1

This question (Are we all ‘atheist’ or 'agnostic in a pandemic'?) made me think about the impact of corona in a different way:

Not just some eastern philosophers but ecologists and environmentalists around the world view the world and the life in it as part of a single entity. "YATRA VISWAM BHAVATI EKA NEEDAM"--VEDA (Where the world is like a nest of birds) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasudhaiva_Kutumbakam

There were/are great men who are considered as the realizers of the cosmic consciousness and who know what God is. Now, the benefits of overall development in science are being used to enhance the ego in the name of religions. Another group of people, in their pursuit of the material advantage of science, misses the role of other organisms in sustaining life on earth.

Massive destruction of the lungs of the earth happened last year. It may be a coincidence that the giant pandemic, the corona-virus disease that infects the lungs, threatened the world followed by it. Even now humans are unaware of the subtle relationships in nature.

Believers as well as non-believers are becoming victims to this pestilence. Those who insist to follow the rituals imposed by religions, even when experts claim that isolation can counteract the corona virus, are now becoming headache to their own religion. Whether this is a man-made virus or not, the impact of this virus can change even some basic thoughts/rituals of man and religion. Over time, to many followers, religions are only means to fulfill their selfishness or a means to augment trade. Anything (even if it is not ecologically sound) is usually considered as a sacred deed. You may also verify the great changes happened in eco-friendliness of religions/believers over time. A critical thinking would reveal the truth.

In this current situation it seems to think (not sure) even the most orthodox in religions are on the verge of a rethought. (Even in this highly dangerous situation of a pandemic) It is a human nature that many followers who sipped the nectar of their own religion would wish to sustain their religion forever. There may also be unbelievers who pray in complete helplessness. If we could consider human nature of the whole world we would realize that religion is an inevitable part of human life. ("science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”: Einstein)

SO, MY QUESTION:

If God/religion is also important in addition to science or vice versa, unlike the question mentioned earlier, "in this condition, is there a great possibility of evolution in religions (whether it be believers of God or not) and to become AN ECOLOGICALLY SOUND SYSTEM (in order to make its both ends useful to promote peaceful life on earth) ?"

  • "the impact of this virus can change even the most basic thoughts of man and religion." Why ? Virus are well known; we had many similar (from the biological point of view) cases in recent time: Ebola, SARS, other Corona-viruses. What is new (new ? consider begin 20th Century Spanish flu maybe is its social and economic impact due to the effect on the globalized world. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 22 at 11:53
  • I really like this idea; if Religion is a true study of a world understanding then we would really hope that it will develop as new realities are revealed. Of course, this is a charitable reading of what we might call Theology, rather than what I think you’re suggesting about the sociological field of religions, where I rather suspect we will see the major western one doubling down on its rhetoric rather than reviewing its positions, as it is abandoned by those who think critically rather than (or at least faster than) it is than trimmed of its less responsive members. – Sofie Selnes Mar 26 at 8:12
  • @SofieSelnes What kind of "new reality" do you think is being revealed? We've had coronavirus pandemics before, we've had more serious pandemics before (the plague!), we've had incompetent and profiteering national leaders before... – curiousdannii Mar 26 at 8:25
  • @curiousdannii, we definitely haven’t had quite this bad leadership before! But that wasn’t really what I had in mind; this is a unique combination of global pandemic plus modern technology, so it will definitely challenge those who believe in the human right of dominance over nature. – Sofie Selnes Mar 26 at 8:31
2

The perception of risk is an active area of research especially since the 80's (Slovic, 1987) that can be traced back to the birth of phenomenology in philosophy. In relation to their environment, it is indeed acknowledged that people act according to their perception of risks in conjunction with their beliefs. At the societal level, for instance, the model of Value, Belief, Norms (VBN) is often applied to understand how beliefs influence risk perception, and the study may include variables such as spiritual beliefs (e.g., Slimak & Dietz, 2006).

In the later study case, although it does not cover the epidemiological risk, religion is not the best factor to explain the variance of risk perception (in the US). People's values termed under altruism/individualism are better factors (but maybe confounded with spiritual beliefs). Also, the results are valid in the US, and spiritual beliefs may have greater importance elsewhere.

This study focuses on how people's beliefs affect the perception of risk, but in return, risk exposure may affect people's beliefs, possibly, spiritual beliefs. The feedback is recognized in various emerging disciplines that relate society to the environment (google sociobiology, sociohydrology, socioepidemiology). From this new paradigm, the causes of the growth of a virus are not only its contagious nature, population density and distribution, but also people's behaviors, which are related to their beliefs. I think that in the few next years you will have your answer as most likely, there will be a bunch of behavioral studies that may consider the feedback relationships between spiritual or other kinds of beliefs, risk perception, and risk exposure. Science will also "change" and most likely progress since COVID-19, despite the tragedy, will be a kind of unprecedented experiment on which we can learn. From now, we can only speculate.

The world is "one single entity" is scientifical sounds today as a way to refer to anthropocenic concerns and globalization. Basically, the definition of nature as being free from human intervention, as defined by Aristotle, is dead. Many natural sciences have now been looking at integrating the human footprint in their outdated scientific approach, which means that nature is no more independent of humans and the world is one single entity, at least from this point of view. And if by the ecologically sound system, you refer to the generalized system theory, faith, and environmental disasters may exhibit some pattern of coevolution since they may have intertwined feedbacks. But again, I cannot speculate without data.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.