Some history<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n For at least some 350 years, there has been a movement in the West that wanted to emancipate the human being from what was felt by many as obscure and manipulative religiosity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At first, most humanists were religious, searching for better ways to value the human being in relation to God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bit by bit, the human being was emancipated toward outside the realm of religion \u2015 with the help of science. Until famously, P-S Laplace (polymath, 1749-1827) answered to Napoleon\u2019s question about the place of God: \u201cGod? I have no need for such a hypothesis. It may explain everything but predicts nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, the human being was put on his own two feet <\/strong>\u2015 no wings anymore.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Religious faith was transplanted somehow into faith in progress<\/u><\/a>. Consequently, an immense amount of energy went into the latter with huge achievements in many scientific domains. Man was\/is going to shape his own final destiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And it will be a technological one, so goes the momentum. Ha! Will the returning Christ be the ultimate technocrat?<\/p>\n\n\n\n To many religious people, this seems totally devoid of deep meaningfulness \u2015 putting religion unavoidably against \u2018meaningless humanism.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, there is no meaning in a purely materialistic universe.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, together with meaningfulness, morality also seems to go down the drain. Why would anyone try to be good if there is no meaning to it \u2015 for instance if the laws of physics strictly predetermine everything in the universe?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Intriguingly, the latter would also take out all freedom of the human being. Thus, we end with human importance: nothing at all. The annihilation of God (famously, \u201cGod is dead!\u201d) goes together with the annihilation of human worthiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not surprisingly, this leads to much existential stress, individually and socially. The meaning crisis<\/a> is one symptom of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, back to religion?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Absolutely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Or better said, not \u2018back to,\u2019 but forward to religion. We shouldn\u2019t go back to something devoid of (even the striving for) serious rationality. As you may know, the progress in this field is the endeavor of Open Religion<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wanting a God doesn\u2019t create a God. Sorry, it never did. Also, as Laplace mentioned, we don\u2019t need such a hypothesis, but we all need sacredness<\/a>. The beauty is that we can get this without leaving rationality. Even better, rationality helps us in getting there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, we come to humanism of modern times<\/a>, with the responsibility to shape the future of humanity as a global endeavor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine.<\/p>\n