Will people in fifty years still believe in Gods?

[hemstock]

I was watching a Carl Seagan interview in which he was asked the question if he believed people would start thinking differently and change their beliefs about god in the future. I was expecting an answer along the lines “no because people have the need to believe in something”. He said although that history tells us that people keep changing. We used to do all kind of stupid things throughout our history like sacrifice human lives to Gods (which in some way we still to today) but we have changed drastically by those times.
Given that until about a century ago, we did not have any choice, we had to believe whatever religion said. If God hadn’t made us then there is no other logical explanation. Whenever someone started questioning things about religion and things that did not make any sense, the answer would be that God is all powerful and can do whatever he wants. The whole topic of religion was (and still is) so abstract.
During the last century though and with all the rise of technology and everything, we have so much information about where we come from, how was the Universe, the Sun, the planets life and all these beautiful things were created. That together with globalization and how rapidly and easily all this information can be accessed with the internet and the media, how can a rational human being like [censored] sapiens choose to refuse all that information and still believe in the metaphysical? Or even if we choose to accept all this information, how long will it take us until the day when humans will stop believing that there is a supernatural power that is above any laws of Physics known to man and above any rational thought?

[vhawk01]

I am at a place where I understand SAR unbelievably well right now.

Its a scary place.

[MidGe]

I think more and more people will think the question trivial and unimportant, with regards to the facts and issues of life in general, and human life in particular. Some will still believe, as children will still believe in Santa Claus.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole topic of religion was (and still is) so abstract.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your and Sagan's error.

Defining religion as an abstraction only trivializes it; and defeats any true understanding. (Much like taking love as a neurological epiphenomenon trivializes it and misses the truth of the most awkward love letter.)

Belief in God---true belief---frames all of life in relation to God. Confusion sparks renewed faith; failure proffers weakness to be complemented by Divine strength; suffering yields deeper gratitude for the hope of Heaven; base instinct prompts the asceticism of repentance; and fear yields to the joyous seductions of mysticism and worship.

Truth is little match for those surrealities---if you can live with them! IMO there will always be some who can.

[Shadowrun]

50yrs sure

[Paragon]

[ QUOTE ]
Confusion sparks renewed faith; failure proffers weakness to be complemented by Divine strength; suffering yields deeper gratitude for the hope of Heaven; base instinct prompts the asceticism of repentance; and fear yields to the joyous seductions of mysticism and worship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an example of your "true understanding"? The descriptions you use are just about as ambiguous and devoid of concrete meaning as they can get. Granted, we all have feelings that cannot be put into words, and love or spirituality are examples. What is incredible to me is how people can make a leap from this inability to describe our own emotions to claiming absolute truth about supernatural entities. They take the mysteries of life and twist it into some strange form of pseudo- or anti-knowledge that can't even be communicated.

Do you feel that love, or other emotions, cannot be scientifically explained by the brain? On a related note, I wandered upon a funny study today involving the drug psilocybin (shrooms).

[ QUOTE ]
In 2006, a US government funded, randomized and double-blinded study by Johns Hopkins University, studied the spiritual effects of psilocybin mushrooms. The study involved 36 college-educated adults who had never tried psilocybin or had a drug abuse history and had religious or spiritual interests; the average age of the participants was 46 years. The participants were closely observed for eight-hour intervals in a laboratory while under the influence of psilocybin mushrooms. One-third of the participants reported the experience was the single most spiritually significant experience of their lifetimes and more than two-thirds reported it was among the top five most spiritually significant experiences.

[/ QUOTE ]

All these powerful experiences and insights and mystery and wonder all caused by chemicals in the human bloodstream. Just like all of our other, natural, emotions and feelings. No one is making contact with a personal god. There is no hidden meaning. At least none that you could ever be so sure about as to indoctrinate to millions of children.

I don't think calling love a phenomenon of the brain trivializes it at all. And I think calling religion an abstraction or just a metaphor is quite accurate.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
The descriptions you use are just about as ambiguous and devoid of concrete meaning as they can get.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my point! Religion-in-itself is borderline meaningless as an abstract idea. Or, to put another way: religion can only be experienced, not defined.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you feel that love, or other emotions, cannot be scientifically explained by the brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly science can EXPLAIN emotions and love! But to understand love in any meaningful way you have to experience it.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think calling love a phenomenon of the brain trivializes it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again---it's not a trivial explanation of love (rather, it's the ONLY explanation!) However, it is a very trivial understanding of love.

Did you not read the last line of my post?

[ QUOTE ]
Truth is little match for those surrealities---if you can live with them!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist, but it's not at all clear to me that the truth of atheism will provide a better life for many (most?) people.

[hemstock]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Confusion sparks renewed faith; failure proffers weakness to be complemented by Divine strength; suffering yields deeper gratitude for the hope of Heaven; base instinct prompts the asceticism of repentance; and fear yields to the joyous seductions of mysticism and worship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an example of your "true understanding"? The descriptions you use are just about as ambiguous and devoid of concrete meaning as they can get. Granted, we all have feelings that cannot be put into words, and love or spirituality are examples. What is incredible to me is how people can make a leap from this inability to describe our own emotions to claiming absolute truth about supernatural entities. They take the mysteries of life and twist it into some strange form of pseudo- or anti-knowledge that can't even be communicated.



[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have said it better with my not-so-good english.

[ QUOTE ]
Much like taking love as a neurological epiphenomenon trivializes it and misses the truth of the most awkward love letter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it trivialize it? The fact that you know it's a neurological phenomenon does not limit you from enjoying it does it? Why doesn't trying to specify a supernatural power like God trivilize his existance?

Also what do you mean by missing the truth of the most awkward love letter? I am sure there are a lot of people who believe that feelings and emotions come solely out of your brain that enjoy love as much as people who think that love is a spiritual thing that has nothing to do with your brain and it something special coming from some magic place.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure there are a lot of people who believe that feelings and emotions come solely out of your brain that enjoy love as much as people who think that love is a spiritual thing that has nothing to do with your brain and it something special coming from some magic place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously all educated people know that consciousness is a biological epiphenomenon and love is an elaboration on basic pair-bonding. BUT, equally obviously, nobody considers that explanation of love as equivalent to being in love. Which leads us to:

[ QUOTE ]
Also what do you mean by missing the truth of the most awkward love letter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean that even the most atavistic, insensible experience of love captures the spiritual* reality of love better than any amount of scientific precision.

* What word do you want me to use? Even as good materialists, what do we gain by denying the "specialness"(?) of consciousness? Can't we at least be noble animals---

[amplify]

more like 60 I think