http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/7/24/-religion-to-disappear-by-2041-claims-new-study-las-vegas-guardian-express#: Religion to Disappear By 2041 Claims New Study | Las Vegas Guardian Express
I can’t predict the future, so I won’t agree or disagree here, save to say that I doubt religion (what’s that) will do what sociologists want it to do, using predictions to try and make it happen, no doubt.
The problem here is not religion, or whether it will disappear, but the dreadful substitute proposed by secular humanists, whose robust legacy is being frittered away by the cultic fundamentalism of the New Atheists. Why should humanists be atheists? They could as well embrace a dialectic of multiple pairs of opposites.
Wake up. Religion or no religion, do you want such idiots as Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris to replace Jesus, or Buddha?
Don’t create an atheist religion. It will backfire as a new intolerance based on dubious adjoint metaphysical beliefs, e.g. the Darwinian belief system. The whole thing will crash in decades, where the religions lasted millennia. I sometimes think that esoteric monotheists created and promote the new atheism to create an alternative so grotesque religion will stop declining: people will reject the outcome of secularism, so-called. Well, maybe. But the real post-religion (new religion or new category) must grasp the real complexity of secularism, modernity, and metaphysics. The legacy of Kant is much better than the barren deceptions of Nietzsche, who lurks behind the placid idiocy of new atheist cultists all too humanly liable to find themselves sacrificed as the last men to the kind of post-religion proposed from the early 20th century right, figures of infamous renown we need hardly name. eh?
In any case, if we examine world history beyond the Axial Age, all the way back, we must suspect the mechanics of the ‘Axial Age’ is in a recursion, and that the legacies of that period will transform into new futures altogether remade and renewed (this is left vague). The evidence suggests a different fate between the monotheisms, and a religion like ‘buddhism’ which will recycle itself into a new tradition, once again, as it has done may times before, all the way back to the Neolithic. The novelty of monotheism after the Axial Age does not give us a handle to any prediction there. So the attempt to expose the ‘idolatry’ of ‘godism’ that is so reminiscent of the initial Israelite, then Xtian challenge to paganism, will induce a recursion in the ‘secular’ future, with what outcome is not clear, since ‘idolatry’ is clearly emerging inside the ‘atheistic’ stance, just as it emerged inside the monotheistic stance. So the future is unclear. I think that a genuine secularism is at risk from a new religion of atheism. Beware of such things. The have already, in any case, been betrayed in advance by that clever rogue Nietzsche.
The new atheists can’t see that a new religion of monotheism could come into existence against the old god religions. The legacy of the glyph IHVH reminds us that once ‘god reference’ was abjured. So the entire history of later monotheism could suddenly find itself declared idolatrous, as having missed the point, in an instant degeneration into a god cult.
The legacy of Kant, and also Hegel, suggests how the need for a considerable care brought to all these questions. So far, the legacy of d’Holbach and Feuerbach is less robust, and already too crypto-metaphysical….As the blind man said, we shall see…