Will Religion Ever Die?

Religion will die as science takes everything true about religion and makes it more accessible to everyone. Science isn't anti-morality, after all; it's anti-truth. So I foresee a future in which truths like "meditation is good for your longevity" proliferate, without the need for excess baggage like "You should worship this guy or that guy." And if it's true that helping others is actually good for you (as I'm sure it probably is,) that will become a matter of scientific fact as well. So I guess religion won't die, in the sense that everything good and true about it won't die, but it will die in the sense that hoards of people won't be believing in things that require faith. Unless science proves that faith in such people, or a God, leads to happiness and longevity. I think people have the paranoid misconception that science is conspiring to disprove these things. It's not, although I think it's fairly likely that faith in people who can't be proven to exist isn't good for your mental and thereby your physical well-being. It's probably bad for us all that people try to act out on an authority that isn't really there in a factual sense. Such hypocrisy can only breed strife and discontentment.

In the future, science will be able to tell us clearly what paths will lead to longevity and happiness, and all those who can be arsed to follow suit will. And the rest of us will be content being sometimes happy and sometimes not as we always were.

 

Again you miss the point. Armstrong suggests, and I believe her, that religion is not just a primitive attempt to do what modern science does better. I think it's doubtful that science can give us meaning or values.

 

Nowhere that I know of. The "Christian Scriptures" (by which I assume you mean the New Testament) aren't concerned with robust programs of self inquiry. Most of the religious experiences came from intervention by the Holy Spirit. Starting with Pentecost (Acts) and Paul, there was plenty of that. The first programs of contemplation and meditation came in the 4th century, with Evagrius Ponticus's apathia, a self-disciplanary program for "being without passion." The Spiritual Homilies, attributed to Macarius of Egypt, another fourth century thinker, have influenced mystics throughout subsequent history. Julianus Pomerius' De vita contemplativa ("On the Contemplative Life") in the fifth century is a classic in the field. Later contemplative writings include the Phiokalia of the Greek Orthodox hesychasm tradition and the works of Saint Gregory of Sinai, Saint John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of Avilla. For an overview of the Christian contemplative tradition, see
http://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/christian-contemplative-tradition
The Christian tradition most resembling Buddist practice, especilly Zen, is called the apophatic-- the way of no images, silence, moving away from subject-object distinction. This is exemplified in The Cloud of Unknowing and Meister Eckhart's methods. Another strand, the kataphatic, uses rich visonary images as the writings of Catherine of Sienna or The Beguines. In the Christian contemplative and meditative traditions, there is less emphasis on emptying the mind than in opening it to the Holy Spirit.

For a comparisons of Christian and Buddhist meditation, see http://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/christian-contemplative-tradition
http://reachtheworldnextdoor.com/documents/buddhists-article.pdf

For a good, brief comparison of Christian and Buddhist thought, see http://www.frimmin.com/faith/lotuscross.php

 

Then if the core texts of christianity do not lead one to contemplative practices, but instead contain nothing but declarative statements to be followed and believed by power of authority, christianity seems to fit more into the less mature category of religions as described in the video, no?

You mean most of the descriptions of religious experiences contain references to one "Holy Spirit", a concept found in the dogma of the practitioners.

A contemplation of this may yield one to the conclusion that they are clinging to a concept for which they have no evidence, and are in fact, at base, having mental experiences within themselves, which contain the symbolism that they have been filling their mind with for years.

Just as in Islam someone having a religious experience will describe it with reference to Allah, Quran, Mohammad, etc.

Yet if we strip away those conceptual categories (which is what contemplative practice does when done properly) we find at their core experiences not at all connected with the holy texts through which they are being described.

 

Which lead us to the conclusion that the religion is far more than just it's holy texts ... and it appears the followers are not limited by their holy texts either, especially when it comes to their religious/spiritual experiences

 

If " less mature religions" means real religions, I think that's true. As I think even you have said, Buddhism seems more like a philosophy than a religion in many respects, but it is a discipline involving constant spiritual practice. That's why I regard it as complementary with Christianity. I must say, I doubt that the Buddha would compulsively spend hours of his time running down other people's religions, so from that standpoint it could do some of us good.

Yes, a person practicing Christian contemplation and meditation is filling his/her mind with thoughts drawn from the Christian religious tradition: the Sermon on the Mount, peace, love, and understanding and all that rot. Is that so bad?

Christian contemplative practices are not directly dictated by the Christian texts but use parts of the texts as focal points of meditation. The Catholic rosary is essentially a mantra providing a repetitive background drone for meditation. The beads likewise keep the hands occupied in repetitive activity not unlike Buddhist use of malas or prayer beads.

 

"As much use as there is in a well with water in flood on every side, so much is there in all the Vedas (scriptures) for the one who has the knowledge." - Bhagavad Gita.

 

He devoted his life to running down the mental attachments people had, religion being a giant, neon, flaming target. And "running down" peoples religion, or to put it less misleadingly, helping people to outgrow their delusions, can come from a place of great communion with humanity and respect for their intellect and compassion for their lives.

 

^
Key word: CAN ...and respect?

 

I can respect an individual while thinking their ideas are the most ridiculous and stupid thing I have ever heard in my life, unworthy of respect.

Ideas are not people, and ideas do not get a free pass, ever.

 

Ideas are just ideas. It is what people do with them that we perceive as worthy of (dis) respect.
People are intrinsicly connected to the conviction others have about their ideas/beliefs. For example many atheists wouldn't be antitheist or antireligion at all if no religious follower acted upon said ideas, or (ab)use such ideas/beliefs in a way it troubles others (i mean are troubling others with it in physical reality, not trouble others simply because others take notice of it by reading and happen to find the ideas troubling )

 

speaking from personal experience covering many altered states of awareness, I can pretty confidently state that applying good 'ole Occam's razor to the dilemma, I am left with no other explanations for my experiences other then those found in the NT descriptions of event relating to the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Yes, I have looked for alternative answers or causes, and after 36+ years, still haven't found anything that explains and describes what I have experienced other than those Biblical accounts.

You may not like it, it may ruffle your feathers but I have no need or desire to be dishonest concerning my experiences, I am well versed in psychology, psychedelics, meditative practices etc, etc, that I feel confident that my discernment of the differences is valid.

This is one point that always gets pushed aside in these talks, the personal revelation/conversion which is the very core of Christianity, not a bunch of dogma and doctrine.
Whenever the discussion gets bogged down in debating doctrinal differences, history, current events, etc, than you have already missed the point.

I guess you also missed the point of Jesus admonishing his followers to avoid vain repetition of prayers and other methodologies of altering awareness.
There are no set guidelines for meditation and doing shit to "get more spiritual" for that very reason, it was counter to Jesus message and NOT REQUIRED because conversion is an instantaneous process.
Wham! Bam!, your converted man!

Mr. Writer, as I have mentioned previously, you would do better to hold your own in these talks if you actually understood the subject matter more than just what you see on youtube videos and pop culture presentations of Christiandom.
Often I read some of your response and just roll my eyes much the same way you do when reading China's posts.
It's not because I think you to be stupid, quite the opposite, but I am dismayed/disappointed that a person of your intellectual prowess tends to stoop to juvenile bullshit and comments when you don't even have a clue about the actual topic matter. I kinda assumed you would put some study into it if it was that much of a hot topic for you.
I don't know man, but I try to learn as much as I can about something before I start sounding off as vehemently as you do.

If you want to go on about religious assholes, great, watch Sunday morning TV, rant and rave all you want and I'll be right there with ya, if you want to actually talk about the religion, you need to forget all that other crap and familiarize yourself with the actual text.

 

I do not think that peoples faith or beliefs will ever be totally gone but I do think there is a general move away from established places of worship. Most formal religions have had a steady decrease in churches (etc) active memberships.

 

This is the problem with personal experiences if you try to use them to back up an argument of this sort.

I'm not being dismissive either MeAgain, but as Noxious said it was his personal experience, how could you find validation for it? For your own experiences, of course, I'm not doubting or disputing that. But if Nox finds a sufficient validation or confirmation in the Bible it's his affair. Providing he's not saying that is the only source for everybody I don't see too much of a problem.

Just as I find things in various sources that have helped me to contextualize my own experiences.

 

explanations of what specifically?

Please elucidate on what you assume I am talking about and then provide these explanations along with current, observable phenomena.

as blackbill rightly mentioned, how can you provide explanations of my personal subjective experiences?

Meagain I am actually offended by your attitude because as I plainly stated, I have looked into and considered numerous possibilities and explanation for the last 36 friggin' years. I would also venture an educated guess that I am better versed in navigating altered states of awareness than you and have had considerable more and varied experiences in these type of matters than you have. and yet you simply dismiss it all because it doesn't jive with your paradigm.

don't be such a myopic dickhead.

 

Time for your monthly period again?

 

Can you go into those experiences and how the bible is the only possible explanation for them?