to inspire action? It seems obvious, but we haven't really tried it yet. Or maybe that's not the best way to put it, in a sense it's a big part of why the UN exists in the first place. So in some ways we have tried it. What we haven't tried is to going into it with the stated goal of using science to reimagine what our core values and priorities should be going forward.
Historically, government has taken care of the economy, infrastructure, international relations and other practical things while religion took care of more abstract and less capitalistic needs. Caring for the poor among them. There's some overlap in both directions but generally speaking. Things are changing in the modern world and I think we need to be intentional about how we address that.
Right now, many of our collective values and priorities (at least in wealthy countries) are informed by capitalism and we don't really have a strong alternative contender. Science could potentially provide that.
It's fun to imagine a science based framework that's strong enough in terms of evidence, and respected by enough people, to meaningfully change policy. To change how we measure success as societies and nations.
I recognize that there are all sorts of challenges, not least of which is pushback from capitalism itself. The recent rise in anti-intellectualism is another, though that has maybe started plateau for now.
I recognize also that there are things on my original list of needs traditionally filled by religion that can't be addressed by such an initiative, at least not directly. But I think that's okay. If you cover the majority of the list, that will give people the space and bandwidth to do the rest themselves. One of the biggest challenges for people is getting trapped dealing with things lower on the heirarchy of needs and therefore not having the opportunity to even consider the rest. In some ways (temporarily) incapable due to physiological realities associated with prolonged stress, fight or flight and trauma.
TLDR: Rather than replace religion with a collection of alternatives that serve the same needs, replace it with a new understanding of what to prioritize at a societal level. Use science to establish an objective framework for determining what that should look like and why it's a good idea.
I think Disney does that for a lot of millenial+ adults; it sounds crazy at first but when you're there watching the fireworks at night with (mostly) adult people, who made the pilgrimage to pay their way in to see the place where they are reminded of all the things they loved about being a kid—i'm not saying it's good or healthy, it honestly kind of freaked me out, but it definitely fits the bill/has the vibe of a religious experience. Not the life-changing, epiphanic kind, more the constant-devotion kind.
That was my thought about baseball. Or perhaps all sports. Why else would people pay money to sit in the sun, sing the same songs over and over, and observe something performed for them. There's a liturgical performance aspect of it: how they enter, who sits first, standing for a holy anthem, the correct cheering call and responses, clapping at the appropriate times etc
Some interesting research on the subject:
Also:
And generally, when they do give they give more:
And
I think there are other philosophical/intellectual problems that come with the loss of religion, but those are more abstract. The hard numbers from respected research outfits like Pew paint the problem pretty starkly: Secular communities, even where they exist, don't produce the same kinds of pro-social behaviors that religious ones do. It's not just qualitatively different in some abstract way, it's an enormous quantitative problem. By some estimates, 73 percent of all giving in the U.S. is directed at explicitly religious groups (e.g. Catholic Charities).
It's fine to have your personal beliefs and I'm not saying anyone is obligated to behave a certain way in terms of what or who they give their money to, but you can't really claim those statistics are insignificant with any kind of intellectual honesty.
That's really interesting... do you have links to the stats/research you quoted?
From Pew:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/04/12/how-highly-religious-americans-lives-are-different-from-others/
I wonder if this picture changes much if including support and gifts to less prosperous family. In my case for example I’m on the lower end of the range in the poll when it comes to giving to charities, but easily spend multiples of that on family because my background is poor and I’m the only one to have “made it”, so I feel some responsibility to share and act as support where reasonable.
I also suspect that secular individuals are more likely to be distrustful of charities (due to hearing about cases of mismanagement, misappropriation, hidden motives, questionable associations, etc) and donate to only the charities that they feel are trustworthy, which is naturally going to reduce raw numbers.