Thanks Is Mise regarding turbans, I did not know that at RSL clubs, the other I do know at customs, I was the next person to the Indian, but I do understand if its to do with religion it is allowed, strange.

.

Dear Yuyutsu & Matthew S,

.

Yuyutsu wrote :

« … the word 'religion' comes from the Latin 'Re-ligare' - to re-bind with God … »

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word religion means : « the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods ».

There is no consensus among scholars as to the etymology of the word religion. Also, the version you indicate contains a linguistics error. The “re” of religare is not the “re” meaning "again, back, anew, against". It is the intensive “re” (which gives force or emphasis). The correct meaning of religare is “to bind fast”.

In “Of the Nature of the Gods”, Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), considered to be a model of Classic Latin, had this to say (book 2, section 28, page 71) :

« … for our ancestors, as well as the philosophers, have separated superstition from religion. They have prayed whole days and sacrificed, that their children might survive them (ut superstites essent,) were called superstitious, which word became afterwards more general; but they who diligently perused, and, as we may say, read or practised over again, all the duties relating to the worship of the Gods, were called religiosi, religious, from relegendo “reading over again, or practising;” as elegantes, elegant, ex eligendo, “from choosing, making a good choice;” diligentes, diligent, ex diligendo, “from attending on what we love;” intelligentes, intelligent, from understanding, for the signification is derived in the same manner. Thus are the words superstitious and religious understood; the one being a term of reproach, the other of commendation. »

Here is the link to the English translation of Cicero’s book :

http://archive.org/stream/treatisesofcicer00ciceuoft#page/70/mode/2up

It was some of the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and a number of modern writers who connect the etymology of religion with religare "to bind fast".

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu, Matthew S and Foxy,

.

Perhaps I should add that the « to bind fast » of religare is silent as to what or who it is that is « to be bound fast ». That is open to conjecture.

It could be, as Yuyutsu suggests, for religious people to be “bound fast” with God. But it could also be for religious people to be “bound” fast among themselves. Both versions are equally valid.

The latter version would give credence to the sociologist, Emile Durkheim’s theory that religion has a vital function in maintaining the social system as a whole and that the origins of religion were social, not supernatural.

Foxy gave an elaborate description of this in her post to Yuyutsu on page 23 of this thread.

If I may add a personal opinion, my understanding is that our primeval ancestors imagined that supernatural powers were behind natural phenomena which caused them so much fear and destruction. They had to find some way of placating them, so they invented gods to whom they prayed and begged for mercy, offering animal and human sacrifices. Some of their members were designated to act as scapegoats to be sacrificed to save the rest of the tribe.

This was religion. The process began as a strategy of survival by inventing the supernatural and a plethora of Gods to whom the tribe could appeal. It cemented relationships among the members who had a common interest.

The need soon emerged for somebody to act on a full time basis as an intermediary with the Gods . The role of the witchdoctor became almost as important as that of the leader of the tribe, if not more important.

It seems to me than man has always kept his distance with “God” whom he fears, despite all the talk of “love and devotion”, but continues to maintain his religious identity or, should I say, his “social ties”.

.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« 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. »

There is obviously a misunderstanding between us here, George. You seem to be referring to some particular case, whereas, throughout our discussion, I have been referring to the miraculous healings at Lourdes in general.

Spontaneous remission is the term employed by the medical profession to describe a patients complete recovery when it is inexplicable scientifically. The patient may have recovered from an incurable cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS or anything else. Whatever illness he had, may or may not have been correctly diagnosed. The fact is he recovered from whatever it was without the medical profession being able to explain how or why.

Who could doubt that state of the art medical science is incapable of understanding and treating certain illnesses and that, unfortunately, medical specialists occasionally make false judgments and incorrect diagnoses.

For the Vatican, the medical profession’s conclusion of spontaneous remission opens the way for it to invoke divine intervention – importantly, without any risk of it being proven wrong.

Also, as you pointed out earlier in this thread, there is often some element of faith in the miraculous healing process, whether it be at Lourdes or elsewhere.

Faith, of course, is the religious term for what the medical profession calls the placebo effect. At Lourdes, the object of faith or placebo, is what is believed to be the “sacred” water.

.

Dear Foxy, Jardine,

David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist, has a good discussion of Durkheim’s vs Stark’s approaches to religion (he prefers the former) in his book “Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society (U. of Chicago Press, 2003). I, as a non-specialist, see the two approaches as complementary, equally insightful views of the same phenomenon.

By the way, Wilson (an atheist) is also a critique of his colleague Richard Dawkin’s evolutionary explanation of religion (as a negative or superfluous byproduct), see e.g. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04/#feature, which is also a good summary of Wilson’s views on how evolutionary biology could see religion in a balanced way.

Dear Banjo,

>>Spontaneous remission is the term employed by the medical profession to describe a patients complete recovery when it is inexplicable scientifically.<<

Exactly, this is what I had in mind.

>>For the Vatican, the medical profession’s conclusion of spontaneous remission opens the way for it to invoke divine intervention<<

Vatican does not ask medical professionals to conclude anything, only to exclude error of diagnosis, i.e. curability (by known methods ) where incurability has been claimed by the cured.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Vatican does not ask medical professionals to conclude anything, only to exclude error of diagnosis, i.e. curability (by known methods ) where incurability has been claimed by the cured. »

I find that quite amazing. I have always, perhaps naïvely, imagined that the Vatican undertook a much more thorough and in-depth, specialist, medical study than that.

According to the Stedman's Medical Dictionary, diagnosis is defined as :

1. The act or process of identifying or determining the nature and cause of a disease or injury through evaluation of patient history, examination, and review of laboratory data.
2. The opinion derived from such an evaluation.
3. A brief description of the distinguishing characteristics of an organism, as for taxonomic classification.

The definition does not mention anything about curability.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate a little further and perhaps share your sources with us.

.