In light of what you posted here, would you say that as humankind grew in scientific and mathematical ''knowledge,'' there seemed to be this distancing from religion.
Yes. But I'd also say (along with the skeptics, I guess) that human beings, simply by their nature, are going to grasp onto ideas that aren't fully justified and perhaps
can't be fully justified. (Belief in the truth of propositions that aren't fully justified is how I would define the word "faith".) And arguably the most recent of those things to be grasped onto with white knuckles is science. Science is constructed atop a whole bunch of assumptions and those assumptions aren't self-justifying.
In my last post, I portrayed modern western intellectual life ever since the end of the Middle Ages as a search for new foundations. I don't think that science has provided us with those foundations. I don't see how it can. We're still just building on sand, like we always have.
I see that as being an obvious possibility, but spirituality is still growing strong, globally.
I guess that I'm inclined to locate 'spirituality' in individual psychology, and 'religion' in historical tradition.
So yes, I suspect that what we call "spirituality" will always be with us, as long as we possess the psychology, as long as we remain human beings. It's not unlike art in that respect, or ethics.
In fact, in the US, a recent study came out that a majority of citizens, identify with labeling themselves as spiritual, but not ''religious.''
And I might be one of them. The only religious tradition that I take seriously and actually study is the Theravada Buddhism of the Pali Canon. But I've never formally "taken refuge" and don't belong to any organized Buddhist group. I guess the best way to identify myself religiously is -- Agnostic, with Buddhist tendencies.
What do you make of that? In the era of incredible opportunity, and more information available to us than ever before, we are still interested in what lurks in the mysteries of the universe, and even within ourselves, that science is unable to answer.
We live in a time that places tremendous and historically unprecedented emphasis on individuality. Older group identities, from nations to religions to cultures to traditions to family to... anything... are breaking down and losing their grip. We're all becoming little social atoms bouncing around aimlessly out there, not attached to anything.
That's a recipe for
anomie and that's not a good thing. It's associated with all kinds of social and psychological pathologies.
At the same time, as you say, we have the internet which gives us access to every tradition on Earth (and 16 other planets). So the form of religion/spirituality most fitted to today is going to be individual and eclectic, as people try to mine the world's religious inheritance for ideas that seem to resonate emotionally. We are only going to see more of it. Call it "woo" if you like, but it's not going away.
It's going to produce more and more people who have the psychological need, but aren't associated with any particular religious tradition.
Science will never be able to answer the existential questions of our time. It's not designed to do so, but this would point to that science isn't ''enough,'' in terms of our personal evaluation of the world around us.
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you about that.
But don't tell it to the theoretical physicists. They have dismissed philosophy in the most scathing terms, then stepped eagerly into the metaphysicians' still warm shoes.
