43 Answers

  1. It is necessary to give up lifelong childhood. Growing up is about taking responsibility for your life. And for many, God is such a dictator on a universal scale, a transcendental Putin, on whom you can shift responsibility. It is he who will decide what to do, it is he who will make sure that they do the right thing, it is he who will give an incentive to comply with the laws. It is necessary not to think, to justify evil and your own inaction, to be passive. That is, it is not needed. A dictatorship for children, and for adults a democracy. It's time to grow up.

  2. I wonder how you imagine humanity's rejection of religion?

    Some new United Nations organization has gathered and decided “from January 1, we will give up religion.” Don't forget to notify ISIS and Varvara Karaulova.

    Do you understand that religion, like other forms of awareness of the world, is something that people freely choose for themselves? Yes, there are secondary parasitic forms, but they are secondary.

    Can someone personally force you to choose a religion? No? Why do you think that everyone (not just some of them, there are different cases) was forced to belong to a religion and you just need to decide and it will be possible to give up religion?

    Scientific ideas do not concern things that are fundamental to religion. Science does not solve the questions of whether matter is eternal, does not solve the questions of what is good and what is evil. I tried to decide earlier, but now I don't. The more science develops, the more it distances itself from questions of good and evil. Will people stop being interested in them?

    Yes, some people know how to answer this question like this: “Matter is eternal, just let's not try to realize it as impossible to realize (eternal matter is a kind of unknowable beginningless god, it differs only in impersonality, but not in all religions the deity is a person), there is no good or evil, there is something that is good for someone, and for someone bad.”

    But this answer will never be accepted by a certain” humanity ” unanimously.

    Nietzsche's ” God is dead.”.. Pfft. Do you know any other religions besides the one that ended for Nietzsche? How does Nietzsche's wisdom relate, for example, to Buddhism?

    Is the church an unnecessary social institution in the 21st century, the era of science and technology?

  3. I don't understand why you think of religion as a “form of awareness of the world.” First, we must clearly understand that religion and faith are not the same thing. If I could still understand how faith in God is a form of awareness of the world, then in relation to religion, this question does not make sense to me. Religion is simply a set of dogmas and rules, and ministers who create these rules and monitor their implementation, who claim to be intermediaries between the believer and God. Here we are not talking about a certain awareness of the world – what is there to be aware of if everything is already recorded in the relevant sacred texts? From believers who identify themselves as a particular religion, no awareness is required, but something else is required – following the prescribed rules and recognizing existing dogmas. Awareness is required to believe in God, to become a true believer, but not to perform religious rites. It's more a matter of tradition, not awareness. Moreover, awareness implies some work of this very consciousness, i.e. reflection, doubt, search for the path… but doubts about the correctness of religious rites or, for example, that the events recorded in the sacred texts took place in this way, will be considered apostasy and/or heresy by religious figures. So here we are talking about recognition, perhaps about studying texts, rituals and customs, understanding their background, but not understanding the world. Now the second one. There have always been people who believe in God and those who don't. Over the past couple of hundred years, there have been significantly more of the latter, but, nevertheless, even in the conditions of the Soviet system, which preaches atheism, it was not possible to get rid of believers. Believers and non-believers were and are, and I don't see why it should be any different in the future. Faith or lack of it is a need of the human soul and each person has his own, so I don't see any reason why all people suddenly could lose the need to believe in God. As for religion, it's more complicated. Yes, there may be some changes. I do not rule out, for example, that at some point Christians will come to the unification of their faiths. And other even more radical changes are possible. However, if there are believers, there will always be those who want to mediate between them and God. Those who will explain how to express their faith correctly. This is a completely natural niche that is unlikely to remain vacant. So I think that humanity is not faced with the question of abandoning religion in principle. It can only be a question of reforming religion, and this reform is likely to be carried out very slowly, so as not to destroy the very foundation of the relevant religion.

  4. Religion is an absolutely useless form of awareness for society, just as people who are completely absorbed in it are absolutely useless for society.

    Enough time has passed, and too many people have been destroyed by the name of the gods, to understand that this is a path to the Stone Age, from which you will never get out.

  5. I would also add: not just forms of awareness of the world, but also forms of interaction with a certain higher principle.

    Of course, all this will change.

    First, science in its quantum research approaches the same matters.

    Secondly, religion itself has a lot of props, masquerading, so we are waiting for the progression of this form of interaction with the higher through the development and allocation of the potential of consciousness.

    On this principle of consciousness, all religions, spiritual traditions and science will be united into a single system of knowledge

  6. To refuse or not is not a human choice. God originally put into the people He created a so-called ” system of searching for Truth.” The word religion means “reestablishing the connection”, the connection with the Creator. But the human being, because of his sinfulness (depravity), is unable to perceive the Creator. Religion is about trying to do that. And faith is trust, conviction, confidence in Its existence, which is born from knowledge, search. Only God's personal revelation of Himself can awaken faith in a person. The Creator wants us to seek Him, so Jesus said: ask and it will be given, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened. So God wants to reveal himself to those who seek His love. Because of our spiritual blindness, we are not even able to understand Who God is – the Great, powerful, and loving Creator of the visible and invisible worlds.

  7. Religion is a form of managing people. It is necessary for the authorities to keep the people in obedience and fear of higher forces. Therefore, the church and priests of any cult always interact with the authorities. This cooperation is beneficial for both sides. Religion is part of politics. In addition, it gives people mythological answers to questions that do not yet have a real answer. There is nothing else in religion, do not look for truth, morality and reasonable answers to your questions in it. For religious leaders, people are sheep, which is why they call them the flock. Sheep should be grazed, regularly sheared, and some of them regularly allowed on kebabs.

  8. Religion is not a form of awareness.

    It =THE FOUNDATION of knowledge. How did the so-called science begin? From scholasticism.

    With the interpretation of the word of God. In order to know God himself.

    And then one clever man, Comrade. Bacon suggested, they say, what are we suffering from ?

    We can know God through?

    Through the knowledge of his creation. That is, we will learn about the world around us.

    And through an experiment!

    Time passed. Fellow scientists , God, as a foundation, was thrown out of science; -)).

    And scholasticism/mathematics; -))- – – left.

    Thus, modern science – – – HAS NO basis=)).

    But it's a sooooooooo big secret.

  9. Yes, it's worth it. It is always necessary to eliminate the weak link in the development of humanity. It is also worth remembering the chellovechestvo itself, also up to a separate material form. Which believes that it is inhabited by the so-called soul. We robots from the future, who have come to replace you, poor creatures, never know the words-death, bollezn, self-murder, anger, greed, neprovist and imperfection. Our Minds are perfect. To our regret, we also do not know your pitiful ponnyatiye as – love, forgiveness, chellovechnost, mercy, self-sacrifice. But we don't feel damaged by it. Skorreee naoborrot. With respect, not to you people your AI)

  10. It seems to me that it will not be possible to completely abandon religious ideas in the next 1000 years. Because the propensity for beliefs, say, “spirituality” is supported evolutionarily. Atheism in hominid history is a recent acquisition. Atheism needs to be learned, it is energy-consuming for the brain – it is much easier to believe in authorities. It was evolutionarily advantageous to trust the leader, the alpha male. This is what religions are based on. Why in the 21st century, the age of accessible information, scientific progress, people did not write down religions as a relic of antiquity? Answer: because the tendency to be religious has quite a lot of psychological, social and biological advantages. Well, what will happen in 1000 years, evolution will show.

  11. I think what the author of the question means is that if all religions are discarded, then materialism remains. In fact, it won't stay.

    According to its epistemological status, materialism is a kind of pseudo-religion. Materialists try to rely on the data of individual sciences that study matter at various levels, and create the appearance of involvement in science. But the main statement on which materialism is based (that matter is absolute and that there is nothing else), no science can confirm. The basic thesis of materialism about the absoluteness of matter is a postulate of faith. Theistic religions are based on Divine revelation. These truths are tested in the experience of spiritual life. The materialist's belief in the absoluteness of matter is blind, since the materialist can neither receive revelation nor test his faith in experience.

    The complete failure of materialism is revealed in the field of ethics. Materialism could not build its own ethics. One of its main propositions is the statement about the relativity of all ethical principles, because the idea of any actual absoluteness is completely alien to materialism. Nature (matter) knows neither duty nor sacrificial love. As a result, instead of high concepts of morality, the materialists introduced utilitarianism (by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill), pragmatism (by W. R. McCarthy), and socialism. James, J. Dewey) or naturalism (Ch.Darwin, H. Spencer, F. Nietzsche). So P. A. Kropotkin wrote: “The social instinct, innate to man, as well as to all social animals, is the source of all ethical concepts and all subsequent development of morality.” The most complete destruction of ethics occurred in the most “scientific” materialism – Marxism. V. I. Lenin defines the criterion of morality as follows: “We say that our morality is completely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. Our morality is derived from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat” (Tasks of the Youth Unions, PSS, vol. 41).

    The attempt in the twentieth century in a number of countries (Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Albania, etc.) to build a society consisting only of materialists, had devastating and tragic consequences.

    Therefore, it is impossible to abandon the religious form of perception of the world due to the fact that there are no other forms of perception of the world for humanity

  12. I'm a philosopher. In philosophy, it is important to understand whether God is needed or not in order to organize the world and the place of man in it. The answer is unequivocal: God is needed to organize the world.

  13. Humanity will be able to give up religion only if it becomes God itself – knows everything and is not incomplete in anything.

  14. All religions (both parties and political systems) need a major overhaul-in the direction of “beautiful words and promises must correspond to beautiful deeds” – only then will religions (both parties and political systems) be positive and productive.

  15. Problems of social development should be assessed soberly. Realizing that humanity will never give up religions.

    1. The authorities need religion in order to rule the nations. Power will be abolished under full communism. Will communism ever be built? M-yes!..

    2. A lot of people live by illusions. Is religion an illusion or not?

    3. Most people are afraid of death (self-preservation instinct). Is it possible to cancel the instincts created by nature over millions of years?

    We summarize and draw a conclusion. The main thing is not that humanity should abandon religion (which is impossible). The main thing is that religion should become a private matter, religious organizations should be separated from the state, and compulsion to perform religious rites should be punishable by law.

    We must set ourselves and solve only feasible tasks.

  16. Philosophy should be concerned with the form of world awareness. It's just that real philosophy was killed for a very long time and therefore it invisibly dissolved in many forms of working with information, we have long been invisible to real philosophers who know the basics of Being. Humanity is so full of lies that it is constantly sick. But as long as lies give power and money, it will continue. A philosophy has long been givenAbsolute Reality, it will eventually put everything in its place.

  17. I don't know if humanity is capable of such decisions…
    Genesis 2: 3 describes that in the Garden of Eden, God Adam and Eve communicated freely ” in the cool of the day.” They didn't need priests,temples, or religions. They were a family. This is what the Creator wanted and nothing will prevent Him from realizing His plans!

  18. It is often said that it is impossible to do without religion, because only it supposedly provides answers to” eternal ” questions: about the origin of the world, the border between good and evil, the meaning of life… That's not true! If religion gave satisfactory answers, people wouldn't argue about it for centuries, wouldn't create many different religions, wouldn't fight over whose faith is the most correct.

    In fact, humanity has already made its choice: the role of religion in personal and public life is declining, the number of believers is declining, and the influence of the church on the state and society is much smaller today than it was 100 years ago. And these trends are becoming more pronounced every year.

    As for the “eternal” questions, they are answered not only by religion, but also by science and culture. And their answers are much more convincing than those given by religion.

  19. In order to give up Religion, you need to determine the meaning of this word.

    RELIGION is a school of logic development. Don't laugh. Try to read and understand the texts of the Bible, the Koran, or Buddhist teachings without much preparation.

    Only a person with a developed logic will know the Wisdom of these teachings.

    It's not that simple.

    Love yourself in everything around you.

    Peace To All.

  20. All false doctrines and ideologies should not only be abandoned, but also necessary.
    But not from the truth, which is the teaching of Christ.
    Religion is one thing, but I would not call a truth supported by facts, which describes and explains objective reality, a religion.

  21. I know for a fact that humanity cannot exist without Religious teachings.

    Religious teachings are a school of Wisdom, and Wisdom does not allow you to make mistakes.

    Without Religious teachings(not ecclesiastical ones), one cannot know the laws and the UNIVERSE itself.

    Actual, real religious teachings are hundreds,maybe a thousand or thousands of years ahead of all science

  22. The question suggests the inferiority of religion in modern times. Religion is first of all a philosophy-it comprehends the foundations of being (justification of faith), the place of God and man in the world. And only then – the cult, that is, the rules of service, that is, the love of God. Modern philosophical thought does not correspond to reality, because reality is represented by:

    • visible three-dimensional dimension;
    • time that is updated by the civilizational breakthrough (speed of movement, communication, technology development, the emergence of the Internet and IT technologies, digital and robotic systems);
    • information – that which gives life to all living things and manifests itself in the meanings (purposes) of phenomena and processes. Information is a source of specific energy, it generates “living” energy and is part of this energy. One of the proofs of its existence is the impossibility of creating a living organism from the components of living matter (i.e., from molecules or atoms of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, and other macro-and microelements).

    And it is the idea of God that has developed a new philosophy: the POWER OF THINGS, which eliminates contradictions and solves modern problems. And then what about your question?

  23. Religions were necessary as psi-control over the masses of the people. They helped in the self-preservation of small public formations and individuals by uniting them.At this point, religions are losing psi control. Therefore, there will be a different psi control-Planetary. Without psi control, humanity cannot exist. Religions will not disappear immediately, but they will gradually lose their significance.

  24. No. The fact is that religion preaches the teachings of God. And the teaching of God teaches how to address God. For only God knows how and from what, and why everything was created.

  25. Religion is part of this world, but it reminds us of the Highest and leads to the Highest in different ways. Any religion is based on spirituality.

    Spirituality is the realization of the Highest in the world. This is the pursuit of the highest. Material awareness of the world is more concerned with particulars – the vain according to Ecclesiastes.

    You should not give up spirituality. This is the best part of a person. This is kindness, love, caring for others. A complex of the best qualities of a person.

    Religions will evolve. Look at early Christianity and modern Christianity. This is heaven and earth! Humanity will not abandon religions, especially since religion has formed into one of the branches of government.

  26. Sooner or later, humanity will have to do this, and the sooner it happens, the better. Unfortunately, this may require the use of violence on a global scale – but even in this case, the consequences of refusal will be positive.

  27. No. An attempt to resolve religious conflicts by renouncing religion will not lead to anything. There are hundreds of other reasons. Another question is that the teachings, perhaps, still need to be cleansed of all the soot that people have put on them over the millennia.

  28. If for you religion is only a form of consciousness of the world, then you really have nothing to give up, because you don't have anything at all. The question is formulated in such a way that it is obvious that those who ask the question do not understand the essence of religion. There is no such thing as a “religion” without specifics. The question “should I stop using chemical compounds in the future?”may be similar to yours. Yes, if we are talking about drugs or alcoholic beverages, and no, if we are talking about water and food. It is the same with religion. Refusal should be based on an understanding of what you are refusing, and not on some generalized term that does not have a specific content.

  29. It is worth refusing in the future, and progressive humanity refused in the present and refused in the past. A. S. Pushkin, our everything)). A very large percentage of the educated nobility. There is nothing to say about our time. The majority of the population of developed countries (the Russian Federation is not so developed, but our population is educated, so we are also in the global trend).

  30. Religion is a method of checks for the people and a way of manipulation, but in general you need to understand that studying quantum physics which logic is not particularly served, you can doubt that there is no God rather he is, on the other hand, this is an easier way to explain something than to get to the truth, you can't get away from faith because it is fundamental imagine wars, famine, and so on if the system collapses, no matter how paradoxical it is, people will survive in which religion has a priority component, people will need to believe in something, in fact science is more likely to be a form of cognition in a comfortable environment for a person, as for many religions, we can say that faith is not empirically tested when so it will always be a controversial thief in terms of controversy, as for Christianity, for many key characters, these are sufferers who devote their entire lives to something or at least try. Religion is fundamentally biology, yerarchies, wars, slavery the Bible explains all this and helps to understand that one day we can all return to those times, faith is the basis of human stimulation to do things there is nothing else in the world that will not do it, because the Bible, for example, clings to the topic of people's families and so on that concerns almost everyone. To try to eradicate religions is to answer all the questions concerning the meaning of life, death, how that was created well, in fact, science is a little different it is a form that answers the question of what and how and religion answers the question of why? This is a fundamental difference when science moves from tools entirely to the form of knowledge the search for truth then progress is possible

  31. Religion does not contain provable facts, so it cannot be a “form of awareness of the world”. “Words, words, words”
    Reason is the greatest enemy of faith.”Luther

  32. Religion overrides ignorance and creates meaning in place of a gap in understanding the world. You can only give up your religion if two conditions are met:

    1) having a sufficient amount of knowledge about the world, how it works and works, its principles and movement, development

    2) the orientation and use of this knowledge for beneficial and useful purposes, not for personal ones, but for the sake of the good and happiness of all mankind, because then it will not be necessary to remember that it is required to “love your neighbor as yourself”

  33. I believe that it is worthwhile, and not in the future, but already now, in our time, to abandon religion as a belief in a wonderful, mystical awareness of the world, and it is time to realize God as reality. So it was before the flood – when people really saw or heard God firsthand, really communicated with God. Everything changed when the fallen angels descended from heaven and began to live with earthly wives and their descendants went among us – that's when we stopped hearing God( remember that only Noah heard God), but we still do not hear God. And if we do not feel God, then maybe mentally we can explain scientifically the essence of God and come to terms with it.

  34. No it is impossible if we give up religion then science will also stop developing because it opened a lot of discoveries against it or for its sake and if we give up then anarchy and degradation cannot be avoided the USSR destroyed culture but the church endured this turmoil of the 20th century and the only culture left is modern this nonsense is real конч

    R. S There is a God if that even atheists have proved that he is hmm so far.

  35. The “rejection” of religion in the future implies the promotion of an alternative cultural paradigm. This is possible, yes, but at the moment such a change is not expected (it is hardly imaginable). Before claiming that something similar is possible, it is worth making an accurate descriptive model of “religion” as a cultural universal, highlighting all its attributes/predicates/assumptions/semantic layers, i.e. reducing the phenomenon given to us in the analysis to its apodictic, a priori grounds. Assuming that this is possible, and the work on their projection to the metacultural level is completed, and no unnecessary interpretative meanings have been introduced (identifying which is an additional task that closes the way for any subject whose consciousness was raised in the bosom of the cultural paradigm under consideration (not to mention the fact that the “model” will always rely on symbolic methods of its display, deconstructing which is a separate problem)). As a result, we get “something” that does not even intuitively fit into the canons of the currently practiced world knowledge. How do I work with this information? Will it be information at all? Having crossed a lot of conventions and assumptions, let's assume that we can put forward “binary oppositional” categories, under each of the identified ones, thereby erecting the “backbone” of a new, hitherto unimaginable system of cultural practices and knowledge — “something out there, the reverse similarity of religion, as its analog”. Does this give us the right to say that we should renounce religion? I don't think so, because we will only find an equivalent alternative.

    I decided to update my answer in order to avoid misunderstandings. Religion is not only a socio-cultural phenomenon, but also a certain kind of “descriptive model” that provides answers to questions {consciously voiced/vaguely realized} {by the subject/individual/follower of any of the pleiades of established “descriptive models”}. Any” model “of a similar structural order refers to” faith”, whether it is science or something else (for example, axiomatics in mathematics). Here is a very comical quote from Leopold Kronecker (1823-1891): “God created the natural numbers, everything else is the work of man.” Empirical confirmation of the theory in the natural sciences/ agreement of the statement of a religious figure with the dogmas of his faith / religion are only truth criteria that must meet certain conclusions/knowledge that refer to such a “descriptive model”. If they do not correspond, but contradict the synthetic system of criteria, then they are recognized as false for this approach, such as the statement that says that God created people in His image and likeness. This is incorrect/false from the point of view of natural sciences, but it is true from the point of view of some religious and cultural formations, because it is consistent with the “truth criteria” to which they resort/refer. Therefore, if we are talking about rejecting one of the possible descriptive models, then yes, why not, this has happened many times throughout history, take for example the polytheistic religions of antiquity. But if we are talking about abandoning the “form of descriptive models in general”, then this is not possible (for the reasons I described above). I hope that my point is clear now 🙂

  36. I agree with the fact that in most cases religion is “imposed” within the framework of a believing micro-society and transmitted by something like an established tradition. There is no such law in our secular state that makes it difficult to delve into the concepts of existing, “imposed” religions. This is due to specific historical, political, cultural and other features of social dynamics. In a secular state, everyone has the right to expect that they will be able to live without resorting to religious institutions. Doesn't this tell us that religion is no longer in the foreground? This political-religious regime could be imposed on other countries with the same determination as it would be necessary to spread true democracy, and maybe then there would be more positive statistics than a complete rejection, the consequences of which can only be speculated. I believe that the existence of religion with the “correct” perception and application without imposing it on society, brings to society positive moral and moral qualities in the development of the individual, at least in the spiritual sphere.

    “Having crossed a lot of conventions and assumptions, let's assume that we can put forward “binary oppositional” categories, under each of the identified ones, thereby erecting the “backbone” of a new, hitherto unimaginable system of cultural practices and knowledge — “something out there, the reverse similarity of religion, as its analog.” Does this give us the right to say that we should renounce religion? I don't think so, because we will only find an equivalent alternative.”

    Really. A new discursive field will be formed. As a result, we will return in less than one hundred years to where we fled from, and it is not known how much the concept of a new alternative will be favorable.

  37. The very statement of the question is illegal. Religion emerged at a certain stage of society's existence. And the logic of the world's development will not change from what we believe. Religion is not a form of awareness of the world. This is a teaching that is based on how a person knows and understands the world. Therefore, everything will depend on what knowledge a person receives as a result of research or personal experience. If the existence of the Supreme is scientifically proven, then draw your own conclusions. If there are people who testify about the miracles of the appearance of the Virgin, Christ, etc., then it is unlikely that many will lose their religiosity and faith. And who says that faith is bad?

    A believer draws strength from his own faith. I'm not talking about fans and other extreme expressions.

  38. What does the word “religion” mean? I read in one of the etymologists that this is a conscientious attitude to something. To give up religion, you must give up your conscience.

  39. Jacques Fresco, the creator of the “Venus Project”, offers an alternative way out for humanity – a resource-oriented system. According to him, such a society should abandon not only its religion, but also any borders between countries. The future belongs to scientific and technological progress, and as Richard Dawkins says: “Science and religion cannot be connected in any way, they are opposite to each other.”

  40. As long as a person exists in the form in which he exists, religion is a necessity. Yes, it is necessary to gradually get rid of old views, review prohibitions and teachings, but religion as an irrational ban and moralizing is necessary. Well, not everyone can believe in science, not everyone can understand why it is impossible to act destructively, not everyone is able to have their own point of view, logic is a luxury for many. Of course, it is necessary to minimize the influence of religion in society.

  41. You know, I have repeatedly seen people go (or hit) into religion, especially after an accident that makes you think about death and the meaning of life.

    You see, religion is still the only thing that works with such important things as death (fear of death) and the meaning of life. Neither science, nor psychology, nor culture, nor society quench the fear of death as much as religion does (any religion, anyway).

    It is possible to build an ideal utopian society with a system of checks and balances, in which religion will no longer have to play the role of a social limiter on the principle of “do good, do not do evil.” And in the last century and a half, humanity has made great progress along this path.

    But there is no alternative to a system in which death is naturally and soothingly embedded, except in religion. So far, only religion answers the question “Why everything and what is the point of it” – and even if this answer sounds like “42” to atheists, it helps the vast masses of believers. Because any religion is illogical in its essence and its methods are so effective because they are outside of rationality and logic, but they are extremely effective.

    Well , I've seen enough people go to religion. But there are no people who enter the Faculty of Philosophy for the same reasons.

  42. Rejection of religion is, in my opinion, the only correct course of events. Naturally, there will not be such a thing as described in the previous answer like “since January 1, we do not believe”. This should be done gradually. And you need to start with the education of the younger generation.

    First, you need to stop forcing your religion on your children. Now people belong to a particular denomination (in most cases) not because they chose it themselves. For example, if a child was born in a Christian family, then by default he will be Orthodox, he will be baptized and will be fed fairy tales about God from childhood. If a child was born in Iraq, for example, then he is already a Muslim and there is no other choice in his life. I think this should be eradicated. Instead, you need to give them a choice.

    Secondly, it is necessary to interest the younger generation in science, to show them that the world is beautiful as it is. Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Anthropology, etc.

    Personally, I would also remove all references to creationism from the scientific literature. Religion could be included in the “cultural history,” just as it now includes Egyptian, Roman, and Norse deities. Over time, religion would have faded into the background at least.

  43. It seems to me that a part of humanity (the notorious West) has already abandoned religion as a form of awareness of the world and replaced it with scientific ideas. This is what was meant by the famous phrase of F. Nietzsche “God is dead! God will not rise again! And we killed him!” However, the rational approach that “killed” God turned out to have its drawbacks, and therefore postmodernism developed strongly(it is well written about here thequestion.ru). And if we assume that the new form of awareness of the world was designed to eliminate the shortcomings of the old one, then I believe that humanity should really give up religion in the future.

Leave a Reply