The future of religion?

The blog article linked to in the title above is a critique of an article in Wilson Quarterly regarding the future of religion. In the WQ article, the author puts forward the claim that religion is likely here to stay, so all the secularists & atheists out there should give up the dream of it eventually fading away. In response, the bright (albeit spelling-challenged) blogster & About.com atheism guide, Austin Cline, points out that there have been a number of institutions which also seemed like they were here to stay but are either well on their way out or gone completely. Racism, segregation, aristocracy, dictatorships, slavery, etc. must have seemed "too big to fail" in their time. Indeed, the fall of the Soviet Union and of communism generally probably was as much a surprise to most Westerners as to those under communist rule.

Still, we can look at the reasons why those other institutions failed and ask if those reasons might also apply to religion. My conclusion is that most of them do not, at least not enough to seriously hurt the institution of religion.

In retrospect (hindsight is, of course, often 20/20), the fall of communism was inevitable; communism substituted doctrine and politics for real economics, which was the economic equivalent of substituting a belief that you can fly for the laws of gravity. It's somewhat remarkable that the Soviet Union didn't implode earlier than it did.

Similarly, humans tend to be moral creatures at our core. Evilness is not just bad in its own right, it's also stupid. Naziism, slavery, and various other forms of ruthless dictatorships are simply not sustainable indefinitely; eventually, something has to give. It may take decades or even more than a century to do so, and cost millions of lives, but it does happen. It also happens all the more quickly if those perpetuating the evil are inflexible and strict in their dogmas.

Such failed institutions also often have another thing in common: they do not make life better for their adherents, at least at the societal level. Many of these institutions result in poverty and/or oppression not just for the targets of the evil they inflict but for their advocates as well. Communism, naziism, and slavery all created hardships (economic and personal) for those who advocated and lived under them.

So where does this leave religion? Religion definitely has its downsides, but it has two qualities which greatly aid its survival and continuation. The first is, religion does provide some benefits, real or perceived, for a sizeable number of people. It fills two deep needs of many people, one being a sense of community and the other a desire to believe in something bigger than oneself. Other factors, such as offering the belief of an afterlife and a sense of authoritative morality and meaning of life, also come into play.

This article has some of the biggest meanings of what a religion is. By understanding just what religion is, we can get a better picture of its lasting qualities.

The other quality religion has is that it is very adaptable. Religion has been often referred to as the ultimate example of a meme, or mind virus, and it actually behaves rather similarly to one. It "mutates" often, adapting itself to its local hosts in the process. It also has several "defense mechanisms" to keep out competing memes/ideas. (See Wiki entry at the previous link.) As there are dozens or hundreds of varieties of a particular virus, so too for religions. Different religions can be regarded as different species, while different denominations within a religion are akin to different variants of a viral species. Religion and local culture very often influence and change one another, just as virii may adapt to a particular host and also change that host's immune profile.

"Varieties" of religion which tend toward killings & oppression, such as theocracies or all-out holy wars, tend to burn themselves out, given enough time. Atheists & heathens generally don't need to fear being burned at the stake in Western countries. I think this is part of the reason why suicide bombings & other religious killings by Muslims are so disturbing to Westerners. (Those who believe in and advocate such killings, unfortunately, seem to realize this.) Even then, though, there are many Muslims who would be more than content to not go around killing non-Muslims. Like Christianity with its Dominionists and Reconstructionists, Islam also has its extreme fundamentalist, angry-nutcase section. Such extremists are generally, however, more the exception than the rule.

It is these two qualities of adaptability and benefits to the believers which will ensure that religion will be around for some time to come. Religion, to be sure, has plenty of negative aspects; many secularists, humanists & atheists would be happy to see it fade into history, and the sooner the better. I would count myself among them. But I don't think it's going to go away on its own until either a suitable institution (or several institutions) arise to fulfill the needs it currently fills, or if it pulls society back into another Dark Age and the great majority of society just gets so fed up with its oppression that they decide to chuck the institution altogether. I think though, that even that latter option will not permanently do away with religion until the former condition is also met.

So what institution(s) could do away with religion? To answer that, it may be helpful to look at what institutions are today eroding away at religion. Three that come to mind are science, education, and, ironically enough, gov't endorsement of religion. All three of these are, if not causing of a decrease in religiousness, at least strongly correlated with it.

The first, science, is perhaps the most obvious. Generally in society, atheists are found in highest concentration in the scientific community. In quite a few fields of study, rates of atheism or agnosticism exceed 90%, with National Academy of Science biologists ranking the highest at around 95%. Despite what a number of creationists choose to believe, science itself is not an "atheistic doctrine." Sometimes, it's just that nonbelievers are naturally attracted to the field. But while science does not preach atheism, logical thinking and the scientific process do give people the mental tools they need to throw off unfounded beliefs and see the world as it really is.

The second institution, education, is also a somewhat obvious "cure" for religion, but I feel that it needs to be distinguished from the study & practice of science. Like science, education can provide one with the mental tools needed to abandon baseless beliefs. And indeed, religiousness often tends to be inversely proportional to education level. Simply being educated, however, is much more general than being a scientist. Not everyone has the mental capacity, or inclination, to study science for a living (or a hobby). And, you can't have an entire society of scientists. It is possible, though, to have a well-educated society. (This will probably be a whole other article for me at some future time.) Also unlike science, it is possible to use indoctrination in schools to achieve an atheistic society; just ask the Chinese or former Soviets. From personal observation, though, I can say that this indoctrination often produces only an artificial sort of atheism; as a number of evangelicals will attest to, these "artificial atheists" are quite susceptible to conversion. Many are atheists only because it is expected of them; religion is the "forbidden fruit," like drugs in America, that only makes them more curious to experience it. Opiate of the masses indeed.... True atheism from education is not achieved through political indoctrination, but by providing young minds with the mental tools they need to be independent thinkers. And for education this includes not just lessons in logic and the scientific process, but also exposure to different cultures, religious beliefs, & modes of thought.

The third institution which can erode the institution of religion, may be counterintuitive. A state-sponsored religion would initially seem like one method for ensuring its continued survival, but in the real world it appears the opposite may actually be the case. At least among Western nations, one can compare rates of religious belief and church attendance to whether that nation has a state-sponsored church or religion. In many European countries like Britain, Norway, Finland, etc. that have official state religions, rates of belief & church attendance are markedly lower than in those countries which don't, such as the US & Canada. There are some exceptions to this rule, of course, including many outright theocracies elsewhere in the world. But generally, it seems like giving the official gov't seal of approval to a religion is one of the quickest ways to empty the pews. The best way to explain this is that it is the opposite of the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. Call it the "eat your veggies" syndrome instead. Make something Establishment, and it becomes a lot less desireable. Religion has so flourished in the US because the gov't has refrained from officially endorsing it. Those who would like to see a theocracy in this country, are as ignorant of history and the world as they are of science and the Constitution.

So what might a country look like that had managed to evolve beyond the need for religions? Such a society would have strong community ties, unlike in many places in modern America where people hardly know their neighbors, thus often necessitating churches as a community glue. This society would also be well-educated and science-friendly. And, it may have had a state religion at some time in its past before disestablishing it.

I think religion will probably be with us for at least several more centuries to come, possibly for millenia. It is my hope that we will someday be able to leave it behind as another part of our more primitive, barbaric past. But I also think we have a long ways to go before our (or anyone's) educational system can consistently turn out graduates of sufficiently high mental integrity and education that they do not need to depend upon the crutch of religion.