Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 05:33 PM Sep 2013

How do religions die?

Do they waste away, or get conquered by something better? Perhaps it is easier to think in terms of gods dying, rather than religions



Religion under attack: Hernan Cortez with 200 Spaniards and 5,000 Indians defeats a larger Aztec force in 1520. Illustration:Archivo Iconografico/Corbis

Andrew Brown
theguardian.com, Monday 30 September 2013 04.59 EDT

If religions are born, they must also be able to die. How does this happen? I think we can discount at once the idea that it happens because people realise that science is better. It's obvious that the more people try to replace religion with science, the more they reproduce the worst features of organised religion.

On the other hand, societies might be reconfigured in such a way that the idea of religion made no sense. Interestingly, the reverse process seems to have happened in Japan in the 19th century, after American gunboats broke the country's isolation. According to a recent book from Chicago University Press, there had been until then no concept of "religion" in Japanese society; afterwards, as part of the modernisation, some social practices and beliefs had to be carved out as "religious" while others were classified as "non-religious". I don't know how this account might apply to the spread of Christianity in the 17th century, and then the murderous suppression over generations; I'll have to wait for the book to arrive. But the process seems a plausible one, and something like it may be under way in the "secularising" parts of the world today.

But what is happening there is less of an abandonment of doctrine as a withdrawal of assent from things formerly considered sacred. This is a process as general and impersonal as language change. Nor is it any more driven by rationality. Considered in themselves, there is nothing more "religious" about a teddy bear left out in the rain by the roadside than there is about a man wearing a white lace-trimmed frock. Yet the teddy bear at the site of a road crash is recognised as a meaningful symbol of our horror at mortality, while the young man in a cotta is no longer a priest linking us to the heart of our civilisation but callow and pretentious.

One hundred years ago, the situation would have been completely absurd, a reversal of the natural order of the universe. It's certainly impossible to describe it as progress. It is simply change – evolution, if you like.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/30/how-do-religions-die

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
1. " It's obvious that the more people try to replace religion with science, the more they..."
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 06:14 PM
Sep 2013

"...reproduce the worst features of organised religion."

I don't know how this is obvious, or even factual, sounds completely made up to me.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,295 posts)
2. It is made up. Brown is that strange thing - a religion editor who trolls himself.
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 06:48 PM
Sep 2013

He comes up with nonsense week after week, without justification, or just plain wrong, and publishes it, seemingly to generate a barrage of "you're an idiot" comments. Which all count as website hits, I suppose.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
9. OK, I just looked up some of his other articles, the one before this Criticized "The Selfish Gene"..
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 08:42 PM
Sep 2013

mostly from the title alone, and misconstrued the book.

I'm delving deeper now, this should be funny.

BlueToTheBone

(3,747 posts)
4. In the case of Goddess based religions, it was murder
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 06:59 PM
Sep 2013

6 million women were murdered in horrible ways so that people would say "God the Father."

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
6. This quote from the article echoes that.
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 07:18 PM
Sep 2013
"Perhaps the end of Mesopotamian Civilization was marked, not by the last cuneiform document to be produced, but by the last prayer to be uttered to Marduk or Assur, but of that we have no record."

dimbear

(6,271 posts)
8. Like the man said:
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 08:14 PM
Sep 2013

"The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world."

Dover Beach, of course.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
10. "neither joy, nor love, nor light, Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain"
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 09:29 PM
Sep 2013
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.


Dover Beach, of course.

There's always Gerard Manley Hopkins to consider.
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
11. The paragraph about Japan seems a bit bullshitty, but then again the author admits
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 10:00 PM
Sep 2013

to not having read the source, an odd admission. I'm pretty sure the Japanese state was aware of "religion" as a concept, since they seem to have passed various laws regarding religion during the 1000 years preceding the alleged "opening by gunboat" in the 19th century.

struggle4progress

(118,273 posts)
12. Translation is always a problem, since a word in one language need not have an exactly
Tue Oct 1, 2013, 01:32 AM
Oct 2013

corresponding word in another. I'm no expert on Japanese culture, history, or language but there's no obvious reason that the Japanese would necessarily have had a concept directly corresponding to our notion "religion" in the seventeenth century -- and in fact Western European notions of "religion" at the time might have differed considerably from the modern notion

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»How do religions die?