--- Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> wrote: > >David seemed to be saying it's not believable that > >there would be interest in religion (or, as I > prefer > >it, spirituality) in the far future, > > He said nothing about interest; he was speaking of > belief in the > supernatural, as I understood it. > Well, here is the post of his that I was responding to: Subject: Re: Damiano's Lute From: David Dyer-Bennet Date: 26 Nov 2002 11:15:28 -0600 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mia McDavid <mia_mcdavid at attbi.com> writes: > Patricia McKillip wrote these. They are explicitly theist, but not > Christian. > > Speaking of religion in literature, one of the *many* things I love > about David Weber's work is that the Christian church is very much > present in Honor's universe. I get cranky when societies have total > absence of religion--individuals may be athiests, but humans as a > group are going to worship *something*. I get cranky when far-future societies have anything recognizable as religion, personally. Makes no sense it would last that long. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info Sorry for the long paste, but I wanted to establish the original context. So, depending on what he defines as "far future" I was saying that there have been things recognizable as religion for the past 5000 or so years. And his using "it" I took him to mean "any recognizable religion" and it makes sense to me that, having existed for 5000 years, it would probably exist in another 5000 or so (which is could enough for "far future" for me). > >since we would > >have explained everything with science that > religion > >sought to answer. I think there are questions that > >are unanswerable by science > > That's true, science can never understand how the > solar system works. Oh, > wait. Well, science can never understand what > causes polio. Oh, > nuts. Hmmm. Well, science can never understand > life. Oh, that > too? Well, I'm sure science can never > understand....uh...human > emotion! There we go! And that's where God lives. > *whew* Glad we found one. I knew I would get in trouble if I didn't post examples, but that seemed just as likely if I *did* post examples. I think there are questions worth asking that do not have to do with the material world. Why do we exist? Why do we immediately bond with some people and despise others? Why do we love each other in the abscense of children? Why are prayers answered? Who is this "other voice" in my head? ;) > > I hope you are not seriously suggesting the Buddhism > or Hunduism have not > changed in the last few hundred years. > No, I don't know enough about them to argue that. My impression of Hinduism is that is constantly changing, in part by co-opting other popular religions (Ex. Not a lot of Buddhists in India, even though it's Buddha's home town, since Hinduism decided that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu). I am arguing, I guess, that things can change without becoming "unrecognizable".