Exnihiloest wrote:This is not what we see. The biggest Christians are in the United States, where techno is flourishing and economism widely used.
Among the evangelists, money has been declared perfectly compatible with religion. The question is therefore not that of a change of religion.
It is precisely because of the power of economism that we can see today in the world a rise in religious fanaticism (all religions are affected!).
Lastly, the said religions can completely lean on economism (e.g. in the USA, Emirates, Saudi Arabia), but this does not prevent its latter from being put in the background (the rise of the Evangelicalism in South America, for example, makes it possible to unravel Catholicism (and its Christian-Marxist developments), in order to thus promote North American economic interference).
Certainly progress is opposed to all classical religions. But it has nothing to do with a new religion: no sacred texts, no immutable rites, no supernatural beings, except twisted arguments
It would be reductive to consider a religion as a belief based on the existence of one or more divinities. Certain religions are also completely atheistic (Taoism, Buddhism).
Religion come from latin religare(to link). The principle of a religion is to link, connect a network of operators ("believers") around a central concept which will define their praxis.
The central concept can very well be a divinity like anything else, except for this little game, the economy is more powerful than any god, because it is likely to transcend ethnic, geographical or social.