George:

"...Why not accept that religion, with its psychological, sociological even metaphysical dimensions, can also be useful by giving meaning to human experience, to individual or collective self-understanding..."

it's a good question and argument, that in the circumstances of the human condition we are entitled to find solace where we may?

I would answer a) this has a history of mutating into self-affirmation, complacency, intolerance and rationalisation of current evils; b) if our object as a species/race is to prosper and reproduce ourselves--not merely for the sake of it, or eudaimonia, or Buddhist renunciation, but genuine progressivism defined as sustainable, praiseworthy and teleological, in earthly terms--then the logic is counterproductive, settling for contrived meaning in the circumstances over realistic aspiration (when modernity finally makes the possibility plausible!); c) the very consolation of contrived/finite meaning carries an implicit denial of the transcendent, amounting to existential affectation, a la Sartre.
Whereas I gather you're positing an affected metaphysics, or speculation for its therapeutic effects? my metaphysical speculation is predicated on the provisional 'acknowledgement' of religious/mystical experience, which I'm not prepared to consign necessarily to the unconscious, or any other trendy repository for what's arbitrarily designated by materialists as delusion.

There is a tendency to reductionism on all sides that's hasty and unjustified

I think it's worth reflecting on the words of the hymn that Lilies invokes. Verses of the Battle Hymn of the Republic are often sung in Christian churches in Advent - the season that looks forward to the coming of Christ. It is a season full of portent, prophecy and foreboding. The hymn is theologically good, and the specific verse goes:

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea
With a beauty in his bosom that transfigures you and me
As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free
Our God is marching on"

This isn't some conservative, anachronistic, backward looking theology. It is revolutionary and looks forward with such conviction that it is prepared to pledge the ultimate sacrifice.

Another hymn sung in this period is the Magnificat which is similarly revolutionary with its vision of a world turned up-side down.

I think the debate about whether the world has meaning or not is ultimately arid. For a human being to act as though it doesn't is to be a psychotic.

And when you look at the parts of the world that do best you find that one of their underpinnings is Christianity. It's provided the best meaning so far. And so much of what masquerades as progressive is actually a retreat from the principles of humanity into a more "rational", but inhuman, future. The 20th Century showed us what a cul-de-sac that sort of "progress" is.

Squeers,

>>in the circumstances of the human condition we are entitled to find solace where we may?<<

If arithmetics made sense only in counting apples and oranges it would not be very useful. Neither would religion if it functioned only as a source for finding solace. Therefore I like the metaphor of the elephant and the “six blind men“ - a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist, a philosopher (metaphysicist), an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven) - to point to religion's multifunctionality.

>>a) this has a history of mutating into self-affirmation, complacency, intolerance and rationalisation of current evils<<

Agreed. You could similarly point to negative mutations, cul-de-sacs, of many achievements of human endeavour. After all, evolution of anything is usually not a straightforward sequence of gradual improvements but a tree.

>>b) if our object as a species/race is to prosper and reproduce ourselves …then the logic is counterproductive, settling for contrived meaning in the circumstances over realistic aspiration … <<

I decipher this as a critique of progessivism, Marxist or not, couched in dialectical langauge or not, and I agree. You and I can, and perhaps should, strive for something; humanity as such cannot.

>> c) the very consolation of contrived/finite meaning carries an implicit denial of the transcendent, amounting to existential affectation, a la Sartre. <<

I would rather say that the a priori denial of the transcendent - more often than the seeking of consolation in meaning, contrived or not - amounts to existential affectation `a la Sartre.

>>I gather you're positing an affected metaphysics, or speculation for its therapeutic effects? <<

The metaphysics a Christian intellectual posits might look affected to an outsider, and its possible therapeutic affects might by an unintended consequence. These affects are an intended consequence (if you believe in God) of faith which in its turn influences the metaphysics a (philosophically concerned) Christian “posits”.

I find the rest of your post very insightful. What you call “provisional 'acknowledgement' of religious/mystical experience” does not stand in contradiction to what a philosophically savvy Christian believes.

Graham:

“ when you look at the parts of the world that do best you find that one of their underpinnings is Christianity. It's provided the best meaning so far. And so much of what masquerades as progressive is actually a retreat from the principles of humanity into a more "rational", but inhuman, future. The 20th Century showed us what a cul-de-sac that sort of "progress" is”.

Can’t see it, Graham. Christianity is global but prosperity isn’t. Nor does Christianity have any real impact on polity. It’s just a mode of rhetoric that’s never prevented States from perpetrating their enormities. Sometimes it’s encouraged them, looked the other way, perpetrated its own evils…
The view of progressivism I’ve tried to invoke above is not pegged to an economic rubric (which has proved itself fickle), nor to an archaic morality, but to a humanist ethic based on the actual conditions of scarcity we ought to respect. Such a neo-progressivism would plot an ethical and sustainable future via which we might finally emerge from the dark ages.

George,
A central point I’ve tried to make above is that time is past where we can take a passive stance apropos our condition, which is what religion does, whichever part of the elephant we find a comfort.

“You and I can, and perhaps should, strive for something; humanity as such cannot”.
This is the opposite to my position! I’m saying individuals should quit navel gazing, and that humanity should put its efforts and faith in a noble and achievable future. This would also inspire individuals. How can we believe in our current rapaciousness?

“the a priori denial of the transcendent - more often than the seeking of consolation in meaning, contrived or not - amounts to existential affectation `a la Sartre”.

Agreed, but I was making the point that “yours” and Peter’s concessional culturalism is implicitly sacrificing the transcendental—not mine! The next passage you quote was making this point. I’m offering a transcendental alternative.
I’m concerned that the therapeutic effects of religion are more a sedative and diversion than a positive plan for humanity.

Squeers,

>> A central point I’ve tried to make above is that time is past where we can take a passive stance apropos our condition, which is what religion does <<

Christianity, when it actively shaped the culture of the West, hardly took a passive stance on what it was shaping, and today I doubt you could accuse Islam (that inspires e.g. the Islamists) of taking a passive stance on the world around them. On the other hand, admittedly, contemporary educated Christians might not be as eager to engage in military or ideological fights as they were in the past. However, exercising and advising caution before swinging from one extreme to another, does not necessarily mean taking a “passive stance apropos our condition”.

>>I’m saying individuals should quit navel gazing, and that humanity should put its efforts and faith in a noble and achievable future. <<

Many political actions started as a few persons' brian activity, call it navel gazing or not. However, what I meant was that you and I can will, humanity - or a nation - cannot. Society defends itself by punishing individuals who voluntarily do things that go against its interests but one does not, or should not, punish nations. For the same reasons an individual can strive, not a nation or even humanity.

Humanity cannot put its efforts to anything unless individual humans do it (voluntarily or not), although if there is a general agreement on what that is, we might say that “humanity” strives, or should strive, for it.

Sorry, but a don’t know what is “concessional culturalism” that Peter and I are supposed to have in common. On the other hand, religion as humanity’s opiate is a standard Marxian cliché. It is true in the sense that the sedative or “pain-killing” effect of religion is just one of its many functions, which in some situations can prevail over others, in other situations is practically absent (Islam has hardly a sedative effect on suicidal islamist terrorists).

Anyhow, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year full of new philosophical insights.