Religion May Not Survive The Internet

[WIP]

I didn't want to get into yet another religion debate thread before, but I couldn't help thinking when I read the Salon article linked in the OP that internet is less likely to survive long into the future than religion is! Reason being that the interwebs depend on a complex system of routers, servers and fiber optic networks, which all have high electrical demands...not to mention all the PC's accessing the system. I haven't seen many social commentators aside from James Howard Kunstler ask what happens to internet and high tech when electrical systems start breaking down and cutting power....like they're doing right now in so many third world nations that have spotty electrical service already. Whereas religion doesn't depend on technology, but instead finds its source in the need for meaning and structure in a volatile, changing world. So, will the internet kill religion? Or will the internet die out with so much of our present high tech toys that depend on scarce rare earth elements to produce, and a reliable source of power to operate them?

[GostHacked]

It's a belief that there are no supernatural beings. Otherwise it's agnosticism, not having belief either way, if belief is to mean certainty.

Do you believe or have faith in any of the Greek Gods? Zeus? Aphrodite? Apollo? If not, why not? Would you make the claim that they do not exist, or will you make the claim that you do not believe in those gods?

[Mighty AC]

AC describes it very well for me. And well it really is fitting, but I was eluding more to the fact that we have many other threads on that type of subject and this one in the end will be no different, so here we go again!

It is certainly frustrating that this misconception is discussed in every religious thread. However, I guess that's the only way to counter misinformation. The religious like to believe that a lack of belief is akin to a faith, and like Bonam pointed out, religious organizations actively perpetuate that myth.

What I find odd is that the religious will not accept the proper definition of atheism, yet they hold that exact same position with respect to unicorns, pyramid building extraterrestrials and every belief system except their own. Why is it so hard to accept that not holding a belief due to the lack of supporting evidence is different than claiming to know for sure?

[Mighty AC]

I didn't want to get into yet another religion debate thread before, but I couldn't help thinking when I read the Salon article linked in the OP that internet is less likely to survive long into the future than religion is! Reason being that the interwebs depend on a complex system of routers, servers and fiber optic networks, which all have high electrical demands...not to mention all the PC's accessing the system. I haven't seen many social commentators aside from James Howard Kunstler ask what happens to internet and high tech when electrical systems start breaking down and cutting power....like they're doing right now in so many third world nations that have spotty electrical service already. Whereas religion doesn't depend on technology, but instead finds its source in the need for meaning and structure in a volatile, changing world. So, will the internet kill religion? Or will the internet die out with so much of our present high tech toys that depend on scarce rare earth elements to produce, and a reliable source of power to operate them?

The major killer of religion in most of the world is improved socioeconomic status, the US being an odd outlier in that respect. However, I think the access to information that the internet provides will hasten the decline of traditional religion in most places. Though many underdeveloped nations will experience issues with access to modern technology, I don't believe the internet is going anywhere. Like with most scarce resources, the price rises, providing money and incentive to find other solutions.

On a side note, I'd be interested in exploring the source of religiosity south of the border. Maybe the dramatic wealth disparity present helps prop up religion?

[Guest Manny]

Your views are far too simple, because you dont (or wont) recognize what makes people reach out to religion.

[WIP]

The major killer of religion in most of the world is improved socioeconomic status, the US being an odd outlier in that respect. However, I think the access to information that the internet provides will hasten the decline of traditional religion in most places. Though many underdeveloped nations will experience issues with access to modern technology, I don't believe the internet is going anywhere. Like with most scarce resources, the price rises, providing money and incentive to find other solutions.

I have mentioned a couple of times previously that on the other side of that coin is the tacit implication that secularism is dependent on a complete break in the normal historical pattern of nations and empires rising and falling. The new interpretation is that progress in knowledge, technology and the quality of life, is linear and ever-increasing......or at least will be that way barring unexpected disaster - like nuclear war or an asteroid hitting the Earth. Some of the critics of technology I've read, such as Michael Hussemann and Sander Van Der Leeuw, point out that new knowledge is too often used for technological applications before any assessment can be made of whether the shorter term benefits outweigh the long term risks. The Internet depends on a lot of other systems working properly, as well as stable, functioning societies to continue on in operation. I'm not putting high odds on the Internet being operational anywhere in the next century, based on where world events are taking us right now.

On a side note, I'd be interested in exploring the source of religiosity south of the border. Maybe the dramatic wealth disparity present helps prop up religion?

A few years ago, Gallup conducted an international survey that was titled with this headline grabber: What Alabamians and Iranians Have In Common.

Social scientists have noted that one thing that makes Americans distinctive is our high level of religiosity relative to other

rich-world

populations. Among 27 countries commonly seen as part of the developed world, the median proportion of those who say religion is important in their daily lives is just 38%. From this perspective, the fact that two-thirds of Americans respond this way makes us look extremely devout.

What's more,

as Gallup's Frank Newport recently pointed out

, there is wide regional variation in religiosity across the 50 American states. The proportion of those who say religion is important in their daily lives is highest in Mississippi, at 85% -- a figure that is slightly higher than the worldwide median (among all countries, rich and poor). Two others, Alabama (82%) and South Carolina (80%) are on par with the worldwide median.

Lining up these percentages with those on our worldwide list allows us to match residents of the most religious states to the global populations with which they are similar in terms of religiosity. The results produce some interesting comparisons --

Alabamians, for example, are about as likely as Iranians to say religion is an important part or their lives.

Georgians in the United States are about as religious as Georgians in the Caucasus region.

The results seemed surprising in comparisons of mean average annual incomes, because the U.S. is the outlier -- the only wealthy Western nation with the same levels of religious belief and religious adherence as Third World nations. But that's because a superficial analysis of average income smoothes out income disparities and lack of available alternative institutions to churches and mosques to provide for social gathering and support. A closer look at inequality reveals that America is an outlier among Western nations and even exceeds a lot of Third World levels of income and wealth inequality. The poor in the U.S. have substandard public schools....which have already turned into charter religious-indoctrination centers in states like Texas and elsewhere; government services are minimal. I would offer as an anecdote that even upper middle class people like one of my American cousins, end up having to go to a church to belong to a community when their children are young and social support is most necessary.

About 20 years ago, when my cousin and his wife moved to a suburb of Atlanta....which was so far out it would probably be labelled an Ex-urb....they found that their brand new home was in a brand new instant suburban community that was nothing more than a place for commuters to rest after a long day of work. There were no stores, no schools nearby...not even sidewalks! Nobody walked anywhere...you had to jump in your car and drive your kids to everything outside of school and pick them up from afterschool activities. The only service aside from water and power, was sending a school bus out to pick up kids for a more than one hour drive to and from school each day. My cousin and his wife were not very religious, but still were members of the 7th Day Adventist Church in Michigan. The move to the outskirts of Atlanta left them with no church close enough, so they took the plunge and joined one of those non-denominational mega-churches -- where they found daycare, clubs, programs for children....even a dividing up of the adult members into "cells" or small little communities of members who would actually have a chance to get to know others and become friends. This was an opportunity that was virtually impossible otherwise, as neighbours in this knew subdivision were also commuters who worked long hours and had places to go afterwork. When people were at home, they were inside unless they were out cutting the grass or in the backyard pool. The only ones who might get to know each other were the children - if they found others of similar age. But most parents were reluctant to let their kids walk further than a few houses down because of that fact that kids had to walk out in the street, around parked cars, just to go somewhere close by on their own.

So, is it any surprise that so many people....even professionals with good incomes....would have to turn to the churches to cope with life in such a sterile, artificial, otherwise unliveable community? And, for all of the downsides of these new, tithe-demanding churches that sprung up in the suburbs across North America, you have to hand it to them that their growth was the result of being the first, and in most cases the only ones, who identified a clear need and moved in to find a way to fill that need. I've noticed that the most recent stories of declining religiosity in the U.S. also track with my cousin's personal experience, as since their children have grown, they left the megachurch...which doesn't seem to perform as vital role for older people who've become empty nesters. I'm not sure if they go anywhere now for their religion fix. My cousin is retiring soon and they are planning to move back to Michigan afterwards, so they are not likely to make church a priority right now.

[GostHacked]

Your views are far too simple, because you dont (or wont) recognize what makes people reach out to religion.

Being a person who grew up without being indoctrinated into any religion, it really confuses me as to why people reach out to religion. Maybe people like being told what to do and what to believe while others prefer to think for themselves.

[Guest Manny]

Being a person who grew up without being indoctrinated into any religion, it really confuses me as to why people reach out to religion. Maybe people like being told what to do and what to believe while others prefer to think for themselves.

There would be many reasons, I'm sure. The one that comes to mind for me first is, dealing with great personal loss.

[Guest Manny]

I have mentioned a couple of times previously that on the other side of that coin is the tacit implication that secularism is dependent on a complete break in the normal historical pattern of nations and empires rising and falling. The new interpretation is that progress in knowledge, technology and the quality of life, is linear and ever-increasing......etc

Some interesting ideas and observations there WIP. But who knows, in saying this you could be completely putting the cart before the horse.

I come from a small town where I've lived for many years, but recently had to move to Toronto. It's been a very difficult transition for me. On the one hand we have so many people who are so aggressive, self centred, and inhumane to others that they don't know. It's the kind of place where someone could be lying in the street injured, calling for help or being attacked by thugs, and most people won't try to help. people look through each other as if they don't exist. On the other hand are the ruthless materialists. People use each other. People rip each other offer regularly. Both have pretty much the same attitude, in general. Gimme, gimme. They're the ones who want everything, as though seeking solice or satisfaction in the latest iPad, game console, clothes and car.

It's not quite like that in the country. Yeah, people are not as well off. They don't make the big bucks. But it's interesting, when I go back there, they don't WANT to rip people off. for example you'll get advice from a mechanic that you'd be crazy to fix something that's not worth fixing any more. In the big city, they'll take your 800 bucks, thank you, up yours.

Do you understand where I'm going here? It's a CHOICE. It's about a certain attitude and set of values. I'll wager a donut that you'll find way more athiests in big cities than you'll find in the rural areas.

So when you suggest, "oh look, these people are poor and simple, that's why they believe in religion" I'll come back and say, no, not necessarily. they just don't want to rape the world and line their pockets. They want to be able to share, and to NOT HURT other people. Those are the values.

[Bonam]

About 20 years ago, when my cousin and his wife moved to a suburb of Atlanta....which was so far out it would probably be labelled an Ex-urb....they found that their brand new home was in a brand new instant suburban community that was nothing more than a place for commuters to rest after a long day of work. There were no stores, no schools nearby...not even sidewalks! Nobody walked anywhere...you had to jump in your car and drive your kids to everything outside of school and pick them up from afterschool activities.

So why'd they move there? They were free to pick many different places to live when they moved, I'm sure. That kind of lifestyle may appeal to some people. For those that want a more walkable and sociable community, those too are plentiful.

[betsy]

What I find odd is that the religious will not accept the proper definition of atheism, yet they hold that exact same position with respect to unicorns, pyramid building extraterrestrials and every belief system except their own. Why is it so hard to accept that not holding a belief due to the lack of supporting evidence is different than claiming to know for sure?

Ha-ha-ha

Edited January 26, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

The religious like to believe that a lack of belief is akin to a faith, and like Bonam pointed out, religious organizations actively perpetuate that myth.

If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like duck.....what, you think it's a dinosaur?

[eyeball]

If atheists knocked on people's doors spreading their good word you'd have a point, but since they don't....

[Guest Manny]

They were free to pick many different places to live when they moved, I'm sure.

Come on, who is free to do that. Most pick a place to live because they can get a job nearby. It's jobs that dictate where people live. Once they get a job, they look for a home that's affordable. I don't know what hosing costs in Atlanta, probably too much. So for people starting out, or don't have big incomes, they move out to the boonies where new subdivisions get built, and prices are lower.

Why are they lower? Cause for one thing, it's inconvenient to live there. More convenience, better access to services, more expensive. That sounds logico.

[Guest Manny]

If atheists knocked on people's doors spreading their good word you'd have a point, but since they don't....

Atheists have their books and stuff. They have their heroes, like Hitchkens or whoever. People like him seem to have an active agenda to spread their own brand of gospel. It stems from fear that the religious will vote for politicians who support radical fundamentalist ideas. So there has to be an effort to increase awareness in people, to make them aware of the dangers of that happening.

Problem is, they leave people with nothing else. People need religion for personal reasons, and they wont let go of it. They will see to it that their own children and their community keeps up the faith. Because they need to. So this fight can never be won. And it's being fought on the wrong battlefield. Attacking religion as a whole is a waste of time. The problem is not with people who believe it for personal reasons and needs, and quietly go about their business. No quite the opposite. The louder and more jeering these atheists get, in their speeches and writings, and places like here online, the more resilient the fundamentalists become.

[The_Squid]

Atheists have their books and stuff.

What books are those?

spread their own brand of gospel.

This is a total misuse of the word. There is no atheist gospel or any universal atheist ideals.

They will see to it that their own children and their community keeps up the faith

But there are less and less religious people... So it's not working, thank god.

[WIP]

So why'd they move there? They were free to pick many different places to live when they moved, I'm sure. That kind of lifestyle may appeal to some people. For those that want a more walkable and sociable community, those too are plentiful.

Free in what sense? My cousin's employer was putting a lot of pressure on to take the job at their Atlanta office. His wife wasn't thrilled about the move, but felt that the advantages could be worth it.

[WIP]

Some interesting ideas and observations there WIP. But who knows, in saying this you could be completely putting the cart before the horse.

I come from a small town where I've lived for many years, but recently had to move to Toronto. It's been a very difficult transition for me. On the one hand we have so many people who are so aggressive, self centred, and inhumane to others that they don't know. It's the kind of place where someone could be lying in the street injured, calling for help or being attacked by thugs, and most people won't try to help. people look through each other as if they don't exist. On the other hand are the ruthless materialists. People use each other. People rip each other offer regularly. Both have pretty much the same attitude, in general. Gimme, gimme. They're the ones who want everything, as though seeking solice or satisfaction in the latest iPad, game console, clothes and car.

I know what you mean. I'm living in as big a city as I can put up with right now. Toronto has creeped me out right from the start. Even before cellphones and Ipods came along to allow people to live in a bubble and ignore everyone around them, people go about avoiding eye contact and even sit down right beside you in a crowded food court without acknowledging your presence......it seems this sort of behaviour is a common way for people to deal with overcrowding. The more people crowded together - the more impersonal and detached they become.

It's not quite like that in the country. Yeah, people are not as well off. They don't make the big bucks. But it's interesting, when I go back there, they don't WANT to rip people off. for example you'll get advice from a mechanic that you'd be crazy to fix something that's not worth fixing any more. In the big city, they'll take your 800 bucks, thank you, up yours.

The mechanic in the big city figures he'll get enough walkin business to make up for any lost customers; whereas in the village or small town, the mechanic would be very concerned about maintaining a good reputation. Otherwise, word would get out that the mechanic was ripping off customers. Same thing happens with other people in the community. It's more important for everyone to maintain good relations.

Do you understand where I'm going here? It's a CHOICE. It's about a certain attitude and set of values. I'll wager a donut that you'll find way more athiests in big cities than you'll find in the rural areas.

You'll also find more people with higher education...which tracks more closely with lower degrees of religiosity than where people live. But, this applies when we're talking in general about trends. The only formal education I've had since high school is specifically work-related. It's just that I have unusual interests for someone of my background.

But, being religious or non-religious is ultimately based on methods of decision-making that we don't really have conscious choice on. Someone who has a religious outlook is much more likely to be guided by what seems intuitively natural. And religious systems play off those intuitions. i.e. how can there be a universe without a creator....the mind is a force that controls the body....animals are all different, so they must have been separately created at some time in the past....we shouldn't touch anything that has belonged to someone who is evil, or we may be contaminated by his spirit of evil / likewise a relic belonging to an extraordinary person is imbued by their spirit. And the list could go on. These common religious beliefs all started from intuitive assumptions about the world, and about our own nature. But, on a logical, higher level of examining evidence, they are also wrong assumptions. So, everyone who has taken on a naturalistic understanding of the world and of human nature, is fighting an inner battle...overruling their intuitive assumptions. For a closer look, Tom Rees, who writes the blog - Epiphenomena had a post on this subject awhile back in a brief analysis of recent work by behavioural psychologist Marjaana Lindeman - Sceptics Subconsciously Suppress Supernatural Thoughts.

So when you suggest, "oh look, these people are poor and simple, that's why they believe in religion" I'll come back and say, no, not necessarily. they just don't want to rape the world and line their pockets. They want to be able to share, and to NOT HURT other people. Those are the values.

That doesn't exactly fit together either, because religion can easily be used in the kind of in group/out group thinking that dulls any moral concern for outsiders, and we can see with the way Evangelical Christianity has morphed in the U.S. over the last 50 years or so, it has turned the Christian Social Gospel right on its head! So now, American right wing evangelicals are lauding the rich and powerful as being blessed by God; while the poor are scorned as those who have not received God's blessings. As for "raping the world," that line of thinking started as soon as Americans started viewing the new land's resources as a bounty provided by God for unbridled exploitation.

But, that's what happens when religion goes bad! Where I stand on religion and secularism is seeing positives and negatives with both ways of living, while most people see it as an either/or question of which way is better: religion or no religion. Non-religious philosophies have a hard time trying to come up with objective values that can be considered universal. And, I've become uneasy in recent years with the widespread assumption that leading atheists have regarding future economic and scientific progress. The new doctrine that we have outgrown religion and religion will die out as a social force, is framed around this notion that progress will be ever forward and unending.....and I want to see the techno-optimists come to grips first with the converging environmental problems facing the world first. I said before that the problem I have with the thread question is that it assumes the Internet is a permanent fixture now. That's the wrong assumption to make, in an overcrowded world facing resource scarcities, climate change and the still possible danger of nuclear war. If our civilization collapses as similar empires have in the past, the internet is a goner, while religion will be back and stronger than ever.

[GostHacked]

There would be many reasons, I'm sure. The one that comes to mind for me first is, dealing with great personal loss.

I have had great personal loss. I sought comfort in and with my family. We needed each other not religion.

[betsy]

I have had great personal loss. I sought comfort in and with my family. We needed each other not religion.

Lucky for you to have a family....a comforting, supportive family near you. Many are not as fortunate as you.

Edited January 27, 2013 by betsy

[Guest Manny]

Right betsy. Everyone responds to personal loss in their own way. Who are we to take peoples source of comfort, means of recovery, or personal guide to shaping their attitude towards one another in this world.

Anyway even if tried, it won't happen. Witness the state enforced ban on religion that was the soviet union. That failed, leftist "utopia" that stands absolute as a shining example of what fundamental atheists would do to us.

The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion and its replacement with universal atheism. The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.

Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed. Many more were persecuted.

In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless were active in anti-religious propaganda.

Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Communist Party.

Uh oh, atheism is described as a doctrine, not just 'a lack of belief'!

And how is religion doing in today's Russia?

Quite fine. Atheism only 13%.

[Guest Manny]

I know what you mean. I'm living in as big a city as I can put up with right now. Toronto has creeped me out right from the start. Even before cellphones and Ipods came along ...etc

Well put WIP, and a worthwhile read. I enjoy reading your polite, well thought-out posts.

[betsy]

Going back to the internet, yes we have lots of information - but that's also a very big problem. We've got a lot of information - AND DIS-INFORMATION!

One thing we know, Islamist jihadists successfully recruit through the internet....so you can say that's one religion that adapted well to the internet. We even now have the so-called home-grown terrorists because of it.

You can build bombs through the internet. You can lure through the internet. You can commit adultery through the internet. You can order just about anything through the internet. And if you're one of those with hacking talents.....sky's the limit through the internet!

Religion is the least of your worry whether it survives the internet or not - since people will tend to SEEK GOD for whatever reasons they may have. With or without the internet. Like I did.

There are other things to worry about the internet. Just look at the problems we're getting now because of the internet. Think about it. From social media to scams to vices and all sorts of entertainment that can keep you glued to it 24/7! Heck, some people die because of it!

Will your children survive it? If you haven't noticed - our children are evolving to look like baby hippos, for one thing.

Will your kind of parenting survive it? Will your family survive it? Will society survive it?

Will you survive it?

Edited January 27, 2013 by betsy

[Smallc]

Religion is the least of your worry whether it survives the internet or not - since people will tend to SEEK GOD for whatever reasons they may have. With or without the internet. Like I did.

Many of us, an ever increasing number in fact, do the exact opposite.

[Shady]

Many of us, an ever increasing number in fact, do the exact opposite.

Good for you.