Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

No Religion Too

The latest Skeptiko podcast features Dr Jeffrey Kripal, whose recently-released book Authors of the Impossible (Amazon US and UK) traces the history of psychical phenomena through the last two centuries of Western thought. Alex Tsakiris asked Kripal, as an academic studying comparative religion, for his thoughts on the future of religions. Kripal’s response is, I think, pretty spot on:

[T]he far future is much easier to guess at than the near future because in the far future, say 10,000 years out, none of the religions today will exist in their present forms.

That’s a pretty good guess from what we know about the past. If the future behaves at all like the past, none of the religions will be around. They’ll have morphed into something else or they will have died down. And so I basically say if you’re worshipping a God, you’re basically worshipping Zeus, because there are no more temples here for Zeus. So that’s the first argument.

The second argument, though, is that that doesn’t mean religion will go away. At least in the Western sort of economically stable, educated world, whether it’s in the West or Asia, I think religious belief and religious systems are going to hinge largely on this question we were talking about earlier. About what mind is or what consciousness is. If it’s established beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is simply brain processes that we’re essentially biologically robots and mind is a kind of extremely elaborate froth of firing neurons, well, that’s going to have a devastating effect on the future of religion.

But my own guess is that that will not be established because it’s not true. So I think there will be a kind of philosophical, metaphysical base for religious belief but that doesn’t mean the individual belief systems will continue to have the same power over us. Basically what a comparative sees is that all belief systems are relative to their place in time and that none of them are completely true. And that they’re largely functional. They work for people. They serve certain needs, certain social needs and emotional needs. But they’re not literally true like a mathematical statement or something.

Kripal’s Authors of the Impossible looks at four individuals who have “thought in a very sophisticated way about what is today called psychic and paranormal experiences”: Frederick Myers, Charles Fort, Jacques Vallee and Bertrand Méheust. There’s also a documentary based on the book in the works which will features interviews with Vallee and Méheust, as well as other notables including Dean Radin and Stephen Braude. You can find out more at the official Authors of the Impossible website.

In the interview Kripal also reveals that he’s just finished a new book that looks at “pulp fiction, science fiction and superhero comics and tries to tease out some of the paranormal currents there by looking at the real-life experiences of the authors and artists”. Sounds like my type of guy.

Editor
  1. From My Perspective,…
    Greg,

    Religion only serves two purposes in society. Religion’s first and highest purpose is to creat unity in society. And, religion is beginning to fail to do this. The second purpose of religion is to give people a sense of inner peace and security. In the future, I think that the purposes of religion will be fulfilled by other means. So, I think that in 10,000 years the concept will have been forgotten by all but a few historians and anthropologists. Furthermore, the psychological need for religion, in my opinion, is a primative need that will be in our evolutionary past in 10,000 years!

  2. Spiritual experience that is
    Spiritual experience that is actually the result of “experience” and not abstract theorizing will not go away. The presumption is that spiritual experience is a question of thinking and mentation, but the more enduring spiritual movements are usually the scene of initiations and direct experience. Religious “experience” is much more than a state arrived at by philosophy. So many theorists today are not really in tune with spiritual experience. Instead of direct experience they speculate probably because they have nothing else to go by, and they assume that all religious belief systems have just been fabricated out of thin air. They are “stories.” Rene Guenon wrote piercingly about the poverty of modern experience not just in spiritual matters but in nearly all matters.

  3. Be all you can be. Be God.
    I really love it when non-believers take their shots on religion/faith. It’s kind of like what you would expect to get from the Rev. Pat Robertson on the subject of quantum physics.

    Then there’s the quiet laugh… not to rile the authors but just to acknowledge the perfect futility.

    I do imagine that the frustration levels are intense on both sides. The Church has been trying to bring humanity under its wing for centuries and now science is looking for a way to either replace or dismantle religion.

    Can you explain something as being nothing and then expect it to disappear like it was never there?

    Welcome to the office of mainstream thought! Please be sure to check your faith at the desk before registering your mind with the box.

    To disbelieve of anything unproven requires as much faith as believing of anything unproven because it is impossible to disprove the existence of anything.

    Well… unless you are yourself God. Then you can claim universal wisdom and hallowed tenure at UC Berkley. You will give everyone ‘A’s… even though no one passes your class who isn’t stoned.

  4. External influence

    Seem like Kripal is tackling the question of religion from an strictly internal POV.

    He’s not taking into account the many occasions in which anomalous external events have shaped, modified, or even ignited religious systems.

    Let’s take for example, the strange visit of the "Angel Moroni" to one John Smith.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I adhere to the Mormon faith —not that I have nothing against those who practice it— or that I think Smith’s account is accurate.

    But so many similar events across history —the visit of "nordic" entities— seems to point out these people contacted something. And that something has been —unwittingly or not— shaping many of our current belief systems.

    And it’s still doing it today.

    PS: About his upcoming book, someone tell Kripal he shouldn’t bother. We already have "Our Gods Wear Spandex" by Chris Knowles 😉

    1. from the Questions-All-the-Way-Down-Dept.
      rpj,

      Oh, goody!

      If I may add to your riff:

      When you are experiencing something, are you experiencing it internally or externally?

      In science, do the experimenters have to take into account their own influence in the experiment?

      What does it mean to have an external event or an internal event? Do we have a choice?

      Not necessarily meant to be answered, but for mulling over.

      1. Head… exploding! @_@
        Very ontological queries there, Inannawhimsey. In any case, I would suggest that there are times when an anomalous phenomenon that originates external of your mind —let’s not dabble with the problem of pan-consciousness for a moment!— might have a huge influence in the development of your belief systems.

        This, despite the fact that your already-established cultural bias will undoubtedly try to make sense of said phenomenon, and quite possibly “pollute” the original signal with your subconscious “noise”.

        1. from the Mind-Muffler-Dept.
          [quote=red pill junkie]Very ontological queries there, Inannawhimsey. In any case, I would suggest that there are times when an anomalous phenomenon that originates external of your mind —let’s not dabble with the problem of pan-consciousness for a moment!— might have a huge influence in the development of your belief systems.

          This, despite the fact that your already-established cultural bias will undoubtedly try to make sense of said phenomenon, and quite possibly “pollute” the original signal with your subconscious “noise”.[/quote]

          I hope you didn’t make much noise in your hacienda.

          And not just ‘anomalous phenomenon’, but normal phenomenon as well. The sun emitting photons at those certain energy levels over certain time periods interacting with our neurophysiology, I’m sure, has had a large influence in the development of our belief systems. Or the nature of free space has as well.

          Your notion kind of brings up the whole notion of the supernatural — in that, are there instances of ‘ultimate copyright holders’, so-to-speak, of actions or influences? When I stub my toe, I automatically think ‘something outside of myself has caused me to feel pain in my toe’. That is one way of thinking aboot it. Another way is to consider all the factors that go into the experience of stubbing my toe, which involves me, some of which is involuntary and some of which is voluntary. Certain conditions have to exist. And so forth.

          I think we can do (and have done) experiments of sorts to look at how “…an anomalous phenomenon that originates external of your mind have a huge influence in the development of your belief systems…” and that depending on our way of looking that we use, we will ‘discover’/create different truths.

          And that is simply fascinating.

    2. No need
      [quote=red pill junkie]PS: About his upcoming book, someone tell Kripal he shouldn’t bother. We already have "Our Gods Wear Spandex" by Chris Knowles ;)[/quote]

      Given that Jeff Kripal facilitated a 2009 conference at Esalen on the topic of superpowers at which Chris Knowles was an invited speaker; that Kripal is an upcoming guest on Chris’s Secret Sun blog; and that Kripal contributed a blurb to Chris’s new book The Secret History of Rock’n’Roll, I’d say Jeff Kripal is fairly aware of Our Gods Wear Spandex. 😉

      p.s. I removed the linked image from your comment – it kept polling the Examiner.com site and wouldn’t load the page here properly.

  5. I see the current mainstream
    I see the current mainstream debate between fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist science (scientism) as a healthy development – acknowledging and identifying the dogma being the first step in a progressive movement towards a more unified approach to spirituality.

    Actually the fundamentalists are late to the party, finally having become aware of the threat that this inevitable, and well-advanced, movement represents to their worldviews – the ‘new physics’ is not so new anymore. The fundamentalists’ reaction seems to be to attack each other (easy targets), rather than to challenge the new paradigm (a task for which they are inadequately prepared). Either way is suicidal.

    Wider cultural awareness and the rise of ‘eclectic spirituality’ is leading to a ‘democratisation’ of spirituality, a gnostic revival or re-evaluation of spiritual traditions in the light of personal spiritual experience. Traditions won’t die, they’ll be reinterpreted and transformed. There will always be a need for an outer expression of the inner world. Literalism will die.

    Developments in neuroscience, widely touted as ‘explaining away’ spirituality, do nothing of the sort. Rather, they can be seen as providing new insight into spirituality and spiritual practice – showing that animals can be spiritual too for example, or helping us balance our left/right brain hemispheres.

  6. In 10,000 Years . . .
    I disagree with the premise that there will be no religion in 10,000 years. This flies in the face of nearly that much recorded (one way or another) history that shows repeated moments of cyclical degradation to civilization, to the point of ‘Dark Ages’. In China, with its 3,000 years of written record, they have experienced this not once or twice, but nearly a dozen times.

    The central flawed assumption made by the writer is that we will continue our forward push to ever greater ‘progress’ unabated.

    This is shown by history to be grossly inaccurate.

    We could be worshiping the ‘Great Keeper of the Void’ from our interstellar colonies in that far off future, or we could just as easily be worshiping the stone, wood, and bone statue that your illiterate friend Og created two caves down… It is with great presumption that you choose one over the other.

    Personally I think many of today’s religions will be found in that far flung future. Zoroaster’s, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus. . All have experience weathering many thousands of years. . . what’s a few, or dozen thousand more? Even Christianity has remained relatively stable these past 1,500 years.

    Death of religion? Just wishful thinking from the Atheistic lot who believe there is NO foundation to religion other than wishful thinking on behalf of the adherents. Most adherents, will tell you however, that it was feeling, action, and happenstance which put them on the path to faith, and those will be in the future just as they are now, because such is the human condition. Now if you want to go on and say we won’t be human in 10,000 years, well, that’s another discussion entirely.

    ASM

    1. Continuing with your idea
      Continuing with your idea of the survival of religion, one also needs to consider the following: our modern faiths are nothing but the latest reinterpretation of the same myths that have accompanied humanity since the dawn of time. Jesus, Mithra, Horus & Dionysus are basically the same story told from different cultural perspective. Ditto with Zeus/Yehova & Isis/Mary.

    2. Who said what?
      [quote=AncientSkyMan]I disagree with the premise that there will be no religion in 10,000 years. This flies in the face of nearly that much recorded (one way or another) history that shows repeated moments of cyclical degradation to civilization, to the point of ‘Dark Ages’. In China, with its 3,000 years of written record, they have experienced this not once or twice, but nearly a dozen times.

      The central flawed assumption made by the writer is that we will continue our forward push to ever greater ‘progress’ unabated.[/quote]

      I think it’s worth pointing out that Kripal didn’t say “there will be no religion in 10,000 years” (and I don’t mean to pull you out individually ASM, as a few people seem to have said the same thing in this thread). This is what he said (in just the short excerpt that I posted):

      [quote][T]he far future is much easier to guess at than the near future because in the far future, say 10,000 years out, none of the religions today will exist in their present forms…They’ll have morphed into something else or they will have died down. And so I basically say if you’re worshipping a God, you’re basically worshipping Zeus, because there are no more temples here for Zeus. So that’s the first argument.

      The second argument, though, is that that doesn’t mean religion will go away.[/quote]

      Given the time frame as well, I think there’s merit in suggesting that we may have moved on from organized religion. 10,000 years back from the present takes us to the Neolithic, and that seems to be the very beginnings of types of “organized religion” (eg. Gobekli Tepe). Perhaps in another 10,000 we could have a completely new understanding of ‘the other’ (or alternatively, maybe we’ll all be cyborgs who invest everything we have in physical survival).

      I would suggest that readers listen to the full Skeptiko podcast (or read the transcript provided with it) as the pull-out I have aboe doesn’t do justice to the full interview. Kripal discusses the likelihood of the survival of consciousness, and also has some interesting thoughts on the science vs religion ‘war’:

      [quote]The cultural wars and debates out there between what’s usually called science and religion are again, I think simplistic to the extreme. The religion side is often parodied as the kind of most literalistic and intolerant forms of fundamentalism and the scientific side is often parodied as the most materialistic and intolerant forms of scientism. So you have pure faith on one side and pure reason on the other and we’re supposed to believe, somehow, that these two things don’t meet in the middle. I find that completely unconvincing.

      …I’m thinking more of creating a new religious worldview. Not me, personally, mind you, but as a culture. And this is what my work on the human potential movement was largely about in California there. It was looking at a group of people and a group of movements that had no intention of going back to dysfunctional religious systems. And adored science and wanted to take the best of science and the best of the religious traditions, fuse them into something for the future that we don’t even know what it looks like yet.[/quote]

      1. I only read the words that are written . . .
        Words like these:

        “That’s a pretty good guess from what we know about the past. If the future behaves at all like the past, none of the religions will be around.”

        Hmm. “none of the religions will be around” . . . based on history “what we know about the past”.

        To which ‘past’ do you think the writer refers? All the history books in my house (there are over 100) don’t say anything about religions of the past not existing today. They actually point to a long continued progression of thought that in some cases haven’t changed a whit in literally thousands of years. Refer back to some of the religions I named in my list of those likely to continue for thousands of more years in something close to their present form.

        Ahh, I know what past the writer talks about . . . the mythical liberal progressive past where anything can be what you want it to be, it’s Newspeak after all in the Minitrue, and the Ministry of Truth can re-write history as is fitting for the Glory of the State!

        God is Dead! Long Live the State!

        ASM

        FYI: Google the following (“Jeffrey J. Kripal” progressive liberal) . . . Nuff Said.

        1. Selective quoting
          [quote=AncientSkyMan]Words like these:

          “That’s a pretty good guess from what we know about the past. If the future behaves at all like the past, none of the religions will be around.”

          Hmm. “none of the religions will be around” . . . based on history “what we know about the past”.

          To which ‘past’ do you think the writer refers? All the history books in my house (there are over 100) don’t say anything about religions of the past not existing today. [/quote]

          I think you’re simply pulling out an individual quote out of context to suit your argument. The extended passage I quoted gives ample evidence that Kripal is meaning religions as they are now, and the discussion was in terms of in 10,000 years time. Catholicism is barely 2000 years old, depending on how much you allow Catholicism to be related to early Christianity, and that very fact shows that it is certainly nothing like it was 2000 years ago. Islam isn’t even 1400 years old. The ancient Egyptian and Sumerian ‘religions’ are 5000 years old, and do they exist today? How many of the current religions were around in 8000 BCE?

          1. If you asked Joseph Campbell . .
            I bet he would say it was the foundation Hero from his concept of original Hero’s Journey, which spawned the various incarnations of prophet driven religions up to this day.

            Maybe not back to 8,000 B.C. (further if you ask them though) Hinduism came from the Vedic tradition, which go back to 5,000 B.C. (or more, once again depending on who you ask. . . find a believer and they will tell you it goes back tens of thousands of years).

            Anyone who knows of the Hermetic traditions would understand that they go back to Ancient Egypt or before. . . at least 5,000 years ago. I have multi-thousand year-old translated books which claim to come from sources equally old. I have translated hieroglyphic works that speak to me today much as I’m guessing they spoke to the people of the time these works came from.

            Atum Watches

            ASM

            PS. None of this detracts from the fact that Jeffrey J. Kripal is a well known pusher of the Liberal Progressive agenda, part of which is: “There is no God therefore Morality does not come from any higher source than the mind of man therefore Man is God and can do whatever he decides is right.” Just the kind of thinking that leads to genocide and mass warfare.

            PSS. That deflecting Jedi Mind trick doesn’t work on my people . . . didn’t you watch Star Wars Episode I?

          2. R2-Kripal
            [quote=AncientSkyMan]PSS. That deflecting Jedi Mind trick doesn’t work on my people . . . didn’t you watch Star Wars Episode I?[/quote]

            These are not the liberal progressives you are looking for…

      2. Religious Truth revealed?
        “in the far future, say 10,000 years out, none of the religions today will exist in their present forms…They’ll have morphed into something else or they will have died down”

        Western religions in particular cling doggedly to exclusivity. Kripal seems (in this quote) to be implying religious beliefs are of sociological origin. This may well be the case, but one has to at least acknowledge that one of them could be right. Maybe, for example, Jesus the Jewish carpenter turned preacher was in fact divinely conceived etc. Maybe, in 10,000 years Allah or God or Yaweh will have revealed itself to the world as the omniscient creator and we will all be either devout believers or militant protestors, the ‘does god exist’ argument being obsolete.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal