Personally, I think that the advance of science leads to an increase in atheism and agnosticism. Therefore, advanced civilizations will probably be less dominated by big organized religions than ours is.
Actually, religious feeling comes and goes in intensity, without any seeming bearing on what science is doing at any given time. Emperor Julian II the Apostate preferred then-current philosophy and science to religion, there was an enthusiastic embrace of irreligiousness by the French Revolutionaries, etc. There's always a new Great Awakening that sweeps religion back in after a while. I think that Neal Stephenson's explanation for the intermittent popularity is probably right - an intelligent person will look at how people approach religion, conclude that 90% is crap, and erroneously forget that Sturgeon's Law applies to all human endeavors. That other 10% though, it's pretty damn important.
]]>Personally, I think that the advance of science leads to an increase in atheism and agnosticism. Therefore, advanced civilizations will probably be less dominated by big organized religions than ours is.
]]>Biologically impossible practices for members of one species that convert to another's religion might make sects inevitable. Ecumenical philosophies might allow an atmosphere of acceptance to exist between the human and alien congregations even if they can't share a pot luck supper or even breathe the same air.
Human religions that don't accept ecumenism would be lit out of shuck, though, unless they were in the market for some new "demons".
]]>So essentially, nothing would really change except that the next Jerry Falwell might have tentacles and eight eyes :laugh: .
]]>*IMO it's all psychological. We create the gods in our own image.
Good point. There is a recurring refrain in Christian theology, which can be paraphrased as: Do not anthropomorphisize God. Perhaps theology recognizes this trend as well, but if so it denounces it.
My personal take on the matter is that religion is adapting body and mind to match something that is neither body nor mind.
And that's where the supernatural comes in? Sincere question.
A good question.
Perhaps instead of "religion", I should say "religious observance". Rationally, there's no purpose in adapting if there's nothing to adapt to. So the assumption is that the necessity precedes the adaptation. The widely acknowledged function of religion as a form of education, socialization, legitimization, etc., should indicate that the superatural isn't the only necessity that religious observance is intended to deal with.
However, yes, I would say that religious observances are also directed to the supernatural as well. "Supernatural" is a rather subjective term, of course. (If something has been part of the universe from its inception, it's only supernatural from our viewpoint.) I prefer "holy", but that's a semantic can of worms, too.
Another question would be how do certain minds reject religious interpretations/claims as fact and instead consider them only as constructs, and yet retain a grasp on the archetypes?
So many people feel the drive toward religion that the development of religions probably has "hardwired" or "collective unconscious" elements (pick your favorite poorly defined psychological adjective :;): ). Something along these lines is inevitable.
Probably people in this state still feel those drives (sense the archetypes? feel the force? :;): ), but don't buy the garbage other people try to pile onto their experience.
P.S.: I wouldn't count on aliens being oh-so interested and accepting, either (except for sociological and psychological value).
Well, why else would they be interested, unless they intended to send their own missionaries here.
If they're astute enough, they'll likely quickly notice that what many religious adherents -say- is usually quite different from what they -do-, as ethics and behavior goes...
Well, thank goodness religious adherents are just like everybody else on this planet!
]]>I'm still reading C. G. Jung. What interests me especially is the origin of the archetypes; so far I've not seen an explanation in his (nor his pupils') writings pertaining to those origins.
Trebuchet wrote:
Quote
Is religion primarily something done to adapt biology to match the mind, or the other way around?That's an interesting philosophical question. My personal take on the matter is that religion is adapting body and mind to match something that is neither body nor mind.
And that's where the supernatural comes in? Sincere question.
Treb's question is profoundly philosophical, IMO. My guess is it's the former (adapting biology to match the mind).
Another question would be how do certain minds reject religious interpretations/claims as fact and instead consider them only as constructs, and yet retain a grasp on the archetypes? But maybe that's another thread.
--Cindy
P.S.: I wouldn't count on aliens being oh-so interested and accepting, either (except for sociological and psychological value). If they're astute enough, they'll likely quickly notice that what many religious adherents -say- is usually quite different from what they -do-, as ethics and behavior goes...
]]>Whether that eagerness will be for spiritual or entertainment purposes is hard to say. "Amen siblings!" is just as likely a response as "Send us more christian programming! It's hysterical!"
Trebuchet wrote:
Is religion primarily something done to adapt biology to match the mind, or the other way around?
That's an interesting philosophical question. My personal take on the matter is that religion is adapting body and mind to match something that is neither body nor mind. Unfortunately, the only unifying aspect of all religions is that body and mind are adapted - not what they're adapted to.
Also, there's a more fundamental question here. Consider the closest things in our own history to "sentient alien species": Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Erectus, etc. Many of these species clearly had language, technology, and were arguably intelligent beings. We've no knowledge of Neanderthal music or religion, but we know they had these because we've found their musical instruments and clear evidence of ritual burial. Genetic studies of the domestic dog suggests that it's earliest common ancestor with wild canines lived too early to have been domesticated by modern man, meaning we can't rule out the possibility that the dog has been with us since before we were human. They had families, made music, feared death, and just might have loved their pets. Clearly, these were people, not human, but humane.
But they lacked large buildings, art, its younger handmaiden the written word, and other hallmarks of modern humans. If art isn't necessary to be an intelligent being, what else can you be without and still fly a spaceship? It's conceivable that aliens could have no understanding of what an "interesting philosophical question" is.
]]>Is it a sin against god if only same gender's can procreate together?
]]>How exactly would the dietary restrictions work for would-be alien converts?
Does a slarfaxx count as meat and is it ever Friday on a tidally locked planet? :laugh:
Vatican II to the rescue on that one.
How accurate does that pray toward Mecca thing have to be, because if you're three degrees off from 60 lightyears away. . . I don't know if Allah's gonna let that go.
]]>However I also have this nagging suspicion that the monotheistic concept of a creator/shepherd God is not a common idea. Even among humans, looking at our entire history, it's a bit odd.
*Based on what I've read, polytheism and pantheism were mainstays of ancient belief and thought for many millenia.
Monotheism is still a relative "new kid on the block."
The parade float passing in front of us at this very moment isn't the entire parade...
Then the phrase "the Gods of the old religion become the Devils of the new" comes to mind, but I don't wish to swerve too far from the original questions raised by Trebuchet.
Again, I'd be interested in alien archetypes and especially why they wouldn't have them, if they don't (if aliens even exist), because it seems our psychology is hinged upon the archetypes...and from that religion has evolved.
--Cindy
P.S.: IIRC, monotheism got its first-recorded start with the Pharaoh Amenhotep. Later -- though how much later I can't recall -- monotheism spread out from the Middle East.
Monotheism is, IMO, too narrow and constricting (understatement) to incorporate all of the human experience. Sort of like trying to shove the Empire State Building into a shoe box.
]]>Not a common idea? Does science alone solve all of the mysteries of the universe? Where it all comes from? How matter even exists?
Each intelligent creature has a choice, to be concerned only with itself or to be concerned with others as much as itself.
]]>Aliens becoming Catholic, or Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, and Muslims? Not a chance. You think an alien species, who certainly has a high intelligence to get here, will bow before a human, kiss his ring, and confess their sins?
What if we get there first?
Though I must admit to a great deal of skepticism to religions from one species being easily adopted by others, though alot of diffusion and mutual appropriating of ideas seems likely if the two cultures share enough points to begin with.
Somehow I suspect that extraterrestrials will either be so different that we can't effectively communicate or so similar that it's unnerving.
However I also have this nagging suspicion that the monotheistic concept of a creator/shepherd God is not a common idea. Even among humans, looking at our entire history, it's a bit odd.
But who can say, we're probably all missing the point entirely.
]]>