Translator: Maria Florencia Cibeira Reviewer: Leonardo Silva
Today, I want to talk with you about the future of religion.
I want to share with you some information about the future of religion
that we know from social scientific investigation of religion.
And I want to invite you to think
about your own attitudes toward religion and spirituality
and your own interest in the future of religion and spirituality.
Thank you.
We're surrounded by religion all the time.
We encounter it all the time.
We encounter it very particularly in the news every day.
And what we encounter in the news are stories about religious violence,
[12 killed in attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo.]
stories about religious persecution,
[US says Myanmar persecutes Rohingyas, but not genocide.]
stories about religious abuse,
[Boston Archdiocese settles with 7 alleged victims of clergy abuse.]
stories about religious hatred.
[Anti-gay church's right to protest at military funeral is upheld.]
But we also encounter stories about remarkable forgiveness.
["I forgive you."
Relatives of Charlston church shooting victims address Dylann Roof.]
We encounter stories about compassion and generosity.
[Pope Francis washes refugees' feet in Catholic ritual.]
We encounter stories about peace
and nurturing the next generation.
[Tabeetha School, children of all faiths have learned side by side since 1863.]
It's hard for us to avoid religion.
Stories are all around us.
Many of us have been formed in traditions of religion,
or have been formed without those traditions,
sometimes in a neutral way,
sometimes in an aggressive way.
And so, when we think of the topic of religion,
we all bring our history, we all bring our own perspectives.
What does that mean for us as we think about the future of religion?
The definitions of religion
and particularly the definitions of spirituality are contested,
and so it's probably worth spending a minute
as we begin to kind of think about,
"Well, what exactly does he mean by religion?
What exactly does he mean by spirituality?"
And so here are some definitions from a respected psychologist of religion,
Keneth Pargament.
They're not the only ones, it's a contested area,
but I hope that they'll work for us in terms of the conversation that we have,
or you're thinking about this today.
As we think about what social scientists tell us about the future religion,
I want to begin by thinking about what we learn from social science
about the future of religion,
religious affiliation, religious self-identification,
from a global perspective.
The data that I'm showing you come from the Pew Research Center,
from a study that they've done about changes that are expected
in religious self-identification around the world
between 2010 and 2050.
When they looked at the figures,
we began with the fact that, on a world wide basis,
Christians are the largest faith tradition around the world,
about 30 percent.
The rate of growth predicted over the next 35 or 40 years for Christians
is about 35 percent.
The rate of growth for the world population over that same period
is also about 35 percent.
So, when we get to 2050,
the proportion of the population around the world that will be Christian
will be essentially the same as it is now.
But the story will be very different for Muslims.
The rate of growth for Muslims over the next 35 or 40 years will be such
that they will move from their current proportion of the population
to become very similar to Christians,
approximately 29 percent of the world population.
There are two mayor reasons for that.
One is that the current population of Muslims is generally younger in age
and of child bearing years,
and they have high rates of fertility.
And so the changes that we see around the globe,
the predicted changes that we see around the globe in religious identification
are in fact driven very much by the current age distribution
of different religious groups.
And the expected fertility rates, predicted fertility rates,
in different religious groups.
To a smaller extent,
switching in or out of different religious affiliations will also play a role
in the changing global proportions of different religious groups.
And speaking of switching in and out,
actually one of the changes we'll see is that, in absolute numbers,
the number of people who say
that they have no religious identification will increase,
but, as a proportion of the world population,
it will actually decrease slightly.
For other major religious traditions - Hindus, for example -,
there'll probably be no change in their proportion of the world population.
Among Buddhists, there is predicted to be a slight decrease
in their proportion of the world population,
in part because current Buddhists populations are older
and less likely to have many children
or keep up with the population growth in the coming years.
One of the dominant theories
about what we can expect for religion in society, from social scientists,
has been the secularization theory.
The secularization theory has predicted
that, with increased modernization anywhere in the world,
there'll be a decrease in religious involvement.
Europe is seen as the classic example of this,
as your modernized levels of religious involvement have declined significantly.
And the question has been: why has that not happened in the United States?
Is the United States actually a counter-example
that causes us to question
whether or not the secularization theory is actually incorrect.
And it's taken a while, but it's become clear
that actually the US is following the pattern of secularization.
So, if you look at the column on your right,
the oldest age group, my age group,
has the highest levels of religious affiliation
and the lowest levels of non-religious affiliation,
which is that green part of the bars near the top.
As you move to the left, you actually see younger age cohorts in the US
and you see the green parts of the bars are increasing;
that, in the USA, we see a consistent pattern
with a variety of different ways in which we measure religion
that suggest that each younger age cohort
has a lower level of involvement in religion
consistent with what the secularization theory had predicted.
It took a little longer for us to see this in the US
than it was to see it in Europe and other places,
in part because, in the US,
we started with higher levels of religious involvement
than in other places around the world,
and the declines have been slower, smaller,
but the pattern is now pretty evident
and social scientist think that we would continue to see it.
But the pattern is not evident everywhere around the world
where modernization is occurring.
And so the pattern is not clearly evident yet in Muslim majority countries.
It's not clearly evident in India or in China.
And so, to some extent,
the question of the secularization theory is still out,
and we will wait to see what happens.
A particularly interesting example of modernization
is the increase in science and scientific knowledge
and involvement in scientific investigations.
What does that mean for religion?
The popular imagination
is that religion and science are in conflict,
that you can either believe one or the other,
but you can't really believe both.
But it turns out that when you look carefully
at the ways in which religion and science have related to each other over time,
that conflict theory is actually too simple.
And so here is a model from the physicist and theologian Ian Barbour,
the late physicist and theologian Ian Barbour,
who taught for many year at Carleton Collage,
in which he describes actually four different ways
in which religion and science might be related to each other.
The conflict model is one of those models,
but actually a kind of mutual independence is another well-regarded model,
and it may be that there are models
in which religion and science can be in dialogue with each other
or can be integrated with each other.
And so, you see here a quote from the Dalai Lama
that points to an interesting possibility, in his view,
that religion and science can certainly be in dialogue
and perhaps be integrated.
So, when we think about the future of religion
and we kind of think about religion
in terms of religious identification and affiliation,
that's certainly one way to think about it,
but there are some other ways that we also want to think about it.
And so sociologists of religion have said
there are different styles of involvement with religion or spirituality.
And for many, many years,
the dominant style was what Robert Wuthnow has called
"being a religious dweller,"
somebody who is involved in established religious traditions
appreciates the authority of those traditions,
finds that those traditions shape and inform their religious experiences,
their religious beliefs, their devotion of practices,
in meaningful and hopeful ways.
But Wuthnow has observed, actually,
that, in addition to the pattern of being a religious dweller,
there is a pattern of being a religious or a spiritual seeker,
and that pattern perhaps is becoming more common, more popular,
in secularizing countries such as the United States.
And religious and spiritual seekers are people
who are not particularly comfortable
with the established authority of established religious traditions.
They prefer to have more independence and autonomy
in exploring their own religious and spiritual pathways,
their own religious and spiritual beliefs, and practices, and experiences.
And so, as we think about the future of religion
and our own future for religion,
do we think of ourselves as religious dwellers?
Do we think of ourselves as religious or spiritual seekers?
When people think about the future
they think that there may be many futures of religion,
and that religion may, in part, play a central role in the future.
And I want to share with you
the perspective that the Fetzer Institute, in Kalamazoo, has about this.
They have recently taken this initiative
to help build the "Spiritual Foundation for a Loving World."
And, in beginning that initiative,
they say this:
"Our goal is to help catalyze and support
a broad-scale spiritually-grounded transformation
from a egocentric way of being,
rounded in separation and fear,
to an all-centered way of being rounded in oneness and love,
with the result that a critical mass of persons around the world
will embrace love as the guiding principal and the animating force
for living in sacred relationships with self, with others,
and with the natural world.
As I conclude, I invite you to think about your own interest
and investment in the future of religion.
And, as I do that, I want to invite you to consider three questions:
what is it that informs, and shapes, and fosters
your ability to experience the transcendent,
to experience the sacred,
to experience awe?
The first question.
The second question:
when the winds of life come along
and destroy things that are precious to you,
where do you turn to help rebuild a sense of meaning,
to find a foundation
to rebuild meaning, and hope, and purpose in your life?
And the third and final question I invite you to consider,
as you think about the future of religion, is:
what helps you nurture the next generation,
to pass on the importance of compassion,
and generosity, and peace-making?
These are three critical questions that religion can help shape,
as we think about the future.
There are many futures of religion.
Is there one to which you wish to contribute?
Thank you.
(Applause)