And now it's done, it's over, we've had our chance, there was even for a second hope of resurrection...
                   Keep going!                         Keep going!                                                    

In any event, we have discussed that before, and insofar as you talk of prerationality, I have no gripes with such thoughts (I personally would not term them "beliefs"), I think.  (I hope I'm not contradicting myself too much when I say this).  I, however, do wonder how widespread such models of religious  belief are, and will assume (though tacitly, as I am ignorant of the latest developments in the biz), based on my experience and unless I stumble across the answers to the questions I have been asking myself or somebody else is so kind as to supply answers, that they are rather in the minority worldwide, and that most religious people are rather apathetic about such differences (so long as it "works" for the other person).

Now I must say something on a more personal note I think: My sister converted to Islam several years ago, a rather literal sort that proclaims various astounding truths are contained  and scientific facts are anticipaed in the qu'ran.  I have, for the most part
let it be; I get on with my sister just fine, and she has no issues with my sexuality that I know of, and her fiance seems perfectly nice, though he dismisses evolution as being absolutely absurd (despite knowing nothing of the subject).  And yet I am, for the most part, happy that I can, in spite of all of these differences(which I try to avoid), and many others, interact with these people socially; my priority, what I owe my sister, is to do my best to get around all of these social barriers; I assume that he and his family are putting in similar efforts from their own side (They, for instance, know of my lack of religious belief, and have not yet tried to convert me).  So yes: double-think and double-talk all about.  But we all hope for the best I think.  But no, I am not entirely happy with the situation.

I wonder how much can it be argued that a religious-environment has a stabilizing effect on growing cultures?  I understand that in, say, the favelas of Brazil, that if one wishes to lead a "peaceful" life, by far the "easiest" option is to actively practice a religion.   Does that justify it?  As I've said already, I think that I would accept it as justification if somebody gave it to me as personal justification.  But I would think it a more courageous thing (and, from my point of view, ultimately better), if someone both denied the troubles of their local way of life, and the church that offered stability.

I do not, however, think it is sustainable to say that good old-fashioned, even mildly literalist religious movements (here I will not extend my speculations beyond western monotheistic religions) offer net social-benefits in a well-developed western society.  I am open to being surprised though.

I consider this, interpreted literally, to be a socially-bankrupt point of view.

I do not mean to be primarily arguing that at the moment.  It also depends a lot on what you mean by "religion".

To reiterate: I agree.

As I've said before, I have no trouble whatsoever with mysticism as mysticism (I do ascribe boundaries to it, however).  Communal celebration has never really been my cup of tea personally.

So do many other things.

That better be a typo

I would agree that it would to *some* extent, provided that some sizeable sum of the members of other churches were politically active and working in opposition to the governing parties.  Of course, there are cases where it holds through.  Others might argue on the other hand that "opiate" is far to gentle a term to use; that religious institutions often terrorized people without offering them reasonable (well, what I would term reasonable anyway) hope of salvation.

Nope, it's not just you.

But why is that courageous? I agree that being strong enough to deny the easy options presented to you by your upbringing can be a courageous act, but I think in practice it's more likely to be an act motivated by other things than courage. Either way, I think what's really continuing to nag for me is the implication that liberal humanism is a 'better' option. How do we judge that 'better'? Because it's truer? Or more pragmatically effective? (NB George's reservations about accepting religion for non-religious, i.e. pragmatic, reasons don't really apply to accepting liberal humanism, do they? There's an interesting asymmetry there!) ... And if it's not a 'better' option, then denying your religious upbringing to become a liberal humanist is no more courageous than if I were to deny my atheistic upbringing to become a religious fundamentalist.

Again - this is what I was getting at before - I don't think you're asking the right question. It's not just an issue of whether religious affiliation offers benefits. If you want to put it in terms of 'net social benefits', think of it like this: what would be the negative social effects of asking/requiring all the religious or semi-religious or just-don't-really-want-to-admit-they're-not-religious people to give up their religious/quasi-religious thoughts/beliefs/acts completely?

Pardon me for butting in, but I just thought it might be apposite to say that while that phrase is often used out of context as an out-of-hand dismissal of religion, or as evidence that Marx dismissed religion out of hand, Marx's full statement was anything but dismissive:

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

... which certainly goes a long way towards accounting for the spread of fundamentalisms in our own time.

They're two different things, I'm willing to acknowledge. 

But there is the idea of a goal: should one, on a personal level, work to infuse more religion into modern culture?  Is this even possible to do in a way that doesn't caricature this modern, rather advanced, notion of religion that's being presented on this board?  How might one do it?  I can think that education is a place, but I personally would think a basic training in philosophy to be a prerequisite to any formal study of what it might mean to be religious.

Well it depends maybe on whether one starts using humanism to question various parts of scriptures; for instance taking up issues of gender-equality with a muslim.  Or one might have someone say that they are humanist but, nonetheless, support the execution of homosexuals because they believe that's what God wants, and by definition God just wants what's in our best interests (same might be said of what happens in various Monarchies).  But I doubt many 'civilized' folk would stand by viewpoints in direct opposition to humanist philosopy.

Depending on one's environment, one might take just as much strength as the other, I will agree, though of a very different kind. To deny everything in favour of something because it is divinely-inspired, the sort of abandonment that characterizes fundamentalism to me, is vastly different to the process of questioning and discovery that for me characterizes the turn towards atheism (of course, there are also evangelical traditions amongst believers, so).

Again - this is what I was getting at before - I don't think you're asking the right question. It's not just an issue of whether religious affiliation offers benefits. If you want to put it in terms of 'net social benefits', think of it like this: what would be the negative social effects of asking/requiring all the religious or semi-religious or just-don't-really-want-to-admit-they're-not-religious people to give up their religious/quasi-religious thoughts/beliefs/acts completely?[/quote]
I don't think it make sense to talk of requiring such a thing; or maybe it does.  In that I'm very tempted to say that I'd like to impose severe restrictions on the admissible language of politicians and advertisers generally.  If their belief was that, say, the state should fund religious schools, and I had the power to remove such funding and establish secular schools (most (I think; certainly many) national schools in Ireland are Catholic-owned and run, and these schools refuse admission to non-Catholic Children), I would in a moment.  Personal beliefs are a different matter; it makes no sense to *require* people to believe anything in my mind.  Anyway, as my personal aside hopefully communicated, I am intimately acquainted with the difficulties involved.  But if, say, a politician says he cannot change policies because he might seriously offend some religious groups, should I just agree and go along?  Or should I express my reservations?  Politically, I think one has little reason not to speak one's mind to one's politicians about their statements, policies, and actions.  That is just passing the issue on to them in a lot of ways, I know.  Hmm; I don't think there's much to be said, talking in such generalities as we are.

It's a little uncomfortable when I think about it, but we get by quite well; certainly a lot better than I do with my other family members!

I don't fully understand in what sense you call it faith.  It's a challenge of some sort, certainly, and a trial, and there's a certain sense of "wait and see".  But I, as much as I can, try to avoid double-talk.

Well I personally do my best to talk about things where I can.

It is something worth bearing in mind, I do agree.

I would consider that, certainly within Catholocism, and I would conjecture within many forms of Protestantism, such things are in practice given lip-service only.  How is a crucifix depicting jesus not an example of idolatry?  What about the idea of praying to saints?  And of relics? 
[/quote]

You do have a literalistic mind don't you?  Idolatry is not a matter of decor.  It is an attitude of mind, avoiding God by replacing God with something we can manipulate.  Calvinists and Fundamentalist Evangelicals are opposed to iconography (and certainly the practices about the saints you mention) but at times make a idol of the Biblical text.  A focus for prayer, such as an icon, can be far from idolatrous, in so far as it points us away from ourselves.

The Orthodox justification for the veneration of icons was justified by St John of Damascus, who famously said

"I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and accepted to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation."

I note you talk about finding "more efficient ways of dealing with certain types of religious belief."  I don't see why they need to be "dealt with" if they are not a menace, but the best way to deal with them surely is to try to understand them.

Hmmm I didn't equate imagery with idolatry exactly (though, in practice, I do think this to be the case in the religion into which I was brought up). Even non-literally, I would consider the idea of the "intervention of saints" to be idolatrous in its usual use..

I'm not sure what this means exactly.  But I acknowledge that imagery isn't necessarily a bad thing.  One can also have what might be perceived by some as a literary-idolatry of course; with all of these catchphrases that various people throw about without a second thought as to what they mean.

I will have to take some time to digest that i think.

But what happens when one feels that understanding has come to an end?  And one has concluded that the particular form of religious belief is simply socially unacceptable? Shouldn't one count this as a "certain type of religious belief" one might wish to "deal with"?  (this is what I meant by "certain type") .

The 'for me' was intended to be more "from my perspective"; I have talked to many people about this.  However, it is not panoramic, I understand.  Maybe "in my experience" would have done the job better.

Acknowledged,

Hmm I have issues with this wording.  But blech.  For one, Don B can assume what he wants.  I don't think I recall Don B assuming that most self-professed Christians have the same category of belief that he has, and, as I have said, I am very interested to know exactly what the situation is like within the modern Christian tradition.

Just on the idolotary bit, there was an interesting 20minutes in the Prom interval tonight.  I missed some of it, and the Listen Again doesn't work (yet).  Did anyone else hear it?

Whilst I'm on, I suppose I should say why I voted "No".

I suppose my reasons are closest to what inky and DB agree on.


What someone describes as their religion can be 'used' in an evil way, but that does not necessarily mean it is intrinsically evil.  The issue is deciding whether relgion is predisposed to encouraging people to act in an evil way.

(And by the way, I've just written and then deleted a long splurge of words which took me down a dead end.  I'm going to bed.)

Tommo