Marlowe

Much as the rational materialists may believe that one day we'll all get to a point where no one will need these pesky religious beliefs, the fact that well over 90% of all human beings profess religious belief of some sort (and that goes WAY up if you take all of history into account) seems to suggest that we'd better deal with the issue. While religion tends to be a convenient way for power-mongers to motivate the masses against another group (mostly by dehumanizing said group - remember Nazism wasn't a religion it only characterized another group by their religion in order to kill them), it has also been shown to be a powerful identifier in a culture. Meaning the right belief system can pull everyone together to such a degree that it can be hard to divide them.

So, pure speculation here of course - is there any possibility that a world belief system could come to be? This doesn't necessarily mean a homogenizing of belief (Blech!), but perhaps a philosophy of pluralism. I ask if it is even imaginable in this day and age when Abrahamic religions dominate large sections of the globe, for they are exclusionary religions, not syncretic. Unable to see beyond the symbols of their own beliefs to the similarity of underlying ideas, will these systems have to die away or change to huge degrees before understanding even has a chance? Is the more pluarlistic bent of eastern philosophies such as Buddhism part of their appeal?

philechat

The European religions before the rise of the Abrahamic religions are generally pluralistic, much more similar to Hinduism and East Asian Buddhism than to Christianity and Islam. I believe the world will be much more to my liking if religious pluralism/syncretism can overcome exclusive ones, but natural selection seems to imply otherwise (given that exclusive religions are more likely to be evangelical, more likely to keep believers from leaving their faith, and more likely to destroy other kinds of believers).

I admit atheism and lack of religion to be elitist in nature, given its absence of practical guidence to our own lives, and its tendency toward abstruse philosophical reflections and rigorous scientific analysis. Pluralism is much more an attainable goal, though I am somewhat pessimistic toward the idea that this world will indeed evolve toward the direction.

Answerer

Personally, I believe a world religion is just a dream. Currently, we only see new religions being formed here and then and the old religions are being divided as never before. Having a world religion is like forcing the christians or muslims to accept the infidels or vice versus.

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:


So, do you think that will happen? Apparently not.

Nowhere357

Eventually we will send world-ships to other solar systems. I wonder what religions will evolve on such a thing, and on the planets we settle.

andy_d

How could one religion provide for the requirements of so many different people?

I think the idea stems for the tenet that there is one underlying, universal "truth" and thus it seems to have more in common with the exclusivism inherant in Abrahamic religion ie: "I'm right and you're wrong"

For that reason I think it'd be a very negative force.

Nowhere357

If the "world religion" is anything like abrahamic religion, then I agree.

But why limit the imagination that way? How about a world religion with any "universal" principles that apply (we all need to eat, for example), and with wiggle room where appropriate?

andy_d

Well, I just think that the idea that there can be a single thing which is appropriate to everybody means one of 2 things:

1) It's so generalised that it only includes the elements that are common to everybody's experience
2) That it reflects an underlying indisputable universal "truth" that we have yet to discover

The first case doesn't seem to much use to anyone. If it's common to everybody's experience, then everybody probably understands it already. What would it bring to them that they didn't already have?

The second is a dangerous idea.


Diversity in any complex system (such as society) brings strength, not weakness.

Marlowe

From my first post:

This doesn't necessarily mean a homogenizing of belief (Blech!), but perhaps a philosophy of pluralism.

I agree with you andy_d - too universal a belief system can be dangerous, too homogenized a belief system becomes like PC-ism - so safe it means nothing. But if people could come to see the diversity of religious beliefs as symbolic, each in their own way, of certain universal truths (the value of compassion, for example) then in a sense it might be possible to have the best of both worlds - diversity of belief with an understanding that we're all talking about the same basic things.

emotional

Skytoucher, Paganism at the Crossroads (emphasis added)

Nowhere357

I don't disagree with this, Andy. But I agree with Marlowe's post, also.

For an analogy, shouldn't then the USA split up into seperate state/countries? Etc.?

Union can bring strength, also.