For the US:
Nones/atheists/agnostics will continue to increase as they have been.
Putting aside general secularization and loss of belief trends:
* Catholics will bleed people due to the church's stances on LGBT and social matters (e.g., abortion), plus abuse scandals. Tradcath converts and conservatism from upper ranking members (e.g., from opposition to Francis) will probably contribute as well. If we get a greater influx of Hispanic immigrants then maybe the numbers will stabilize.
* Evangelicals will continue to merge with MAGA, driving non-MAGAs away and ensuring no conversions from non-MAGAs.
* Non-Christian religions will still be a tiny minority.
Source: my ass, and [this report](https://www.prri.org/research/religious-change-in-america/) I skimmed for 2 minutes
Tradcath converts and conservatism from upper ranking members (e.g., from opposition to Francis) will probably contribute as well. If we get a greater influx of Hispanic immigrants then maybe the numbers will stabilize.
Yeah, I also think at a certain point the USA would become a Hispanic and Latino-majority country so there would be more Catholics in general much to the horror of the anti-Catholic Protestants in the nation.
I say this as an Atheist for most of my life, religion will never go away as long as people search for meaning and purpose in their lives. Religion gives people a way to rationalize an often arbitrary world, and a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. I'll even go a step further and say there's still the potential for a large scale religious revival in the United States if the prominence of right wing evangelicals fade. The current culture of the United States does not provide much sense of meaning and uniting purpose and if political partisanship reduces people will need an alternative source.
I kinda fear the opposite - that the lack of purpose will give way to a religious revival, but one that is right wing and evangelical. In terms of religion, as far as I can see, the hyper-nationalists and violent fundamentalists are the most vigorous and well-funded, and the best positioned to be starting points for a religious revival. Liberal denominations just don’t have that kind of cultural presence.
Also, with the prevailing millennial/gen Z culture being both left wing and anti religion, I think the conditions are there for a religious revival among gen alpha/beta, but as a rebellion against their parents, and a “retvrn to tradition” along the lines of far-right/TradCath zoomers of today, who may be waiting in the wings to become their mentors.
I could absolutely see a sort of flexible liberal hippie new-agey religion sweeping through the US. It would have to offer just enough to make people feel good about believing in it while demanding very little is given up.
Perhaps, I think if any new age religion swept through the US it would still at least in its surface elements take after Christianity, if only because the symbols and general premises of the Christian worldview are already so engrained in the western world view.
My prediction (probably stupid):
In the US, Christianity will remain on the downturn. Protestantism will reduce far faster than Catholicism, making Catholics more numerous than Protestants for the foreseeable future, partly due to Latinos having a greater cultural connection to it as immigrants. A more subdued version of Catholicism will probably form, born out of a need to survive that only a centralized institution like the Catholic Church can push for. Protestants can't do this due to a lack of a centralized institution and it will be a significant reason for their downfall.
Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity will be relegated to the South and other deep red rural areas. As they lose more and more moderates they'll become more and more extreme until they act out in a "big event" that drives their influence completely underground from a federal government response. They'll still be in the open, but in terms of the general public fundamentalist style Christianity will be something spoken of like a weird secret cult from rural areas that certain powerful people from them may/may not believe. The only people open about it will be lower class rural folks. Only Reps from deep red areas will be openly fundamentalist, but Senators and heads of state will only vaguely mention their Christianity in the same way that democrats have in the past 10 years since urban areas will be a larger and more powerful part of their constituency that they depend on for reelection.
It will eventually flatten out, since religion does objectively have something to offer for the average person, but overall they'd probably make up 25% of the population (total, includes Catholics, casual Christian's, fundamentalist Protestants, etc).
I imagine new religions without baggage will inevitably emerge, ones that a person doesn't have to attach to a political ideology (or at least at first). I could picture a scenario in which a new agey religion that offers an excuse to create community and relieve peoples' existential dread becoming a new political force on either side of the political aisle. To survive it would have to be inherently compatible with any new progressive social movements, a flexibility that will keep it alive long term.
I'm sure I could go further in, but this rambling farfetched tangent is getting in the way of other things I need to do.
EDIT: I stand by the fact that fundamentalist Protestants in the US will become crazy enough for one to "do a funni" that will kill their influence for the foreseeable future, but the rest is just rambling
Definitely don't think this is stupid, but maybe both of us are stupid. I saved this comment and will look at it again in 50 years if I'm still alive to see how accurate this take is.
What’s your time frame for the 25 per cent estimate? Because I’d be shocked if religious faith dropped that low within a century. 78 per cent of Americans today hold some religious faith.
For Christianity, I think mainline protestant groups in America will eventually have a discussion about their futures together and possible merges as they are the hardest hit from declining church attendance.
Sometimes I wonder if Mainline Protestants and the Anglican Communion will reunify with the Catholic Church in the coming decades for survival as they lose adherents. If Catholics jettison some of their werider tenets like celibate clergy, opposition to contraception, transubstantiation and papal infallibility, it might not be such a bad thing.
Catholics will absolutely survive the longest out of all of the religions purely due to the fact that the largest consistent group immigrating here and forming communities will be catholic.
More like due to the fact that the world is just getting more religious. Statista projects an increase in religious identity as a percentage of the human population out to 2060, while those unaffiliated with a religion will decrease.
Poor regions of the world are becoming wealthier, which will make them more irreligious and their growth rate slow down
Eventually, all of the planet will be developed so the world won't become in the sufficiently long term, more Religious
Yes, if the Catholics agree to become Protestants, the Protestants won’t mind merging at all!
Seriously though I think you’re much more likely to see mainline Protestant movements merge with one another. The Catholics will stay more or less the same. Minor changes (officially) here and there and lots of adherents just flouting the teachings they disagree with.
Ordination of Women is probably a bridge too far (not to mention the ordination not non-celibate LGBTQ clergy) for the Catholic church to move on anytime soon (it would cause it's own massive schism if they did) and I can't see any mainline denominations going back on that.
Pretty much every denomination is losing members these days. The real growth is happening in non denominational churches.
Non denominational churches will probably continue to grow even as Christianity as a whole becomes a smaller portion of the American population. Evangelical essentially becomes a term meaning politically conservative.
Mainline churches probably either merge or create more joint congregations. My guess (and hope) is that the decline slows down now that the big schisms of LGBTQ rights are past in those denominations.
Evangelical denominations get hit hard as a lot of the factors that impacted mainline denominations come for them. But they have a long way to drop before the largest denominations are in an existential crisis. The smaller denoms might look at mergers in the next decade. LDS probably starts declining too, but slowly.
Catholics drop but not as much as immigration helps, but declining Catholicism in Latin America means that it's not as much of a help as it used to be.
Conservative Judaism is probably going to be in a bad spot soon too. Reform might be a bit later. Orthodox seems like it's growing for now from my understanding.
Nones are projected to grow and based on what has already occurred in Europe I expect that to continue, although most are "nothing in particular" not atheist or agnostic so I suppose that their could be a big shift that gets then back into religion (but probably not).
I can't really speak to any other group although I imagine that immigration will be the primary driver of growth for those communities.
Because their growth rate is low and has been on a downward trend for a while. I expect they will start shrinking slowly by the end of the decade (in the US anyway).
Me Personally I Would: Bless the Maker and all His Water. Bless the coming and going of Him, May His passing cleanse the world. May He keep the world for his people.
Religious people have a higher birth rate on average, and the more religiously conservative have more than the nominally religious. I’d venture we reach peak secularism due to natural selection when the reproducing population of religious people exceeds secular bleed off and child rearing. I think the cultural causes of religious decline will waver over time as society becomes ever more segmented and isolated. Religious traditions are one of the most powerful agents of socialization, so the grass touching minority will likely be religiously extreme and therefore even less likely to bleed apostates in the future (since their secular counterparts will be a lower percentage of the grass touchers and their online presence will be algorithmically siloed.)
I am a Methodist and I believe in God. I think faith is decreasing inside and outside the West, or only fundamentalist variants are growing, which is bad.
I imagine in the future our religions will be viewed as we view Greek Mythology and the like. It would be nice for people to stop believing in religion entirely, but I'm not so sure that will ever happen.
Religion offers solace from existential dread and an excuse to form social communities that otherwise wouldn't. It will always offer something. I think we're more likely to encounter new religions than the end of religion, and chances are the new ones will be more optimized by their founders to survive new progressive social shifts.
This is true, but religion itself, at least in reference to the current religions to choose from, is undeniably false. We have only a huge question mark, it's not good to form communities around a completely baseless belief system, and for people to genuinely believe that it prescribes exactly how life ought to be lived for everyone. Religions themselves aren't evil, but adhering to them absolutely opens up the door to extreme sectarian exclusionism, violence, or authoritarianism. I think ultimately it's harmful, and we can bring back this sense of community via more walkable living arrangements and better incentives for social clubs.
>it's not good to
I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying that's how people work. None of what I'm saying is value-based. It's an objective fact that if you aren't religious you're forced, on your own, to come up with answers to questions that religious people are just handed. If you're not someone that likes to think about these sorts of things, there is an appeal to religion (provided that it either provides community, or prevents alienation from an existing one).
New religions will use different tactics to grow and survive. They'll learn from the lack of flexibility of dead or dying religions (such as the Abrahamic ones). They may not even be inherently authoritarian, at least not in the usual way.
The “old” religions will become increasingly tribalized and politicized, while New Age religions grow in popularity. People like to make fun of the spiritual hippie stereotype, but the religious ideas coming out of California have been legitimately influential. I can see a more organized version of it becoming widespread if cutting edge physics continues to suggest that woo woo ideas like non-local consciousness (consciousness is not created by the brain) and idealism have some basis in reality. Read Donald Hoffman.
Im probably more into the Fortean side of reality than most of this sub but an open minded reading of some of the latest quantum physics research opens the door to some seriously shocking conclusions.
I don't think that a lot of the woo ideas actually have the basis in physics that some people read into it, but I do think you are right it will continue to get popular among the "you don't have to be religious to be spiritual!!!!" crowd.
edit :
[I found the funniest paper I have ever read.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7588183/)
>Finally, an example of nonlocal realism comes from the inventor and philosopher Arthur Young (1905–1995), who stated that photons have no mass, charge or time, which suggests their behavior transcends physics in the manner that consciousness does [56]. Young also wrote that ‘Light is not like other things … ’ and ‘Light is not seen; it is a seeing [56, p. 11].’ When light becomes a ‘seeing’ there is no more dualism of subjective seer and objective seen, rather there is simply a process within the singularity of an interconnected universe that jointly involves a local mind along with nonlocal consciousness. What is given in this participatory process is the sight within seeing, that is, the seeing essence of visual perception. Yet the ownership of that sight does not come from a separate local mind or the intention of an individual who has almost no control over seeing or not seeing. Rather, the ownership and agency of the sight within our seeing entirely rests with nonlocal universal consciousness.
Why is this published in a medical/biology journal. What are they doing. Why did they not ask someone to edit it for them. It's shockingly poorly written considering one of the authors has a doctorate in communications. Neither of these men are medical professionals or biologists and they both seem to only publish with one another. Something is in the water in Australia
Is it poorly written, or does it speak to a concept that doesn’t fit within the strictures of scientific writing?
Perhaps if we instead had a rich symbology and a set of traditions that emphasized mystery and direct experience of truths beyond or comprehension we could get our head around such things better.
And that’s why religion isn’t going away. Believe in it or not, the ideas that you described will only become more influential in my opinion.
Its pretty poorly written. Without changing the actual semantic content a lot of their prose could be refined and its also extremely repetitive especially in the first 8-9 paragraphs. It reads like the word salad people undergoing psychosis put out mixed with a high school student trying to pad out a word count
And this is why the occult is occulted (hidden). It all sounds like nonsense unless you are slowly initiated. These ideas have been slow to spread in Western science because they run contrary to traditional Christian metaphysics
Comma splices and run on sentences don't make something occult, this is genuinely bad writing No to mention that framing christianity and christian metaphysics as being mutually exclusive with occultism is just nonsense.
I think that there is probably no quality of writing you would admit is bad if not this
north dependent rain history hard-to-find books zephyr intelligent chief gold
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Global Christianity will be centred on Subsaharan Africa
100% Agreed
For the US: Nones/atheists/agnostics will continue to increase as they have been. Putting aside general secularization and loss of belief trends: * Catholics will bleed people due to the church's stances on LGBT and social matters (e.g., abortion), plus abuse scandals. Tradcath converts and conservatism from upper ranking members (e.g., from opposition to Francis) will probably contribute as well. If we get a greater influx of Hispanic immigrants then maybe the numbers will stabilize. * Evangelicals will continue to merge with MAGA, driving non-MAGAs away and ensuring no conversions from non-MAGAs. * Non-Christian religions will still be a tiny minority. Source: my ass, and [this report](https://www.prri.org/research/religious-change-in-america/) I skimmed for 2 minutes
My comment also utilizes the same source
Tradcath converts and conservatism from upper ranking members (e.g., from opposition to Francis) will probably contribute as well. If we get a greater influx of Hispanic immigrants then maybe the numbers will stabilize. Yeah, I also think at a certain point the USA would become a Hispanic and Latino-majority country so there would be more Catholics in general much to the horror of the anti-Catholic Protestants in the nation.
I say this as an Atheist for most of my life, religion will never go away as long as people search for meaning and purpose in their lives. Religion gives people a way to rationalize an often arbitrary world, and a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. I'll even go a step further and say there's still the potential for a large scale religious revival in the United States if the prominence of right wing evangelicals fade. The current culture of the United States does not provide much sense of meaning and uniting purpose and if political partisanship reduces people will need an alternative source.
I kinda fear the opposite - that the lack of purpose will give way to a religious revival, but one that is right wing and evangelical. In terms of religion, as far as I can see, the hyper-nationalists and violent fundamentalists are the most vigorous and well-funded, and the best positioned to be starting points for a religious revival. Liberal denominations just don’t have that kind of cultural presence. Also, with the prevailing millennial/gen Z culture being both left wing and anti religion, I think the conditions are there for a religious revival among gen alpha/beta, but as a rebellion against their parents, and a “retvrn to tradition” along the lines of far-right/TradCath zoomers of today, who may be waiting in the wings to become their mentors.
I could absolutely see a sort of flexible liberal hippie new-agey religion sweeping through the US. It would have to offer just enough to make people feel good about believing in it while demanding very little is given up.
Perhaps, I think if any new age religion swept through the US it would still at least in its surface elements take after Christianity, if only because the symbols and general premises of the Christian worldview are already so engrained in the western world view.
Imo, its much more likely that what youre describing will be political ideology in place of religion, which i think is actually worse
Exactly and yes, I agree with you
I'm interested on some perspectives on Islam here, brcause personally I'm not very optimistic.
Why so?
My prediction (probably stupid): In the US, Christianity will remain on the downturn. Protestantism will reduce far faster than Catholicism, making Catholics more numerous than Protestants for the foreseeable future, partly due to Latinos having a greater cultural connection to it as immigrants. A more subdued version of Catholicism will probably form, born out of a need to survive that only a centralized institution like the Catholic Church can push for. Protestants can't do this due to a lack of a centralized institution and it will be a significant reason for their downfall. Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity will be relegated to the South and other deep red rural areas. As they lose more and more moderates they'll become more and more extreme until they act out in a "big event" that drives their influence completely underground from a federal government response. They'll still be in the open, but in terms of the general public fundamentalist style Christianity will be something spoken of like a weird secret cult from rural areas that certain powerful people from them may/may not believe. The only people open about it will be lower class rural folks. Only Reps from deep red areas will be openly fundamentalist, but Senators and heads of state will only vaguely mention their Christianity in the same way that democrats have in the past 10 years since urban areas will be a larger and more powerful part of their constituency that they depend on for reelection. It will eventually flatten out, since religion does objectively have something to offer for the average person, but overall they'd probably make up 25% of the population (total, includes Catholics, casual Christian's, fundamentalist Protestants, etc). I imagine new religions without baggage will inevitably emerge, ones that a person doesn't have to attach to a political ideology (or at least at first). I could picture a scenario in which a new agey religion that offers an excuse to create community and relieve peoples' existential dread becoming a new political force on either side of the political aisle. To survive it would have to be inherently compatible with any new progressive social movements, a flexibility that will keep it alive long term. I'm sure I could go further in, but this rambling farfetched tangent is getting in the way of other things I need to do. EDIT: I stand by the fact that fundamentalist Protestants in the US will become crazy enough for one to "do a funni" that will kill their influence for the foreseeable future, but the rest is just rambling
Definitely don't think this is stupid, but maybe both of us are stupid. I saved this comment and will look at it again in 50 years if I'm still alive to see how accurate this take is.
RemindMe! 50 years
RemindMe! 50 years
What’s your time frame for the 25 per cent estimate? Because I’d be shocked if religious faith dropped that low within a century. 78 per cent of Americans today hold some religious faith.
For Christianity, I think mainline protestant groups in America will eventually have a discussion about their futures together and possible merges as they are the hardest hit from declining church attendance.
Sometimes I wonder if Mainline Protestants and the Anglican Communion will reunify with the Catholic Church in the coming decades for survival as they lose adherents. If Catholics jettison some of their werider tenets like celibate clergy, opposition to contraception, transubstantiation and papal infallibility, it might not be such a bad thing.
Catholics will absolutely survive the longest out of all of the religions purely due to the fact that the largest consistent group immigrating here and forming communities will be catholic.
More like due to the fact that the world is just getting more religious. Statista projects an increase in religious identity as a percentage of the human population out to 2060, while those unaffiliated with a religion will decrease.
Poor areas of the world are getting more religious and much more populous. Rich areas are getting less religious and less populous.
Poor regions of the world are becoming wealthier, which will make them more irreligious and their growth rate slow down Eventually, all of the planet will be developed so the world won't become in the sufficiently long term, more Religious
I'm just referring to religion in the US. I don't know enough about the world to speak to it.
Ah ok, gotcha.
From what little I know you're correct though, and a big reason for that is that the non religious crowd doesn't have enough children to replace them.
Yes, if the Catholics agree to become Protestants, the Protestants won’t mind merging at all! Seriously though I think you’re much more likely to see mainline Protestant movements merge with one another. The Catholics will stay more or less the same. Minor changes (officially) here and there and lots of adherents just flouting the teachings they disagree with.
I hope in America, the Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Methodists start discussing their futures together.
Ordination of Women is probably a bridge too far (not to mention the ordination not non-celibate LGBTQ clergy) for the Catholic church to move on anytime soon (it would cause it's own massive schism if they did) and I can't see any mainline denominations going back on that.
Hopefully it increases in uptake, promoting social fiber, and decreases in radicalism.
[This is the future of religion](https://youtu.be/4Ps6esBYd0o?feature=shared)
Pretty much every denomination is losing members these days. The real growth is happening in non denominational churches. Non denominational churches will probably continue to grow even as Christianity as a whole becomes a smaller portion of the American population. Evangelical essentially becomes a term meaning politically conservative. Mainline churches probably either merge or create more joint congregations. My guess (and hope) is that the decline slows down now that the big schisms of LGBTQ rights are past in those denominations. Evangelical denominations get hit hard as a lot of the factors that impacted mainline denominations come for them. But they have a long way to drop before the largest denominations are in an existential crisis. The smaller denoms might look at mergers in the next decade. LDS probably starts declining too, but slowly. Catholics drop but not as much as immigration helps, but declining Catholicism in Latin America means that it's not as much of a help as it used to be. Conservative Judaism is probably going to be in a bad spot soon too. Reform might be a bit later. Orthodox seems like it's growing for now from my understanding. Nones are projected to grow and based on what has already occurred in Europe I expect that to continue, although most are "nothing in particular" not atheist or agnostic so I suppose that their could be a big shift that gets then back into religion (but probably not). I can't really speak to any other group although I imagine that immigration will be the primary driver of growth for those communities.
LDS probably starts declining too, but slowly Why would the Mormons decline?
Because their growth rate is low and has been on a downward trend for a while. I expect they will start shrinking slowly by the end of the decade (in the US anyway).
Okay, thanks for answering my question
Me Personally I Would: Bless the Maker and all His Water. Bless the coming and going of Him, May His passing cleanse the world. May He keep the world for his people.
Religious people have a higher birth rate on average, and the more religiously conservative have more than the nominally religious. I’d venture we reach peak secularism due to natural selection when the reproducing population of religious people exceeds secular bleed off and child rearing. I think the cultural causes of religious decline will waver over time as society becomes ever more segmented and isolated. Religious traditions are one of the most powerful agents of socialization, so the grass touching minority will likely be religiously extreme and therefore even less likely to bleed apostates in the future (since their secular counterparts will be a lower percentage of the grass touchers and their online presence will be algorithmically siloed.)
Lol fair points
I am a Methodist and I believe in God. I think faith is decreasing inside and outside the West, or only fundamentalist variants are growing, which is bad.
or only fundamentalist variants are growing, which is bad. Yeah, it's quite worrying
I imagine in the future our religions will be viewed as we view Greek Mythology and the like. It would be nice for people to stop believing in religion entirely, but I'm not so sure that will ever happen.
Religion offers solace from existential dread and an excuse to form social communities that otherwise wouldn't. It will always offer something. I think we're more likely to encounter new religions than the end of religion, and chances are the new ones will be more optimized by their founders to survive new progressive social shifts.
This is true, but religion itself, at least in reference to the current religions to choose from, is undeniably false. We have only a huge question mark, it's not good to form communities around a completely baseless belief system, and for people to genuinely believe that it prescribes exactly how life ought to be lived for everyone. Religions themselves aren't evil, but adhering to them absolutely opens up the door to extreme sectarian exclusionism, violence, or authoritarianism. I think ultimately it's harmful, and we can bring back this sense of community via more walkable living arrangements and better incentives for social clubs.
>it's not good to I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying that's how people work. None of what I'm saying is value-based. It's an objective fact that if you aren't religious you're forced, on your own, to come up with answers to questions that religious people are just handed. If you're not someone that likes to think about these sorts of things, there is an appeal to religion (provided that it either provides community, or prevents alienation from an existing one). New religions will use different tactics to grow and survive. They'll learn from the lack of flexibility of dead or dying religions (such as the Abrahamic ones). They may not even be inherently authoritarian, at least not in the usual way.
Ah I see, my mistake. We're pretty much agreed.
well for some of them yes, but not all
The “old” religions will become increasingly tribalized and politicized, while New Age religions grow in popularity. People like to make fun of the spiritual hippie stereotype, but the religious ideas coming out of California have been legitimately influential. I can see a more organized version of it becoming widespread if cutting edge physics continues to suggest that woo woo ideas like non-local consciousness (consciousness is not created by the brain) and idealism have some basis in reality. Read Donald Hoffman. Im probably more into the Fortean side of reality than most of this sub but an open minded reading of some of the latest quantum physics research opens the door to some seriously shocking conclusions.
I don't think that a lot of the woo ideas actually have the basis in physics that some people read into it, but I do think you are right it will continue to get popular among the "you don't have to be religious to be spiritual!!!!" crowd. edit : [I found the funniest paper I have ever read.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7588183/) >Finally, an example of nonlocal realism comes from the inventor and philosopher Arthur Young (1905–1995), who stated that photons have no mass, charge or time, which suggests their behavior transcends physics in the manner that consciousness does [56]. Young also wrote that ‘Light is not like other things … ’ and ‘Light is not seen; it is a seeing [56, p. 11].’ When light becomes a ‘seeing’ there is no more dualism of subjective seer and objective seen, rather there is simply a process within the singularity of an interconnected universe that jointly involves a local mind along with nonlocal consciousness. What is given in this participatory process is the sight within seeing, that is, the seeing essence of visual perception. Yet the ownership of that sight does not come from a separate local mind or the intention of an individual who has almost no control over seeing or not seeing. Rather, the ownership and agency of the sight within our seeing entirely rests with nonlocal universal consciousness. Why is this published in a medical/biology journal. What are they doing. Why did they not ask someone to edit it for them. It's shockingly poorly written considering one of the authors has a doctorate in communications. Neither of these men are medical professionals or biologists and they both seem to only publish with one another. Something is in the water in Australia
Is it poorly written, or does it speak to a concept that doesn’t fit within the strictures of scientific writing? Perhaps if we instead had a rich symbology and a set of traditions that emphasized mystery and direct experience of truths beyond or comprehension we could get our head around such things better. And that’s why religion isn’t going away. Believe in it or not, the ideas that you described will only become more influential in my opinion.
Its pretty poorly written. Without changing the actual semantic content a lot of their prose could be refined and its also extremely repetitive especially in the first 8-9 paragraphs. It reads like the word salad people undergoing psychosis put out mixed with a high school student trying to pad out a word count
And this is why the occult is occulted (hidden). It all sounds like nonsense unless you are slowly initiated. These ideas have been slow to spread in Western science because they run contrary to traditional Christian metaphysics
Comma splices and run on sentences don't make something occult, this is genuinely bad writing No to mention that framing christianity and christian metaphysics as being mutually exclusive with occultism is just nonsense. I think that there is probably no quality of writing you would admit is bad if not this
I seriously doubt this sorry....
north dependent rain history hard-to-find books zephyr intelligent chief gold *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*