The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still centers humanity in the universe and offers a better worldview than "you're a primate lost in space."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires

Copernicus and Darwin didn’t change much things on that side.

I wholly disagree with your later point though. Knowing that we are only primate lost in space, that civilizations and even our whole species could totally disappear tomorrow without any deity to help, save, rescue, blame or give congrats is actually a far more appealing scenario in term of being challenged to excel. Compare that with "you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise".

That's really not an accurate description of the role religion has played in human psychology, and is only accurate for a very specific subset of beliefs in a specific time and place.

My argument was more that humans thought of themselves as inhabiting a world designed for them, but then learned that this was (likely) not true, and that for many people this is a pessimistic, nihilistic conclusion.

- I'm talking primarily about the Western world and its legacy of Christianity. The situation is different in India, China, etc.

- Even then, in practice, most successful religions tend to have a human-like personal figure in an important place, even if the religion itself is technically non-personal.

A lot of this has to do with the Enlightenment project and disenchantment so it’s already largely focused on the Western world to begin with. Other places have less a history with this.

that's what i go by. the goal is for each individual and for humanity as a whole to better themselves during their life on earth and how they will experience their eternal existence depends on how well they do on earth. plenty of motivation for me, and better than the idea that after i die there is nothing and therefore what i do in my life doesn't really matter.

That's a narrative from a certain perspective. Let's advocate for different perspectives, like the article does.

I'm perfectly fine with the Darwinistic idea that mankind has evolved from something very primitive rather than created for a purpose.

The declaration of basic human rights is a narrative that humans deem good. But they are still human inventions, no superior creator needs to be involved to have something deemed good for everyone.

We are here, that is a fact. Why or how is a mystery. You can build narratives around that but in fact they are not necessary. I would say, let's just make the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable.

well, that is the question. that narrative may not be necessary for you, but it is for me and for many others.

what do you think will be more successful/sustainable? convincing everyone that we don't need a narrative or adopt a narrative that is beneficial for all?

your idea of making the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable is a good one. and it is compatible with advancing civilization. so why don't we focus on working together to achieve those goals (and other related goals like peace, elimination of poverty, justice, clean environment, etc) instead of arguing whether we need a narrative or not?

Being convinced that we need something is not the same as something being necessary for us. There are all sort of human endeavor out there whose main goal is to convince us we need something, be it some consumer commodity, some skill, or some divinity. Most often than not, people who conduct these propaganda campaigns are themselves convince that it's relevant to do it for some of their aspiration to become a reality, be it something they expose in what they communicate openly or some more or less hidden agenda.

The topic is not that much about are narratives a necessity, but what they lead to. If they lead to people wanting to give only love and respect to other as much as for themselves, that sounds great, and who would complain, really? If they lead to "we the camp of the good vs the heretics evil others that must be destroyed whatever the means", that's an entirely different concern.

When we think "advancing civilization", we are actually stashing the real issue that is that there is not "a single narrative about a single civilization".

It makes as much sense to ask whether we need narratives as to ask whether we need tools. Stories can glorify the gun holder or the people who learnt how and when to use first aid kits.

of course it isn't. all i am saying is that arguing about that difference is not helpful.

whose main goal is to convince us we need something

which is no different than trying to convince us that we don't need a narrative.

this is the problem i have with dominant religions today. to much focus on the narrative itself. not enough focus on using the narrative to solve actual problems. narratives are being treated as if they are the solutions in themselves, as if only believing the narrative will solve our problems automatically.

instead of pushing a narrative, what we really need is to adress the problems humanity is facing today. i'll use a narrative for those that need it, if it helps them to understand why certain problems need to be solved, but for those that don't need a narrative to do that, i won't. i don't care about people believing the narrative, i care about them solving problems.

The topic is not that much about are narratives a necessity, but what they lead to

true. the actual narrative needs to be carefully chosen. not all narratives are good, and bad narratives do need to be replaced. but again, it is easier to come up with a better narrative than to convince someone that the narrative is not needed.

The fact of being a self-aware meta-cognitive primate lost in space isn't enough of a miracle to justify feeling centered in the universe?

I wonder whether it'd be possible to make the story more inspirational by telling it in more accessible ways.

But there also seems to be a real interest in “spiritual” needs, whatever that might mean in particular. And so a purely scientific approach may not be enough in the first place.

Personally I think it may be too much of a past-focused narrative to be very compelling. Most successful religions have a vision of the future, not merely the past.

One starting point might be what I wrote in a comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41358528

So a proposal might be: construct a narrative that defeats these two biases in a convincing way:

But there are two very human biases on display here: the idea that occupying large amounts of physical space is indicative of "importance"; and that things which exist for long durations of time are inherently more valuable. These are human biases and there any many examples in nature of the exact opposite being true.

are they getting in the way of finding a middle ground between being lost in space and being the center of the universe? do we need to find a middle ground?

in my opinion a compelling narrative primarily needs to address the problems humanity is facing today: poverty and wealth, climate change, gender equality, war and conflict, disagreement of religion, racism and prejudice, injustice...

i think to address these, it doesn't matter much whether we are lost in space or the center of the universe

Now, being made by a magic man who will welcome you to his magic wonderful home after this short, nasty, brutish life? There’s a comforting story.

While we might not have free will in an absolute, metaphysical sense, we can self-reflect, practice self-control, shape our environment, and even change our nature. What will we do with this power?

There is no eternal afterlife to go to, but we now understand what actual life is - and it's no longer so nasty and brutish. Perhaps soon it won't be so short either. We are certainly capable of extending it in principle, we just need to get our shit together.

Comforting stories are cozy, but we are growing up. We've become smart enough to cause a whole lot of trouble for ourselves, and are not yet wise enough to fix it. We're confused, can't make sense of things and constantly whine about it. But that's how growth works. Humanity might just be in its awkward emo teenage phase.

i agree. science and religion need to be in harmony and not contradict each other. if there is an apparent contradiction we need to open to the possibility that we are either misinterpreting the religious claim or that the scientific findings need further research or even both.