Oliver and Severin,
To answer your question(s), the Christian world view shares many similarities with the Muslim.

I don’t know anyone who believes in Zeus anymore. But I’m guessing that many of the concepts surrounding this view of Deity share similarities with Yahweh. I’m thinking of the linguistic similarities of the word Zeus with other European languages. For example, the Greek word for God, ‘theos’, which is used by Jewish Biblical writers (in the New Testament), seems to be a derivative of ‘Zeus’. From Greek it developed into the Latin ‘Deus’, from which we have words like deity in English.

When I suggested the study of what religion ‘really teaches from within’, I was simply responding to Squeers’ statement about religion ‘in the popular mind’.

If I were to pilot a passenger aeroplane, I’m sure the passengers would prefer that I piloted according to the flight school’s insider’s manuel of flight training rather than how a plane should be flown ‘in the popular mind’. In other words, if we want to learn about something, it would be beneficial to go to the horse’s mouth rather than misguided public opinion.

And, Squeers, when you do go there, you may surprisingly find something with regard to this supposed ‘disposable reality’.

Severin, I have studied a little about African religions and spoken to some in Africa about their traditional views of God. Many traditional religions and animistic tribes still hold to a belief in one supreme being and creator of all things. The main point I would glean is how all I have spoken to in Africa, whether Muslim, or Christian, or traditional religionist (at least to a degree more so than us in the west) view that each of them is praying to the same God.

Thanks, david f, I’ll have a look too.
Dear George,
I guess nit-picking through each others constructions, sharpening points and correcting interpretations is as (in)efficient as any method for getting to the "kernel" of what we are trying to communicate.
<I might guess what you mean by “outdated theological premises” though I do not see where I used them as an “analytical” aid.>
I didn't say you "used them as an 'analytical' aid", but was concerned that ancient conceptions or foundations of thought are surely a hindrance to analytical enquiry; which is why I wondered why you didn't "discard" that lens in the interests of disinterestedness. This is of course your own business.
<Please elaborate on what you mean by “pre-conceptual” that you assign to both theology/metaphysics and science.>
This alludes to Derrida's ground-breaking and controversial insight in "Of Grammatology": "there is nothing outside of the text". This does not mean there is no reality, but that we have no access to direct reality, "outside 'of' the text". Reality is "preconceptualised" for us via language; how our senses register phenomena is translated "beforehand" into an ambiguous cultural idiom that we are born and acculturated into. Even science now acknowledges this.
I am not off topic, I was only referring to church doctrine's adding another (historically specific) layer of obfuscation between us and our cultural/phenomenal reality. This is also by way of explaining any apparent "disrespect" of religion. I agree that the "symbolic character" of church doctrine is off-topic (as a critical aside, however, it should be rigorously historicised).
<[I] fail to understand your need to feel “contempt“ for people who just “profess their certitude” without, as I wrote, shoving it down your throat.>
It's not a "need". I am contemptuous because I don't believe there are any grounds for the certitude, but this is not the point and I'm happy to live and let live. My real concern is that this attitude is wide-spread and influential in the practical affairs of the world, both among electorates and "governments".

cont..
By "those who appropriate an inexhaustible commodity rather than develop spiritual depth within", I was alluding to our commodity culture wherein beliefs are often superficially fetishised throw-away items, that nevertheless may be indulged by the consumer as providing the same "guarantee" as is vouchsafed the more devout adherent. By "inexhaustible commodity" then, I meant eternal life bought on the cheap. The consumer may lead an utterly shallow and materialistic life and still look forward to salvation; this is very attractive! The letter of theology (the fine print) might deny it, but this is what the church, by and large, allows to be marketed and sold. I don't care a toss, however, about shallow religious sensibilities; it has ever been thus and the worldly church has ever profited by it. Nor do I care that such views "of the “afterlife” obscures their view of the world they actually live in"; their "view" is of no interest to me, only their "numbers," and how such "collective views" materially impact on the world. Herein my premise is that infatuation with the next "eternal" world devalues this throw-away one.
<You are “more interested in making the best of this world“ nevertheless participate in these OLO discussions>
My determined aim (and vocation) is to write books on this and related issues. I use OLO to test these ideas. What else can I do to try to intervene in Humanity's disastrous progress than make people think? People have to be disabused of their dangerous rationalising. They in turn are free to disabuse me of my errors.
I submit that all this is topical as it talks to the question of respecting religion.

Oliver

Please accept my apologies for my apparent disruption of a lovely little interaction between yourself and George.

George

If the only point that caused you any thought in my previous post was a differing POV on the use of "simple people", then I have failed miserably. I accept my lack of clarity.

I'll try again; I am of the view that ordinary people have more to gain from a comprehensive education in general science than they do in theology. For the simple reason that science is the never-ending story and provides a foundation for understanding of the world around us, whereas religion only can vary by interpretation. As you noted, the bible cannot be updated. It is what it is; a collection of writings from a largely ignorant people attempting to explain the world around them while providing a measure of philosophy to live by.

I am sorry we could not have had more of a discussion.

Dan S

How wonderful you have been able to "study within" all the African religions - that's quite a feat. You must be a most knowledgeable man (say I, wishing I had picked Mayan instead). I should of known you would deliberately avoid the point I was making. That it is not necessary to "study within" to hold an opinion. For example, I don't need to live in Afghanistan to know I, as a woman, would be completely at odds with the culture. Same goes for study of cannibalistic tribes in New Guinea.

Dan, would I be correct in stating that your belief in the Christian religion includes belief in the Resurrection? An after life? That you are, therefore, living your life, as Squeers suggests, in anticipation of the 'afterlife' in accordance to Christian dogma rather than in accordance with how you treat non-religious people in the here and now

Severin,

Not a problem. All contributions are welcome here. I read your posts with intersts. Sometimes, I am under pressure working on other things.

Dan,

Thanks for the comments. I didn't know the Zeus linguistic connection.

I sometimes throw in Zeus to remind us that there are many religions: And there was a time when many people did believe in Zeus.

In the context of the exchanges between George and myself, I see belief/investigation of an a-historical God (some external creating agent) and the various gods histories to be separate endeavours. We know more about the historical gods, like what HG Wells called, the Alexandrian god factory, than we do about the latter. Religions would seem to fit well here.

On the other hand, when considering between an internal cause (self-sustaining) universe or an external cause (say God), for me, we have better counter-balances - truer opposites- should we leave can the god(s) in history bit out. Herein, we can ask: "Can the universe explain itself?". If yes, then yes. If not, then, how? God then becomes one contender to how.

Oh dear,
I read the article through carefully and still managed to mix up Calvin with Michael Servetus.
Penance for me!