Dear Pericles,

<<As an atheist, I could far better understand deism if there were only one religion, and the discussions were along the lines of "religion: yes or no?">>

However, this is the case.

There is but one religion and its instructors teach multiple methods and beliefs to suit different people according to differences in culture, climate, temperament, geography, history, etc.

Some, through the centuries, have forgotten this and only remember the particular methods and beliefs which they were personally taught. This is a pity because they are now only able to teach those for whom those particular methods and beliefs are suitable, but not others and as conditions change, for example due to the development of modern science, these methods and beliefs need to be adjusted accordingly or are no longer suited for as many.

Deism is one of those systems of practice - it could not be understood outside the context of its contribution to the religion of the cultures which have taken up its use. Very briefly, in Deism one imagines God as a being, a deity of massive power and wisdom, so this facilitates the kind of worship which one would offer to such a deity. The attributes and stories about this deity vary from one culture to the next in order to fit the temperament and devotional inclinations of the people. This forwards religion because through the worship, the devotees lose their ego as they place themselves in the service of something higher than it. Once their ego is completely lost, they attain the object of religion, God.

Religion is one, but is adjusted to the culture. To make this more real, see for example how it is taught in 12 steps specifically for the culture of alcoholics: http://www.aa.org.au/members/twelve-steps.php

Nup. Doesn't work that way, Yuyutsu.

>>There is but one religion and its instructors teach multiple methods and beliefs to suit different people...<<

Not out in the real world, at any rate.

If your definition held true, then the word religion could not bear a plural, as in "religions". Which it most definitely does...

"The groups, practices and systems that people identify as 'religions' are so diverse that it is no easy task to bring them all under one simple definition."

http://www.religionfacts.com/religion/quotes.htm

There's a bit of a perception gap here, as well:

>>...through the worship, the devotees lose their ego as they place themselves in the service of something higher than it. Once their ego is completely lost, they attain the object of religion, God.<<

And when they do so - when they "lose their ego as they place themselves in the service" of their God - they go around smashing everything in sight that does not fit their idea/concept/interpretation of religion...

"Isis fighters destroy ancient artefacts at Mosul museum"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/isis-fighters-destroy-ancient-artefacts-mosul-museum-iraq

So I'm afraid I must reject your massive oversimplification that "there is but one religion", in favour of the overload of evidence that there exist enormous divides that separate the different styles of religious observance, sufficient to bear individual scrutiny for their conduct, and impact on their fellow human beings.

Pericles,
I agree with you that not all religions are the same. Not all beliefs and ideologies end in the same place. It matters what you believe. It makes a difference, for beliefs are the precursors to actions (and as you note, potentially very destructive actions.).

However, i disagree that believing God created the world in six days is an extreme belief. It's a standard belief. It's definitely not extremist in the sense of being violent or anything like that. Exact and uncompromising are not the same as extreme. Historically, in the days of the great thinkers of the past, for pioneers such as Isaac Newton and those who helped establish today's scientific method, six day creation was a standard belief amongst the great majority.

You speak of weighing alternatives, and I think that's key. That's virtually the definition of rationality. Weighing alternatives is what makes us human. It's what Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden. It's what Jesus of Nazareth did in the Garden of Gethsemene. It's what we've all done in significant measure, and it always sets the course of human history.

In investigating religious belief, the mind weighs alternatives, firstly, God versus not God.

You've asked about my background. As a teenager, I was influenced by my family upbringing, including Christian traditions going back generations from various strains and different countries: Australia, South Africa and Europe. I attended government schools but was never formally taught about evolution. By contrast, in church or at home I was never overtly discouraged from believing evolution, although creation is always present right there in the Biblical text.

At university I was formally taught to try and think more rationally. I could define this for the moment as 'weighing alternatives'. In weighing Christianity, like most others, I was focussing at the core of it, which is Christ. You must examine the Prophet, his life and his claims on your life. The alternatives are, Jesus versus not Jesus, I'm trying to put it to you logically and systematically.

In investigating origins, the alternatives I considered were, 'evolution' versus 'creation'. That could also be described as, our origins arising by 'natural means' versus 'supernaturally by purposeful intelligence'. (I've always considered Christians who try combining the two to be compromised. It's odd to say God chose a method of creation in which he didn't create.)

I see the arguments for creation as strong. For biology, natural selection seems to aid in adaptation but is not a creative process. And I find more plausible the explanations given by Flood geologists and catastrophists (such as given in the example of Mt St Helens) for describing the world's geology.

Dan
I have written about this.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9564

Dear Pericles,

As English is a living language, it contains many anomalies which people sought for convenience even despite their logical inconsistencies.

Just as a 'hot dog' is not a dog and a 'school of thought' is not a school, 'religions' is not the plural of 'religion', but of 'a religious organisation/movement'.

Schools of astronomy, for example, are not called 'astronomies', but suppose that somehow, for convenience or whim, this fluke of language happened. Now suppose further that schools that started off teaching astronomy included over the years more and more astrology in their curriculum until it became their dominant teaching - they still run some astronomical calculations to determine in which of the signs of the zodiac planets fall, but that's about all.

Would that do justice to the science of 'astronomy'?

Then why to 'religion'?