Dear Jardine,

<<The problem with explaining the existence of religion in terms of religions' own understanding - god stories and all that - is because they are all inconsistent with each other>>

Stories may be inconsistent, but religions are not inconsistent with each other. Anything that brings us closer to God is religion and anything that doesn't, is not.

Some people believe that such-and-such practices bring us closer to God while other beliefs and practices do not, but they fail to realise that different beliefs and practices are more suitable for different people and at different times.

<<besides the fact that they are wanting and dodgy in terms of evidence and reason - highly improbable and dubious at best.>>

"God stories" are not meant to be factual - they are meant to inspire devotees to 'walk with God'. Sadly this was forgotten with the latest fashion of modernism which brought with it the worship of objective evidence. I blame this squarely on faulty religious leaders who took to that fashion themselves and tried to mix up spiritually-inspiring legends with this foreign element of the materially-objective.

<<Evolutionary theory speculates that religion may be sexually selected.>>

So what about monasticism?

The practice of religion weans its followers from the compulsion to serve their genes. Companionship with God is so much more satisfying than human and sexual relations.

This in fact is the tragedy of religion, as those who become deeply religious fail to reproduce, leaving the churches in the hands of those less competent to lead others towards God.

<<There's loads of evidence of religion increasing reproductive success:>>

There may well be evidence that pretence of religiosity increases reproductive success.

Must disagree; one acceptable definition of religion back in RELS 1 was "Religion is a way of life, having rules of conduct and a common belief system and is practiced by a group"

Communism fits this description as does the Labor Party and the Greens et al.

Yuyutsu,

First you seem to be obviously using a definition of "religion" which is not in common use nor in the common understanding of the definition of the term. That is, you use the term to communicate what ‘YOU BELIEVE’ to be the very primordial essence and fundamentals of what “religion” means rather than as most people in all of time have used less strict definitions and instead used the term “religion” to denote exactly what it is we see in the real and actual world as it is in whatever form that may be [less than whole, inauthentic etc].

However you nor anyone else has the authority either morally, intellectually, philosophically nor even in a linguistic sense re its REAL accepted meaning in language . . . . . to pretend to use any term [religion as well] to state that its definitional essence can and does incorporate all those highest of endeavours like intellectual inquiry into existence and purpose/meaning, love, humanity and justice, especially when [as in the case with the term ‘religion’] the word’s actual strict meanings DO NOT as a rule exclude in such a high domain of pursuit more generic, basic and wider in encompassing scope which is achieved ALREADY in linguistics by the terms of “philosophy”.
Who is anyone to make out that “religion” in essence is still somehow ‘religion’ and not just [as is more simple and clear] philosophical inquiry and thought as pure actions and things in themselves.

Thus Yuyutsu, you are wrong in this. Clearly philosophy and just thought are the more general PARENTS of a term like 'religion' which is merely a small derivative of the broader terms.

.
 
Dear George,
 
.
 
You wrote :

« In my understanding, spontaneous remission (an unexpected improvement or cure from a disease) assumes that the diagnosis (of cancer) was right. It is a scientific fact with causes unknown, not a human error. »

I’m afraid you have lost me there, George. I shall put some thoughts down here with a view to clarification.

I agree that spontaneous remission is an unexpected improvement or cure from a disease (though I prefer the term “illness” which is more global, cf.: http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-illness-and-disease ).

You wrote that « … spontaneous remission … assumes that the diagnosis … was right ».

I see no reason why spontaneous remission could not take place in respect of an illness which was either not diagnosed or incorrectly diagnosed as something else (a human error, if you like). I do not understand why you consider that correct diagnosis of an illness is a necessary prerequisite in order for spontaneous remission to occur.

I also agree that spontaneous remission is «a scientific fact with causes unknown» (though generally thought to have something to do with the person’s natural defence system).

You then observed:

« Of course, you can give almost any metaphor an interpretation that suits your view of the matter ».

I guess that is what we did, George, and, as you suggest, our respective interpretations are indicative of our personal state of mind and world view. As an eminent mathematician with a propensity to mysticism, you seem to have developed an exceptional aptitude for abstract thought. Whereas mine is an untrained mind, more accustomed to jostling with the bumps and grinds of reality than projecting symbolic meaning into it.

Happily, I do, at least, enjoy the sunset even though any attempt I may make to explain the phenomenon would inevitably be somewhat rudimentary.
 
.

Matthew S,

>>A number of key issues are of importance here<<

One of the few interesting posts on this thread that actually addresses the problem of why should the state tolerate religion.

I agree that before tackling the question it should be clarified what, for this purpose, is and what is not religion, see my post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16418#286251 above.

>>2) How can we recognize when a “religion” has become a culture’s political and social system? <<

I presume this refers to pre-Enlightment or Middle Ages, where that religion was Christianity (Christendom) or to contemporary Islamic states, neither relevant to contemporary Western societies, unless one redefines religion as a world view in the widest sense of the word.

>>3) The article author … seems unable … to find a clear and sound argument for accepting all religions, and for how to decide when a particular practise is bad and should not be tolerated.<<

Here “all religions” depends on the definition sub 1., otherwise it could include e.g. all world views. In my opinion, the decision of whether a “particular practice” should or should not be tolerated should be decided from case to case, no sweeping approvals or disapproval just because they are connected with this or that religion (save as temporary left-overs from a Christian past). And not because they are good or bad in some ethical meaning of the word but only in the sense of good or bad for the society as a whole.

>>4) WHY should ANY belief system or philosophy be deemed more important under law etc. than any other? <<

I think the question is not about importance but about how best to run a state, where different people - some more some less educated - subscribe to different world views - some religious some not.

>>Clearly philosophy and just thought are the more general PARENTS of a term like 'religion' which is merely a small derivative of the broader terms.<<

The metaphysical assumptions of a religious world view are closely related to philosophy, but neither is a special case or "parent" of the other.

Jardine K. Jardine,

>>What about that eh?<<

You seem to subscribe to a negative understanding of religion that is based on a couple of sweeping statements, as stereotypical as they have become. This one-sidedness is shared by many (but certainly not all, including scientists and other scholars) and it somehow reflects also the official attitude towards religion of the system I grew up in (Stalinism).

I doubt the society could properly function if the problem of how much of people’s personal convictions should the state tolerate, or even support, was based on this attitude hostile towards alternative world views. That might have functioned with Christianity’s attitude towards other beliefs in the Middle Ages, but not in our Western society, whatever would take the place of Christianity as the officially sanctioned position (secular humanism?).

Dear Banjo,

I think “spontaneous remission” refers to the case where the diagnosis (of cancer) was already established. If that is not the case, the illness might be something for which there are known cures, or is known to recede on its own. So the case of “sponataneous remission” and that of “error of diagnosis” are mutually exclusive.

>>As an eminent mathematician with a propensity to mysticism<<

Not eminent only retired, and certainly with no propensity to mysticism (I only acknowledge that mysticism can be - there are fake mystics as there are fake scientists - a way of contacting or perceiving aspects of reality that are not amenable to scientific investigation.

As for the metaphor of the blind man and the sunset I only offered it as an alternative to the view from the other side of the theist-atheist divide that regards religious insights as hallucinations, mental gymnastics or what you have.