Religion Becoming Extinct in Some Industrialized Countries

[Jeff K.]

Personality cults do not mean deification. They can mean a deep abiding love for a leader. No one thought Charles Mansion was a god, but he was their leader. Non theological.

[Jeff K.]

One wonders if personality cults are more apt to develop where theological constraints are removed.

[zelder]

I think the matter is bigger than "religion (Christianity) vs. atheism". Instead of focusing on one specific set of views and a specific label ("religion" or "Christianity"), we should probably look at the common ideas and viewpoints shared by religious people of all stripes which are rejected by self-proclaimed "atheists".

For example, as 44Foxtrot pointed out, some supposedly "atheistic" societies were largely dependent on personality cults that tried to replace a worship and adoration of God or Jesus with the worship and adoration of their leader. That being the case, can we say that the people in these societies were truly "atheist" just because they didn't formally worship a "God" in a commonly recognized organized religion? Or should they still be considered "religious" because their thinking (and actions) were similar to some people who are unarguably religious?

Thats a good point. Are atheists more or less inclinded to believe in the law of chastity? Are they more or less inclined to believe in forming families? There may not be any difference in the first generation but how about the second generation or the third? Do atheists feel accountable to anyone or anything during times of temptation? Are they more or less inclined to do something that is wrong if they know they can get away with it? These are the questions that run through my mind.

[cinepro]

Personality cults do not mean deification. They can mean a deep abiding love for a leader. No one thought Charles Mansion was a god, but he was their leader. Non theological.

What I'm wondering is if atheism isn't just a rejection of "religious" thinking, but also the kind of thinking that leads to personality cults and other non-religious but irrational modes of thought.

[Jeff K.]

Atheism is a very basic concept. It rejects the idea of a God, a trail of yarn, which when pulled, must also reject what is claimed to have come from God. This leaves a vacuum. That vacuum is easily filled by personality cults. Religion tends to have constraints against any given person being God (at least in modern times, Japanese emperor aside), so atheism I believe opens up the cult of personality, religion has constraints against it. Atheism has no constraints, be it Stalin or Mao both of whom rejected religion and religious morality entirely.

[Jeff K.]

Irrationality is something man adheres to. Dadism is not a religion.

[Pahoran]

I am not saying that Marx modeled the Russian Communist State after the United Order.

In which case you were merely attempting to smear by association. All the cheapest demagogues use this technique, so it is only natural that the fellow who once tried to convince everyone that "Christine Jonsen" killed her children as a logical consequence of normative LDS doctrine would try it.

What I will say is that these kinds of wrongheaded utopian ideas are often manifest in religious cults. And make no mistake about it, State Communism as practiced in places like Russia and still today in Cuba, North Korea and elsewhere has many features of a religious cult, including the cult of personality that must be built up around the leaders in order to keep the rank and file in line.

Yes, state atheism is in many ways indistinguishable from other state religions.

But make no mistake: the "cult of personality" is not a feature of religion; it is a substitute for it.

Pahoran, let me help you out with some examples of cults of personality.

Oh look, everybody; I'm about to be patronised by somebody who thinks he can argue that a thoroughly atheistic ideology has more in common with religion, which it merely tried to replace, than with atheism, which is what it actually is.

It's the "Christine Jonsen" argument all over again. When are you going to stop trying to run these arguments, Foxtrot?

Victor Suvorov described the cult of personality in action when a high-ranking Soviet general came to visit a military unit. Before his visit, the soldiers all read up on the general's career, found out about his likes and dislikes, the places he'd served and the battles in which he'd fought as a young soldier. They hoped to be able to curry favour with him in conversation. However, when the general arrived, he didn't meet and greet the troops at all; he simply sat them all down in the auditorium and gave a speech, which he read.

The soldiers wondered what was going on about three minutes into the speech when he stopped mid-sentence and started again from the beginning. A few minutes later he again stopped mid-sentence and started again from about halfway back. This pattern continued throughout the speech as he droned on, without once looking up from his notes. Soon it became clear what was going on: the general had been handed his speech in duplicate. That is, there were two copies of page 1, two copies of page 2, and so on throughout. But he was so senile that he simply forgot what he had just read as soon as he turned the page, so he ploughed on through the pages in front of him, not realising that he was reading every page twice. The soldiers sat there, poker-faced, and when he finished (having read the last page for the second time) they gave him his proper tribute of thunderous applause.

Can anyone -- apart from you, that is -- seriously imagine anything like that happening with an LDS congregation? The fact is that after about the second page, someone else on the stand would twig to what was going on; he'd come to the pulpit, whisper in the speaker's ear and assist in separating out the duplicate pages; and the whole audience would chuckle while it was happening. Remember John H. Groberg and his famous "outhouse" blunder, which he himself wrote up in his memoirs? How unlike a real "cult of personality" is that?

A cult of personality is when every citizen in is expected to have an image of the Dear Leader prominently displayed on the walls of their home. The fact that members are encouraged by their leaders to have Mormon icons prominently displayed in the home is noteworthy in this regard.

And many Catholic homes have pictures of current and past popes. I once visited a Catholic home that had, "prominently displayed" in the hallway near the front door, a nicely framed indulgence given to the husband by Pope John XXIII. I've visited homes that display portraits of the Queen, and government offices that have pictures of government leaders "prominently displayed."

Furthermore, what you describe, with deliberate vagueness, as "Mormon icons" are not usually pictures of any "Dear Leader." That is, as you perfectly well know, a descriptor used by atheists. The brethren actually encourage us to have pictures of the nearest temple "prominently displayed in the home."

But then, you knew that, didn't you? That's why you used that intentionally vague "Mormon icons" in order to mislead by insinuation, instead of blurting right out the provable falsehood that we are encouraged to have pictures of our leaders. Of course, you know you'd get caught if you tried that one, didn't you?

Having pictures of temples has nothing to do with a "cult of personality." You're trying to manufacture a bogus parallel and you know it.

I have no further use for you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[44Foxtrot]

I have no further use for you.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

Didn't realize that you were actually using me.

(Now I feel so ashamed.)

____________________________

BTW, Mormon Icons I have seen displayed in LDS homes, aside from the ubiquitous "official" Temple photos and close ups of the Angel Moroni statues, include pictures of Church leaders (much more in David O. McKay's time than now, I will admit) including Joseph Smith and imagined scenes from his life, the imaginative painted scenes from the Book of Mormon, several LDS specific versions of pictures of Jesus Christ, including a photograph of the statue from the cultural center, and all kinds of embroidered, stitched and other renderings of quotations from Church Leaders. I never noticed this stuff so much in LDS homes either, until we finally got it out of ours.

[Walden]

Thats a good point. We have probably had predictions for thousands of years that religion would go away. The Book of Mormon cultures had their bouts with atheism. Atheist cultures don't flourish, they wither and die and blow away with the winds of time. I was reading the NOM forum and they were wondering why atheism has never caught on and flourished. I laughed but didn't comment.

Yes, we have had predictions for thousands of years that religion would go away. And many religions have done such that.....do you know anyone who still worships Zeus, Apollo, Ra, etc. Those religions that once worshipped these gods have gone the way of the dodo.

Just like language and dialects become extinct, we know that religions become extinct too. Personally, I don't think that this is a result of the attacks from atheism or that atheism offers a better alternative. Rather, it is simply because as science and technology advance, the questions that were once the provence of religion are being answered by science. And not in the ethereal, "because it is god's will" sense for answers, but rather, with answers supported by fact and objective evidence. As the mysteries of the world are revealed through science and technology, there is less reliance to look to the skies for answers.

In anticipation of the forthcoming arguments that I "deify" science, I am well aware of the shortcomings of science. Of course science doesn't have all the answers, and there are still innumerable mysteries for which science doesn't have an answer. But the one constant in human history is the slow, steady advancement of science and technology. As previous religions failed and faltered, and yes even became extinct, science and technology continued to plod along, even exposing some of the folly of religious thought along the way. And despite the roadblocks that religion generally attempts to erect against science (see the role of the Catholic church during the dark ages and up through the Renaissance, or the current movement to debunk evolution in favor of creation mythology in the clasroom), science continues it's march forward. Is science sometimes wrong.....of course, but it also has a knack for eventually self-correcting.

This is why religion is becoming extinct, not because of attacks from atheists or even in favor of atheism, but rather, because the need to look to heaven for answers to real world problems is becoming less and less as science and technology provides rational, objective evidence for those things that were once considered mysteries.

[44Foxtrot]

Yes, we have had predictions for thousands of years that religion would go away. And many religions have done such that.....do you know anyone who still worships Zeus, Apollo, Ra, etc. Those religions that once worshipped these gods have gone the way of the dodo.

Just like language and dialects become extinct, we know that religions become extinct too. Personally, I don't think that this is a result of the attacks from atheism or that atheism offers a better alternative. Rather, it is simply because as science and technology advance, the questions that were once the provence of religion are being answered by science. And not in the ethereal, "because it is god's will" sense for answers, but rather, with answers supported by fact and objective evidence. As the mysteries of the world are revealed through science and technology, there is less reliance to look to the skies for answers.

In anticipation of the forthcoming arguments that I "deify" science, I am well aware of the shortcomings of science. Of course science doesn't have all the answers, and there are still innumerable mysteries for which science doesn't have an answer. But the one constant in human history is the slow, steady advancement of science and technology. As previous religions failed and faltered, and yes even became extinct, science and technology continued to plod along, even exposing some of the folly of religious thought along the way. And despite the roadblocks that religion generally attempts to erect against science (see the role of the Catholic church during the dark ages and up through the Renaissance, or the current movement to debunk evolution in favor of creation mythology in the clasroom), science continues it's march forward. Is science sometimes wrong.....of course, but it also has a knack for eventually self-correcting.

This is why religion is becoming extinct, not because of attacks from atheists or even in favor of atheism, but rather, because the need to look to heaven for answers to real world problems is becoming less and less as science and technology provides rational, objective evidence for those things that were once considered mysteries.

I would say that you have described the situation accurately and very succinctly. Really don't see how anyone could argue with what you have said here. Well done.

[ELF1024]

This is why religion is becoming extinct, not because of attacks from atheists or even in favor of atheism, but rather, because the need to look to heaven for answers to real world problems is becoming less and less as science and technology provides rational, objective evidence for those things that were once considered mysteries.

Your now your just replacing God with Science, it's still religion. Just look at the zelots who try and protect their "Global Warming" ideas.

[Pahoran]

Yes, we have had predictions for thousands of years that religion would go away. And many religions have done such that.....do you know anyone who still worships Zeus, Apollo, Ra, etc. Those religions that once worshipped these gods have gone the way of the dodo.

So they have. And they were replaced, by and large, with other religions.

When discussing the notion that religion per se is "becoming extinct," it's a bit irrelevant to point to religions that died with their parent cultures and were replaced by other religions.

Just like language and dialects become extinct, we know that religions become extinct too. Personally, I don't think that this is a result of the attacks from atheism or that atheism offers a better alternative. Rather, it is simply because as science and technology advance, the questions that were once the provence of religion are being answered by science. And not in the ethereal, "because it is god's will" sense for answers, but rather, with answers supported by fact and objective evidence. As the mysteries of the world are revealed through science and technology, there is less reliance to look to the skies for answers.

And this is where you are wrong. I believe it was Carl Sagan who first popularised the notion that religion was a failed attempt to do science. That is simply nonsense. While some believers have undoubtedly looked to religion for answers to scientific questions, the fact is that religion is no better equipped to answer those questions than science is to answer religious questions.

There are two famous examples of science-versus-religion that frequently appear in discussions like these. The first is the story of how Galileo Galilei, strictly scientific astronomer, was silenced by the Catholic Church because his strictly scientific observations conflicted with the biblical dogma and superstition of the Church.

This story is a myth.

Yes, the Catholic Church tried to silence him; but it was not because his scientific observations opposed the Bible, but because he chose to make a political issue of it. The Catholic Church had committed itself to a geocentric view of the universe known as the Ptolemaic system, named for the astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus. This view was not derived from the Bible -- Ptolemy was a pagan -- but from scientific observation. Galileo supported the newer (and better) system developed by Copernicus, and later refined by Kepler. None of this got him in trouble with the Church until he wrote a play that dramatised the new system as being superior to the old, and poked fun at the Church for still holding to the traditional view.

The point is that Ptolemaic astronomy had nothing to do with superstition or biblical dogma. It was simply a scientific theory that was ready to be abandoned. The decision of the Catholic Church to adopt it was a political one, not a religious one. The only religious element in the whole fiasco was the bare fact that the Church was a religious institution, among the many hats it then wore.

The second of the myths is that the superstitious clerics at the court of Ferdinand and Isabella opposed their support for Columbus on the grounds that the earth is flat and therefore he would inevitably sail off the edge. This is pure nonsense. The fact is that the clerics not only knew perfectly well that the earth is round, they also knew how large it is. Columbus severely underestimated the size of the earth, and so underestimated how long it would take him to reach Indonesia by sailing westward. In strictly scientific terms, the "superstitious" clerics were right and Columbus was wrong. However, Columbus believed, entirely without scientific evidence, but for religious reasons, that he would reach land where he did. IOW, Columbus was being religious, the clerics were being scientific, and it was religion, not science, that was actually proved right.

In anticipation of the forthcoming arguments that I "deify" science, I am well aware of the shortcomings of science. Of course science doesn't have all the answers, and there are still innumerable mysteries for which science doesn't have an answer. But the one constant in human history is the slow, steady advancement of science and technology. As previous religions failed and faltered, and yes even became extinct, science and technology continued to plod along, even exposing some of the folly of religious thought along the way. And despite the roadblocks that religion generally attempts to erect against science (see the role of the Catholic church during the dark ages and up through the Renaissance, or the current movement to debunk evolution in favor of creation mythology in the clasroom), science continues it's march forward. Is science sometimes wrong.....of course, but it also has a knack for eventually self-correcting.

This is why religion is becoming extinct, not because of attacks from atheists or even in favor of atheism, but rather, because the need to look to heaven for answers to real world problems is becoming less and less as science and technology provides rational, objective evidence for those things that were once considered mysteries.

Victorian meliorism is such a nostalgic view. It brings tears to the eyes.

Regards,

Pahoran

[44Foxtrot]

Here is another perspective on the issue.

Study: Religion Going Extinct in Most Western Countries -- Why Does It Still Dominate Our Politics?

Still, it's astonishing to think that Christianity may soon be extinct in Canada at the same time as it is morphing into something so powerful in our country that it can destroy reproductive choice and the teaching of biology, geology, and sex education.

We're not inherently more religious than Canada. We just have a political system that allows financial elites to enlist religious fundamentalists in their service. In other words, religion has tremendous utility in our country.

[LDS Guy 1986]

According to this report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-12811197

I have questions about the impartiality of the analysis of this study, as well as the way the study was conducted.

But if this is true it doesn't surprise me a lot, we are always told that the proud of knowledge and the proud of wealth will be the hardest to convert to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ!

[LDS Guy 1986]

deleted for double post