I think Craig is correct. Scripture is a compendium of human experience, especially historical experience. As such it represents a kind of empiricism. No other nation learnt from its history to the exert that Israel did. It also learnt from poetry and song and legend. It is not as if Scripture was dropped fully formed from the sky as in the Koran, it was mulled over and selected and edited over hundreds of years. What was conserved was an image of what it is like to be alive and human, to deal with death, war, exile and peace. As such, it is an invaluable source apart from any religious construction. Of course many of its expressions have to be read as analogy or at times as just plain balmy, but that is the mix of it, a very human and sometimes fallible document. It was also conditioned to a time before natural science.

Sells, Craig
That assumes that religion is a kind of attempt to understand reality. If it is, it's not doing a very good job of it: fabulous magical superbeings don't really have much explaining power. All its explaining power is only this: Get all the things we don't understand. Now. Call the explanation of them God".

Also, how do we know that the writers of scripture weren't doing it in their own time for their own advantages, rather than as some kind of expression of divinity? We know Mohammed did. What makes you think Moses and the rest of them weren't doing the same. The patriarchs had lots of wives and concubines. Well? Doesn't that have explaining power? It does for me.

What if religion is an evolved adaptation for a sexually-selected tendency to false beliefs that just happen to increase sexual and reproductive advantage? This would have explaining power, and more than is supplied by the content of their fabulous god-stories.

Craig
"JKJ, no, it's not deifying the state, simply recognising the pragmatics of the situation."

Well is it ethics or pragmatics? The fact that the state imposes limits doesn't establish that it's providing moral grounding, rather than, for example, providing 'might is right'. There is not necessarily any moral grounding in it.

Blimey Craig Minns, surely you can't be serious?

>>Pericles, if I have misunderstood you, perhaps you might elucidate?<<

You asked:

>>...what is a justification for Christianity's non-existence in the 21st century?<<

I answered:

"There is none, of course, in the same way that there is no justification for the non-existence of Weet-bix".

Perhaps if you can tell me which part of "there is no justification for Christianity's non-existence in the 21st century" you did not understand, I might be able to assist.

Pericles, I'm not interested in silly schoolyard games. You made a confused statement in an attempt to troll, I tried to answer in good faith, including asking you to explain so as I might understand and now you're trying to be "clever".

I won't make the same mistake again: clever is as clever does.

JKJ, ethics and pragmatics go hand in hand, as is made clear by the usage in my original comment.

"Grounding" in the context refers to the process of checking on one's reasoning process. It is a feedback pragmatic, that allows one to derive a contextual basis for one's decision-making, in this case, ethical/moral decisions.

In the case of the church, if a religious person has a moral dilemma they may seek advice from the parish priest or equivalent, who may draw on various authorities, both religious and secular to advise them.

In the case of a scientist reference may be made to ethics committees and legal advice to the same end.

In either case the final decision rests with the one making the decision, and they may choose to do other than as advised, guided by their own sense of propriety, but in the knowledge that it is counter to the "received wisdom".

I'm afraid that I don't see the point of the rest of your post, it's going over ground already covered.

JKJ, my apologies, I didn't properly read your last comment. Does religion , or at least spirituality have some form of adaptive function? I would say that it must, given that it persists in every cultural milieu that I'm aware of.

One obvious such adaptive function is as a display of the practitioner's group-centric behaviour, which in a group species like humans is highly selectively advantageous: more children survive when a family group has the support of a community than otherwise.

This function is recognised and promoted by the churches, who often have specific programs to recruit those from the least socio-economically advantaged communities who are most likely to see an advantage in being part of a supportive community.

On the other hand, within wealthier, more economically secure communities the social support function is less compellling, so the prosperity doctrines of churches like Hillsong are perhaps more attractive.

Similar sectarian gradations exist within other faith traditions and are sometimes formalised, as in the Vedic traditions.

Dawkins's formulation of the extended phenotype including the memetic information of culture is relevant, it seems to me.

Good comment, thanks.

Dear Craig Minns,

An adaptive function in one environment may be deleterious in another. I believe that is the case with religion. Religion is a tremendous binding force. A group sharing a belief is unified, and the family bond is extended to every believer of the same faith.

However, we no longer live in tribal conditions. Belief groups rub up against other belief groups. Missionaries are recruitment agents who try to tear people away from their belief group to join the belief group of the missionary. I think that is the impetus behind the many articles that Sellick has written. He would spread his particular belief system. What was a binding force becomes a source of conflict when those who subscribe to a set of dogmas are committed to pushing it on others. They even feel they are doing something worthwhile.

The invented supernatural entity promulgating one set of rules conflicts with another form of supernatural belief with another set of rules. Athanasian conflicts with Arian. Christian tries to extirpate paganism, and so it goes on and on. The binding force has become a force that seeks to sever the bonds which hold another group together. Sometimes those subscribing to one mumbojumbo massacre those who subscribe to another mumbojumbo.

I have felt threatened by the missionaries who have approached me. They leave me with the insulting, "I'll pray for you." It wouldn't be so bad if people who had a belief system would just leave others who didn't share it alone, but many are not content with that. They must harass others. They don't reflect that their success means breaking another individuals bonds with family, neighbours and community.

As the late, great Jimmy Durante said, "Why doesn't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?"