At last, and inevitably, the ancient exoteric rulerships have failed, and "official" Christian-ISM, along with all the other "great" world religions or merely exoteric religion-POWER, is now reduced to all the impenetrable illusions and decadent exercises that everywhere characterize previously privileged aristocracies in their decline from worldly power.
Exoteric Christianity now consists of over 30,000 corporate cults ALL competing for market share in the market place of religious consumerism. This resulting imbecile chaos is dominated by strutting Barnumesque propagandists who "rule" nothing more than chaotic herds of self-deluded religion consumers.

PT Barnum was of course wrong - countless thousands of suckers are born every minute.

Therefore, the myth (lie) of the "cultural superiority" of official Christian-ISM has now come full circle. The power and control seeking religious mythologies of the dominant world religions (especially Christian-ISM and Islam-ISM) are not only now waging global warfare with one another - like so many psychotic inmates asylums for the mad, each confronting the other with exclusive claims of personal absoluteness.

But the public masses of religion-bound people, who all over the world, for even thousands of years, have been controlled in body and mind by ancient institutions of religiously propagandized WORLDLY-POWER, are now in a globalized state of grossly bound delusion and social PSYCHOSIS.

My point of departure, as always, is where Mr Sellick moves away from the "supreme being" issue, and claims all the tasty religious goodness for Christianity.

That has never made any sense to me. Surely, if you have convinced yourself that there is such a thing as God, you should not be at all surprised that others may have arrived at the same conclusion, but with a different set of rules.

We acquire our first language skills from our immediate family. We then learn, over time, that there are different languages, and, similarly, that there are different religions.

We may think our own language is preferable, because of its familiarity. But we know that others prefer theirs, for the same reason.

The same applies - or rather, should apply - to one believer's attitude towards another. While individuals may find comfort in the familiarity of their own belief system, they should understand that an equally strong force binds others to theirs.

Each religion seeks to explain the "why" of our existence, with the help of an external metaphysical concept. It is the fact that humans have evolved a brain that enables us to ask these questions - and fail to find a complete answer from the facts available - that leaves the "hole".

Which is where people stick their religious beliefs.

Some people will fill their hole completely with their chosen religion, to the point where nothing else seems to matter. Others will simply stuff as much as they need into the hole, and ignore the fact that there are still gaps around the edges - it works for them, so that's fine. They are less interested in the theology, than in the fact that they can go about their daily lives without fretting too much about the universe.

Some religions, too, seek to spack-fill the hole completely. Others are content to wield it as a comforting adjunct to the daily routine - Rowan Williams' approach springs to mind.

But claiming that there is only one religion, and one approach to religion that "works", rings serious warning bells.

Peter, it appears that you are quite happy to embrace neuropsychiatric explanations for language, but shy away when it comes to religious belief.

I suspect that this is because a neuropsychiatric explanation for religious belief pulls the rug out from under God.

Pericles you describe the state of affairs well with some potent imagery involving spack filler.

Religious folk like Sellick cannot and will not argue the non-existence of God, even while religious ideology is so wound up in the neuropsychiatric explanation. It would be difficult to claim there is a God but here are his rules, and then argue it is all in the mind but for your own good. However many come to that conclusion for themselves or fill the hole in other ways. Some theists and members of the congregation are moving that way and Christianity, like other religions present a mixed bag (such is the variation in human beings).

Spiritual awareness whether one dances naked in the forest, tosses a few runes, sits with crystals, prays to a deity or adheres to a code such as Buddhism, it all purports to fill the same 'hole'.

There is indeed much more to human psychology and begs the question of why there is a hole? Why are human beings not happy living in the now and with the bounty of what lays in front of them (if we don't destroy it first). Perhaps we have satisfied our basic survival needs and need to 'fill' the higher order needs, but that does not explain primitive man's grasp of rituals and beliefs. Perhaps there is a relationship even there. It is often said God is for the poor man/woman because it gives strength and gets them through to the next meal, and for the richer man/woman fills the vacuum of excess. Who knows, I am no psychologist - religion and spirituality are interesting phenomena.

As per Pericles' last sentence, the problems arise when the various spiritual beliefs all claim their brand of spack filler is the best and that does indeed set off the alarm bells.

Thank you Peter. Your article is worth much further thought.

Cronus: Rather than “seeking truth” as the goal of life, I suggest it is wiser to try to “be true” to myself and for us to “be true to one another”. I think of truth not so much as an objective as a matter of relationality. I suspect you may agree with this.

Briar Rose: The religious institutions are important as the bearers of wisdom, symbols and useful practice from the past. Like institutions of any sort they must be continually re-appraised and renewed to avoid ossification.

Rusty Catheter: As far as the “parent-hole” goes, Dennet and his flock are simply echoing what Freud proposed long before them. On that question Jung went much further than Freud in his life-long investigation of the psyche. He showed that once a person has dealt successfully with the relationship with the parents the evolving psyche tends to move on past the personal unconscious and into the deeper unconscious where the “proclivity” that Peter Sellick has alluded to needs to be dealt with. Some Christians are still dealing with the personal (Freudian) factors, other Christians are grappling with the more impersonal issues.

Clownfish: Your brief post implies that there actually is a” neuropsychiatric explanation for religious belief”. What is it?

Pericles and Pelican: I agree that it is a very bad thing for one religion to claim triumph over all others. Nevertheless I think you might be seeing in Peter Sellick’s article far more triumphalism than there actually is. He is after all arguing for the minimalising of religion.

And the question of why there is a “hole” to be filled at all? I would say that it is not a hole in the sense of a vacuum because it is already occupied with living force. The problem is that the human mind cannot deal with that force without first giving it an image. And that image must vary among cultures and with human evolution.

crabsy: Neither you nor Sells have given any reason to presume that this (oh so subtle) "proclivity" is a genuine thing. You *claim* it is more subtle, more sophisticated etc. *but* you make no effort other than to assert so. Jung, Freud etc may have meandered speculatively about such, but this is not in any way a demonstration that appropriation of "parent readiness" is not fully explanatory.

"My car looks just like yours, goes about as fast etc but mine is "special" because I feel better about it that way" nyer nyer."

Much wordy effort is made to pretend that the above sentence doesn't touch the majesty and humble subtlety of the precious thought you have that is just so far beyond us poor heathens, but the problem is that it seems an adequate summary.

The extensive use of parental imagery as a descriptor of "god" (like your father but more so) is so pervasive that it is disingenuous to try and discuss the issue without a genuine exploration of the *most* that a "parent-hole" might explain, rather than conveniently ignoring or belittling it.

Rusty