Pericles,

I think you've misunderstood what I'm on about here. I'm NOT saying that atheists are wrong in their beliefs. Indeed, I'm agnostic on the question of whether there is a deity.

Where I'm saying they are wrong is their view that believers unthinkingly accept what they've been taught, that believers are less evolved, that the beliefs of theists are illogical. If, as I've done, I can show that there are myriad theists who are demonstrably intelligent, logical and scientific then the claims of those atheists here must fail.

Within the names I've mentioned we have the leader of the genome project and the man who first proposed the big bang theory. To claim they are less evolved, less logical than those here is arrant and arrogant nonsense.

Belief in the deity is not logical. It is faith based. It therefore cannot be disproven with logic. The assertions that we know how the universe works sans a deity misunderstands where we are at the moment. For example, our current understanding is that we need to postulate a 'dark matter' that dwarfs all other visible matter. We can't see 'dark matter', we don't know where it is, what it is, how it exists, how it works. We just know, or think we know, that the universe doesn't work without it. So, given our scientific understanding of the universe, we have faith that 'dark matter' exists. In that regard it is in precisely the same category as the deity.

Indeed if we renamed 'dark matter' to Jehovah, we could end all disputes....(grin).

BTW, give my best to Aspasia.

david f,

American politics is not comparable to the Australian brand when it comes to religion. The USA has become trapped by its own religious fantasy and Australia is not there nor ever will be.

I am not only opposed to politicians not revealing how they would vote if they follow a religion, I am strong opposed to that notion.

It is a deceit on the public not to declare the outcome of beliefs by politicians if those beliefs will impact on legislation against the wishes of the population. It would be a very similar case if a politician held the belief that powerful intelligent aliens would save humanity from itself so there is need to worry about pollution, the environment, the starving etc. Such a belief would impact on everyone against their wishes.

The quasi-magical thinking in that politician’s mind is little different than the magical thinking in the minds of some religious politicians. The point is not what the politician believes so much, it is the outcome of those beliefs and the electorate should have full knowledge of them.

In one instance, the politician is the only one who believes the nonsense about space-entities putting things right and in the other; many people believe it with religion. That is only an argument about numbers, not about truth.

I wouldn’t vote for such a politician, would you?

And here is a sub-question. Should the public have knowledge of the alien-believing politician’s fanciful ideas?

And you didn’t answer my previous hypothetical.

Of course there should be a separation of church and state. No sensible person not trying to gain advantage for a particular ideology would argue otherwise. But religion, like any ideology can be so insidiously incorporated in the mind of some ideologues, they believe decisions made which are against the wishes of the population have a basis in fact and are justified when they are not. Religion is one ideology that can do that.

This is not a proof of anything but few atheists within my knowledge-base believe that religion should be a private matter with politicians.

David

As Chesterton said, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”

eg Lysenkoism, new age gaianism, communism, nazism, eugenics, Heaven's Gate,

Many will argue that environmentalism carries many of the traits of religion including a belief in an idyllic past, Armageddon, original sin.

Every human society that has existed has had a religion of some sort or other. Humans need it. If its not a belief in a deity its a belief in something which is often worse.

I think it is about time we declared a moratorium on using etymology as evidence. This one - thank you Banjo Paterson - rears its ugly head from time to time, and is a classic case in point.

>>The term "religion" derives from the Latin "religare" which means to tie, fasten or bind.<<

Not necessarily.

Everybody is agreed that the English word religion derives from the Latin noun religio, which was used as a label for an interesting range of conditions - "scrupulousness", "pious misgivings", "superstition", "conscientiousness", "sanctity", "an object of veneration", "cult-observance" and "reverence".

However, taking the next analytical step, not everyone agrees on the root of that Latin word. Cicero, for example, declared that it came from re + legere, to read, or go over a text. Reflecting, presumably, the need to study the customs and strictures before committing oneself. Judaism may well have been the model he had in mind, for example.

Nor, perhaps more interestingly, does Augustine agree, adding the possibility that it derived from re + eligere, to choose, select, collect, gather. That he made this pitch at roughly the same time in the fourth century that the Christian writer Lactantius fixed upon re + ligare, to bind, make fast, gives an idea of the fluidity of the scholarship involved.

I'm not making a case for any of these, simply pointing out that to choose the meaning of a word based upon a contested etymology doesn't actually achieve anything of value, in terms of understanding.

The fact that we are all fully aware of what the word religion means to us in the twentyfirst century should be enough, surely.

Dear Pericles,

<<The fact that we are all fully aware of what the word religion means to us in the twentyfirst century should be enough, surely.>>

Apparently not!

As far as I am concerned, religion is whatever re-binds us with God (not with other people, as mentioned by Banjo). This is what 'religion' means to me, whether in this or in any other century: whenever I mention 'religion', this is what I mean and I have no interest in any later meanings attached to this word over the years like the beard growing on a ship's hull.

One implication, relating to the David-David discussion, is that some politicians could be religious without knowing it while others might claim to be religious, but are not. Loyalty and adherence to the teachings of an organisation which claims to be 'a religion' is a separate matter; and while occasionally useful, is neither a requisite of religion, nor a proof thereof.

Also, heavily discussed here is the topic of belief: One who believes in God (or gods) is not necessarily religious while one who does not believe is not necessarily irreligious. While belief is often used as a religious method, it is certainly neither a requisite for religious life, nor a proof thereof.

Understandably from a psychological point of view, people who hate God and wish to stay away from Him are delighted in attaching the word 'religion' to some of the darkest institutions that routinely abuse His holy name. That they wish everyone to believe that this is what 'religion' means, is no big surprise either.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

G.K. Chesterton was a brilliant mind. He was known as "the prince of paradox". He was invested by Pope Pius XI as Knight Commander with Star of the Papal Order of St. Gregory the Great.

Often accused of anti-Semitism, the Chesterton Society has proposed that he be beatified.

.

Dear Pericles,
.

" ... to choose the meaning of a word based upon a contested etymology doesn't actually achieve anything of value ..."

Point well taken and I admire your erudition. Thank you for your analysis.

I confess to having taken a shortcut (OLO word limit oblige) to highlight the "unpublicised" reality of the close cooperation and mutual complicity of political rule and religion, whose mutual interest is, and has always been, to cultivate social cohesion within the "flock" in order to inseminate order and control of mind, body and "soul" so innocuously that it is imperceptible except to the odd "lost sheep".

Throughout history, rulers have imposed conversion of their subjects and conquests to their own religion for this very reason. Others guaranteed freedom of religion, as in later democracies, some separating church and state, for exactly the same reason. Different method but same objective by more indirect, more intelligent and, for that reason, perhaps more effective means.

.

Dear Yuutsyu,
.

"As far as I am concerned, religion is whatever re-binds us with God (not with other people, as mentioned by Banjo). This is what 'religion' means to me, ..."

Your understanding is as good as mine.

May I suggest that you see yourself as a lonesome cowboy riding across life's plains from dawn to dusk, whereas from my perspective, you are sitting on a bandwagon among the rest of the "flock", with religion up front, holding the reigns and the State riding shotgun beside it.

Ghost riders in the sky? Sort of. From where I am sitting, I can see them. But from where you are sitting, you can't.

Quite frankly, it does not make much difference. We'll all reach sunset before dawn - hopefully.

.