Churches have no authority because they have become like the rest of society, jostling for relevance. When Christianity becomes just like everything else, there is no point in it.

Sorry Peter, hard to lose something you never ever had! Morality is something between a man and his maker, not some self appointed third intermediary. What is truly in your heart, is all that truly matters!

Certainly not something conferred by a armoured sword wielding Pope at the head of an army of sword wielding butchers!

Nor conferred by the Godless pagan Constantine, self appointed head of the then alleged Christian church, only receiving baptism on his deathbed!

Nor from the bishops he allegedly installed as the Bishop of Rome or Constantinople! Nor any of the alleged priests those Bishops anointed!

Nor any anointed from that perversion of the master's authority!

Given medical science has now established that there is a gay gene, and not just one but several, and therefore the handiwork of the Creator, hard for ordinary men purporting to speak For God to forbid it!

Nor do they have the moral authority to compel a woman or a man to remain trapped in a loveless marriage or become virtual broodmares, compelled to give issue to many more mouths than they can feed! Nor be sustained by a vrtually crippled planet!

No family trapped in that circumstance is not harmed by the inevitable conflict and emotional tension. And only assisted/normalized, when love and happiness are the glue that naturally binds the family!

When God gave man dominion over the planet, it didn't come with a licence to virtually destroy it, nor rape, pillage and plunder it for irreplaceable resources!

For what? So a few very fat overfed men could consume more than an entire family could genuinely need in several lifetimes!

Moral authority, was never ever the property of a few self appointed appointees! Never! Nor those who over the centuries have murdered and brought war and destruction in God's name, ever!
Alan B.

Irish monks saved western civ from the roaming barbarians hordes, and funny enough it looks like the Benedictines will have to do it again by providing cool jobs and places where Christians can raise their families and also grown nice grapes to make lovely wines and whatever.

>So, what is the future of the Church? It will obviously get much smaller and its influence will continue to decline because it will take more time for the husks to be separated from the wheat and thrown in the fire. But wheat will remain, perhaps as an underground movement and will germinate when the time is right.

Wishful thinking. I can imagine the Aztec priests said much the same as their former flock abandoned the worship of Quetzalcoatl.

They still have far too much influence.
Especially with politicians.

The church lost its elite status at the reformation, it just didn't recognise the change of rules. It then might have asked how we could all play together to achieve God's kingdom. Instead from Constantine (or perhaps Paul) onwards the church went over to satan and it has been pursuing earthly rewards, and we will all pay the consequences in some form.

Manichaeism was a religion which had communicants from Spain to China. It has disappeared from the earth. Nobody identifies with that religion any more. Nobody worships Zeus or Mithra any more. Humans invent a religion, and it may last a long time after it is invented. Eventually it disappears. The same thing can happen to Christianity and probably will. Then other humans will invent a new religion. So it goes.

Maybe humans will lose their need for supernatural mumbojumbo. Probably not.

Christianity has lasted this long, through worse challenges then are going on today. It won't disappear. Not because it's man made but resilient (as is thought by some). But because it's from God and the world is powerless to remove what God has put in place.

The Church exists today only because over centuries people have been indoctrinated at birth and never thought to question the existence of God. With education and the development of rational, reasoned thought the Church's mythology has, for many, ceased to be relevant and has been abandoned. The election of conservative Popes and bishops in the Catholic church and its hidebound refusal to move with the times should hasten its decline and eventual demise.

Any moral authority the Churches ever had has been swept away by the recent child molestation scandals and their clumsy attempts to protect the Church's image at all costs.

A very thoughtful, interesting article.

People often say that when a supernatural basis for morality goes, so will morality. "Without God, all things are possible," as one writer put it.

The argument here is that there is no objective, maximizing-your-self-interest reason to behave in a moral fashion, if you can escape detection when behaving in an immoral fashion: if there is no invisible man in the sky watching you, and preparing your punishment in an after-life, why not do as you please, so long as you don't get caught?

Most of us have a 'conscience' which makes us feel bad when we contemplate doing evil, although this conscience seems to be very malleable, especially when the interests of your tribe are concerned.

A rational person who is an atheist will understand, in theory at least, that his 'conscience' is just the sum total of the things he was taught, by parents and society, while growing up, or behavior programmed by evolution. (The attempt to find human universals for morality, presumably the result of evolutionary selection, has found a few, but they seem to be weak. And of course there is the problem if sociopaths.)

I don't think there is an answer to this. So if you don't believe in an invisible man in the sky, you'll just have to work hard to make sure that evildoers get caught frequently enough so that we internalize the simple rule, don't do evil, where evil is some variant of the Golden Rule.

Will this work? We'll find out.

There was no supernatural basis for morality in most of the classical world. People worshipped the gods to court their favour. Gods were much like humans with the faults and virtues of humans. Yet people were generally moral and behaved decently. Philosophy and community standards determined their morality not the gods. The Abrahamic religions connected morality with belief in a divinity. It doesn't have to be that way. Morality developed as a way to behave in society. The Abrahamic religions connected morality and belief in a supernatural. They need not be connected.

Yes, I agree with this. Also relevant is that my atheist and agnostic friends don't seem to behave any worse than my Christian friends. And the latter don't really seem to act well, when they do, because God told them to ... rather, they're responding to something internal, plus perhaps wanting to receive the social approval that accompanies good deeds and avoid the disapproval that accompanies bad deeds.

People who raise the "Without God, everything is possible" argument point out that we have no rational basis for always doing good. I cannot tell a child [an improbably intelligent one!], "Don't steal ... even if you are never caught, you shouldn't steal", if he answers me, "Why not? If I will never be caught, and I don't happen to have your internalized non-rational aversion to stealing ... why shouldn't I?" -- in that case, I cannot answer him. [I might, however, want to see if they've raised the time limit for abortion. I think we call people like this sociopaths. Presumably, this disorder has a genetic origin, which means we'll be controlling, i.e. extinguishing, it, given a few more generations of scientific progress.]

. Dear Peter, . You wrote : « … we are now in an age in which the moral guardianship of the Church through legislation or influence on governments is at an end … the church has lost its moral authority … » . That’s correct, Peter. The church’s moral “authority” was dependant on the nexus between religion and political power. The gradual breakdown of this link has eroded the so-called moral “authority” of the church. As Tim Whitmarsh explained in “Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World” : « … religion is "at the structural level an allegory of political power"; monotheist absolutism, combined with absolutist politics, has generally proved more hostile to freedom of thought than the acceptance of diverse sources of power that undergirds polytheistic beliefs » In Australia, democracy is tempered by what is best described as the “principle of state neutrality” which is, unfortunately, a little short of strict “separation of church and state”, or “secularism” per se. It has, nevertheless, progressively liberated us from the shackles of archaic religious dogma and moral doctrine which was largely imposed on us by our British masters. As you rightly observe, this is visible in our changing societal attitudes towards such private matters as divorce and remarriage, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, censorship, and, might I add, our continued subservient reverence to the British Crown and church. . You also wrote : « One would think a concentration of resources would be possible, particularly in the cathedrals, so that the theological, musical, artistic and architectural resources of the Church could be preserved » I certainly hope so, Peter. I personally enjoy the splendid costumes, the magnificent décor, the solemnity of the gratuitous theatrical performances and the exquisite classical music that can only be experienced in the unique, inspirational ambiance of our gothic cathedrals, so majestically designed and built by some of the world’s greatest craftsmen. . And you conclude by asking : « So, what is the future of the Church ? » . (Continued …) .

.

(Continued …)

.

Faith was the strategy that primeval man devised to pacify his early hostile environment. It brought him hope and comfort when he was terrified by the ferocity of natural phenomena that he could neither understand nor control. He invented gods, worshiped them and offered them sacrifices in exchange for their pacification and benevolence.

That was the rock on which our modern-day religion was built but despite its subsequent development and refinement, the basic concept no longer holds true. It has been invalidated by the knowledge we have acquired of the workings of nature. The rock has crumbled and eroded. It has turned to dust and been lost in the sands of time.

The initial religious concept can be discarded but many people would have difficulty coping with the vicissitudes of daily life without some form of faith. A new, credible safe haven must be found for their faith.

That is the challenge facing humanity today. Religion will have to rise to the occasion if it wants to continue to serve humanity and continue to be served by humanity. If not, I agree, more and more of those who once were faithful will place their faith elsewhere.
.

« Beneath this stone lies Aeschylus, son of Euphorion, the Athenian,
who perished in the wheat-bearing land of Gela;
of his noble prowess the grove of Marathon can speak,
and the long-haired Persian knows it well »

[ Inscription on the gravestone of Aeschylus (525 - 455 BC), the father of Greek tragedy ]

.

.

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

« … 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. » [The treatises of M.T. Cicero On the nature of the gods, …/literally translated … by C.D. Yonge. (Bohn’s classical library) 1853, book 2, section 28, page 71]
.

The overall balance sheet of religion on the planetary level is clearly negative. The world would be better off without it. There is no unified global organisation of religion on the planetary level, no code of ethics common to all, no provision for mediation of inter-religious conflicts and no effective disciplinary mechanisms.

Religion as a profession has made no attempt to implement any form of autoregulation.

Not only is there very little or no coordination, exchange of information or communication between religions, the situation is often not much better within individual religions. They are poorly organised and operate in a shroud of secrecy.

Nevertheless, the appeal of religion to the masses is considerable, particularly among the poor and the uneducated. Its message is simple: have faith in your god or gods, follow the teachings of your religion and you will receive protection, relief from your sufferings, comfort and the reward of eternal life with your loved ones.

Doesn’t that ring a bell ?

.

The author himself, a Christian deacon, admits that the Church never represented a religion:

«This new kind of Christianity, become religion, was individualistic and self-interested and became fatally contaminated with the inverse of the gospel of grace; power and control. The Christian "religion" was born; not out of its origins in love for the neighbour and the enemy and the regeneration of the self in Christ but out of religious self-interest.» ... «The Church for them is in the business of crowd control.»

How come then that members, rather than complain about the Church, complain about religion, saying: "The overall balance sheet of religion on the planetary level is clearly negative. The world would be better off without it."?

First study what religion truly is and find actual examples of religion. Just because some cruel Roman Emperor, for his political interests, claimed "Christianity" (or his version of it) to be a religion, doesn't mean that it is.

The world could survive without churches and similar establishments, but without religion it would have no reason to exist for even a second.

. Dear Yuyutsu, . You wrote : « The author … admits that the Church never represented a religion » No he does not admit that, Yuyutsu. He clearly states the contrary : that “the Church” commenced as a “Christian sect” and later became “a religion” : « From its beginnings in a small circle of men and women … it slowly changed into a powerful organisation with influence over government. An explanation of how this happened may be partly found in the transition of the Christian Faith from an obscure movement … into the official religion of the Roman Empire … This was a crucial change and it turned the Christian sect into a religion like any other religion in which the believer can expect material help from the deity » . You also wrote : « How come … that members … complain about religion, saying: "The overall balance sheet of religion on the planetary level is clearly negative. The world would be better off without it."? » The quotation you indicate is from my previous post. I was not “complaining about religion”, I was drawing up an “overall balance sheet” of the positive and negative effects of religion on mankind throughout the world, and found that the bottom line is negative. As you will see from the latest Pew Research Center’s index of social hostilities involving religion, roughly two thirds of the world population living in 122 of the world’s 198 countries were affected by religious conflicts. The number and importance of these hostilities continue to increase. Here are the links : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/10572342/Religious-conflict-in-global-rise-report.html http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/01/RestrictionsV-SHI.pdf In addition to these hostilities, many religions also impose numerous obligations and restrictions on the personal lives of their followers, limiting their individual freedoms, e.g., female genital mutilation, forced child marriage, etc. . (Continued …) .

.

(Continued …)

.

You then add :

« First study what religion truly is and find actual examples of religion »

According to Wikipedia :

« There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. It may be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviours and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, prophesies, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual »

Prior to the Middle Ages, religion simply meant “worship”. Today, I, personally, prefer the OED definitions :

« The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. A particular system of faith and worship »

And as I indicated in my previous post in response to Peter Sellik’s preoccupation :

« Religion will have to rise to the occasion if it wants to continue to serve humanity and continue to be served by humanity. If not, I agree, more and more of those who once were faithful will place their faith elsewhere »

No doubt, the archaic dogma and moral doctrine of the “Church” have contributed in the defection of its followers, but, more significantly, it is the basic concept of religion itself that no longer holds true. As I explained in my previous post, it has been invalidated by the knowledge we have acquired of the workings of nature.

The fact of the matter is there never were any gods – even though some, today, would still like to believe that there were, and others that their number was reduced down to just one, about four thousand years ago.

I have the impression that you are one of the latter, even though I understand that you are a fervent follower of a guru associated with one of the multiple forms of the Hindu religion.

But please correct me if I am mistaken.

.

It seems clear that, increasingly, even people who, (perhaps for reasons of mental inertia, and/or 'social' reasons), continue to formally adhere to an organized religion, don't take its beliefs literally any more.

But this is not the same as outright, positive atheism. I believe there are at least three reasons why outright atheism will remain a minority current for a long time:

(1) religion is seen as providing a framework and basis for moral behavior, whereas atheism must believe that moral behavior is just the accepted tribal customs of the moment, perhaps with shallow roots in evolved behavior.

(2) religion somehow gives 'meaning' to our lives, drawn from a transcendental order, whereas atheism implies that 'meaning' is just a human construct.

(3) our daily experience is itself 'supernatural' in the sense of being literally above physical nature: we now understand how atoms stick together and come apart, but not how mental activity can make them do so. We believe in 'mind' as something more than just a physical phenomenon (most of us), and 'mind' is super-nature, in the sense of being outside the laws of science. Just as I, by an act of will, can command my mitochondria to split their adenosine triphosphate molecules, or to refrain from so doing, so must 'God' stand outside, but be able to intervene in, the physical universe, a super-mind over all of nature.

Developments in 20th Century physics, revealing how inadequate our minds are for comprehending the universe on scales which are vastly larger or smaller than the one we have evolved to perceive, hasn't helped the materialist argument -- and atheism must imply philosophical materialism.

Let me add that, as an atheist, I don't buy these arguments, but I recognize their power. And I think they explain why many intelligent and well-educated people refrain from embracing outright atheism. Nor does it bother me, so long as they leave me alone and do not interfere with progress.

Dear Banjo,

My understanding is that at the time Christianity was a Jewish sect, it was not yet called a "Church". It could have had more religion then, but once it got organised and tangled with worldly power, it became dead wood. This doesn't mean that individuals still today cannot extract religion out of some of its teachings, but it requires sorting.

Those "religious conflicts" which you mentioned are religious by name only. They involve groups that once, long ago, held religion, but by now became merely identity-groups/nationalities.

Religions recommend austerities, rather than restrictions as such. The purpose of austerities is to increase one's energy so it can be focused on God, but austerities only work when they are voluntary, otherwise the extra energy will be directed destructively rather than toward God. Sadly, organised religions have lost the plot and came up with this idea of restricting others, including those who are hardly prepared for spiritual life. This is a total distortion of religion, not religion.

Regarding Wikipedia and other dictionaries, no wonder, if all they can observe is either distortions of religion or external/social/cultural side-effects of religious practices (and/or resemblances-of-religious-practices), then that's what they will describe, rather than religion itself.

What has the discovery of the workings of nature to do with religion? Nature is nature, it just does its thing, while religion seeks to liberate you from the bondage to nature. Whether or not there are gods in nature is irrelevant, because the use of gods is merely a religious technique: a very good technique I must say, but the actual presence of gods in nature is not required.

No, I do not have a guru at this stage. I learn from several people and from scripture and I do ask for a spiritual advice from time to time from those who seem more spiritually-advanced than myself, but I don't have someone special now and I do not accept any advice blindly. I regret that I wasted my time in my early life and took only so little from my guru while he was among the living.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Christianity was a Jewish SECT, it was not yet called a "CHURCH" … "religious conflicts" … are religious BY NAME ONLY … Religions recommend austerities … The PURPOSE OF AUSTERITIES is to increase one's energy so it can be FOCUSED ON GOD, but austerities only work when they are voluntary, otherwise the extra energy will be DIRECTED destructively rather than TOWARD GOD »
.

• Sect, church or guru - all share a common function: that of spiritual guide

• Purpose of austerities focused on/toward God = religion (based on faith)

• Purpose of austerities focused on/toward nature = stoicism (based on empirical evidence)
.

You also wrote :

« Regarding Wikipedia and other dictionaries, no wonder, if all they can observe is either distortions of religion or external/social/cultural side-effects of religious practices (and/or resemblances-of-religious-practices), then that's what they will describe, rather than religion itself »

No, Yuyutsu, that’s not all Wikipedia observed by any means. If you re-read the quotation I indicated in my previous post, you will see that Wikipedia indicated clearly in the very first sentence that :

« There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion »

Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me have your definition of what you refer to as “religion itself”.
.

You ask :

« What has the discovery of the workings of nature to do with religion? »

Religion was the strategy that primeval man devised to pacify his early hostile environment. It brought him hope and comfort when he was terrified by the ferocity of natural phenomena that he could neither understand nor control. He invented gods, worshiped them and offered them sacrifices in exchange for their pacification and benevolence.

That strategy, religion, has long since been invalidated by the knowledge we have acquired of the workings of nature.

As you point out, yourself : “Whether or not there are gods in nature is irrelevant …”.

I couldn’t agree more. So we might as well drop the whole idea.

There are no Gods or God.

.

Dear Banjo,

• Sect, church or guru - all share a common function: that of spiritual guide

Provided they do, provided they do.
Unfortunately, we know of cases where each of the three betrayed the trust that was placed in them.

• Purpose of austerities focused on/toward God = religion (based on faith)

Yes. Austerities are a religious practice.

• Purpose of austerities focused on/toward nature = stoicism (based on empirical evidence)

One could use austerities to achieve other goals. With more energy, one can achieve whatever they want, but religion focuses this energy on God.

«Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me have your definition of what you refer to as “religion itself”»

In the broadest sense, Religion is the process of coming closer to God, by whatever means, whatever works.
In a stricter sense, religion only includes conscious efforts and practices that aim for and achieve that purpose.

«Religion was the strategy that primeval man devised to pacify his early hostile environment...»

This sounds like science, not religion. You may call it primitive-science or even failed-science, but if those people believed that deities actually existed and could help them in their material survival and endeavours and acted accordingly, then it was a scientific approach.

«That strategy, religion, has long since been invalidated by the knowledge we have acquired of the workings of nature»

This scientific (or pseudo-scientific if you like) strategy that you refer to presumably as "religion", may have since been invalidated, so what? Religion is not meant for worldly success, so if that is what you are after - use science!

«I couldn’t agree more. So we might as well drop the whole idea»

Yes, we should gladly drop the idea of asking whether or not there are gods in nature, but we should not drop the idea of gods altogether because, with correct use (unlike expecting them to achieve material results), they are an excellent tool for clearing the mind, developing the heart and ultimately, reaching God.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You replied :

« In the broadest sense, Religion is the process of coming closer to God, by whatever means, whatever works.

In a stricter sense, religion only includes conscious efforts and practices that aim for and achieve that purpose »

Thank you, Yuyutsu, but I find that a strange definition as it presumes there is a God which, apparently, you imagine as separate from religion itself. What, then, is your definition of God ?
.

Commenting on my remark that «religion was the strategy that primeval man devised to pacify his early hostile environment », you observed : « this sounds like science, not religion »

No, it was not science. It was strategy, i.e., “a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim” (OED definition). The plan of action of primeval man was to imagine that there were gods who created and controlled the universe to whom he could offer worship and sacrifice when they threatened him.

His long term or overall aim was to pacify them.

Later generations developed and refined the concept, adapting it to their needs and cultures and greater understanding of the workings of nature and the vast universe.
.

You wrote :

« Yes, we should gladly drop the idea of asking whether or not there are gods in nature, but we should not drop the idea of gods altogether because … they are an excellent tool for clearing the mind, developing the heart and ultimately, reaching God »

As I understand it, Yuyutsu, primeval man imagined that nature was created and controlled by supernatural entities he called gods. In other words, the so-called gods were not part of nature, or “in nature” as you suggest. They came first and created nature later.

They were not “natural” entities. They were “supernatural” entities.

Maybe they would have enjoyed “clearing their minds” and “developing their hearts”, but I see no reason to think they were seeking to “reach God”.

I understand they just wanted to pacify the gods and get on with their lives and that's it.

.

Dear Banjo,

«What, then, is your definition of God ?»

God cannot be defined directly in positive terms, but one can still define God indirectly by telling what God is not, so:
1) God is not anything.
2) There is nothing but God.

In other words, God is not a thing, but any-which-appears-as-a-thing, is not truly a thing, but is God.

«No, it was not science. It was strategy»

It wouldn't qualify as modern science, but that's probably the best those early people could deduce from nature. While scientific methods have evolved, the philosophy is essentially the same: "there is something out there, so let's use it to improve our physical conditions".

«His long term or overall aim was to pacify them.»

Had this been the aim, then that would have come closer to religion, but in general, man's long term and overall aim was to improve his material conditions, the deity's pleasing being only a means to that end.

«They were not “natural” entities. They were “supernatural” entities.»

Only some gods are considered less natural than others, including the biblical god of Abraham. Even then, the process of stripping the gods of their natural properties, one by one, was a very gradual (and I dare say, still incomplete) process. Did you know that most Jews until the 12th century (when that idea was repealed by Maimonides) believed that [the-biblical] God, though having no form, still had a size (one third of the universe)?

«I understand they just wanted to pacify the gods and get on with their lives and that's it»

We are discussing two completely different human activities, one concerned with material advancement, the other with spiritual advancement. Both use the concept of gods/deities, which suggests a possible influence, or cross-pollination, where one borrowed that idea from the other. I wonder, though we may never know, which activity (if any) came chronologically first and inspired the other activity to use deities. In retrospect, we now know the concept is useless, perhaps even detrimental for material advancement, but is very useful for spiritual advancement.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You replied :

« God cannot be defined directly in positive terms, but one can still define God indirectly by telling what God is not … God … is God »

It seems to me that your definition of God can be summed up in a few, simple words : a hope, a wish, and an expectation.

It takes my mind back to the days when my children were little. I used to ask them what they would like Santa to bring them for Christmas. They would rush off, make up a list and hand it to me.

I would read their lists carefully and if they were OK, my usual reply was : “I hope all your wishes come true”.

I hope all your wishes come true too, Yuyutsu.
.

You continue to consider that primeval man’s concepts of gods and religion can best be described as scientific rather than strategic.

Allow me to quote the Wikipedia article on “scientific method” :

« The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". Experiments are a procedure designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method ».

The idea that sprang into primeval man’s mind when his environment suddenly became hostile was that either he had done something - or not done something he should have done - that upset the creators and controllers of nature and the universe. He based this on his own reaction when he, himself, got upset about something. It was as simple as that.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

So he asked himself : “Who are these people ? Where are they ? Why can’t I see them ?” and he thought they must be different from anything he knew or could imagine. They must be supernatural and super powerful. He called them gods, submitted himself to them, bowed down to them, worshiped them and offered them prayers and sacrifices. He begged their forgiveness and implored their pardon in the hope that they would be indulgent.

That does not qualify as a scientific process. It is best described as a strategy, a peace strategy and a strategy of survival.
.

On the question of the material and the spiritual which you mention, I am inclined to consider that they are one and the same – at least until such time as there is substantial empirical evidence to the contrary. In the meantime, I keep an open mind on the question.

For the time being, I consider that life itself is a self-sustaining process that, like all things material, began a long time ago as a result of chance and necessity, where chance is a random variable and necessity an inevitable event.

.

Dear Banjo,

Hopes, wishes and expectations belong in the future, but I am (and you are) what I am already at present.

The Oxford dictionary entry which you quote, specifically describes modern science.
Those actions of primeval man which you describe indeed cannot be classified as modern science, but they had two elements in common:

1. They assumed some knowledge of the universe.
2. They went ahead to improve their material situation using that knowledge.

And one element in common with religion:

1. The use of [imagined] gods/deities.

Just as a knife can be used to kill [in the hands of a criminal] or to heal [in the hands of a surgeon], so can deities be used in an attempt to improve material life [in the hands of superstitious primitive tribes], or as a method for focusing one's attention on God [in the hands of religious/spiritual aspirants].

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Hopes, wishes and expectations belong in the future … »

No, they are what you have had all your life and what you continue to have. Even when you were a baby you probably hoped, wished and expected your mother would feed you, clean your bottom and so on. Now, you hope, wish and live in the expectation that there is a God (even though you do not know what that God is) – among other hopes, wishes and expectations, perhaps, of more worldly things.

I think it is important, Yuyutsu, to realise that you and I and every other living organism in the universe, whatever its form or nature, live our entire lives in the present. We are prisoners of the present. We cannot escape it. We can never go back and live in the past, nor can we go forward and live in the future.

Everything we think and do happens in the present – never in the past, and never in the future. All our hopes, wishes and expectations occur in the present. Even the realisation or non-realisation of our hopes, wishes and expectations occur in the present. When they occur, it is always the present for us. When they do not occur, it is also the present for us. It can never be anything else but the present.

Please keep in mind that our hopes, wishes and expectations, like everything else, belong to the present.
.

You also wrote :

« Those actions of primeval man which you describe indeed cannot be classified as modern science, but they had two elements in common:

1. They assumed some knowledge of the universe.

2. They went ahead to improve their material situation using that knowledge.

And one element in common with religion:

1. The use of [imagined] gods/deities. »
.

« Assuming some knowledge of the universe » is knowledge we acquire through what we call consciousness. As Darwin pointed out, even earthworms have a well-developed sense of consciousness. They have to make judgments about …

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

... the kinds of leafy matter they use to block their tunnels. Earthworms “improve their material situation using that knowledge”.

Though I don’t think anyone would go so far as to suggest that earthworms are capable of science, it is evident that science emerged through human consciousness and logical thought process. Consciousness alone is not sufficient to qualify as science.

Also, what I described, i.e., how primeval man invented the concept of omnipotent, omnipresent, supernatural beings (that he called gods) and religion (submitting himself to them, bowing down to them, worshiping them and offering them prayers and sacrifices – begging their forgiveness and imploring their pardon in the hope that they would be indulgent) is not just, as you indicate, “one element in common with religion”. It is religion. It is how religion was invented. It is not only the origin of religion but, also, the origin of our concept of gods and God.
.

You explain :

« Just as a knife can be used … so can deities be used … as a method for focusing one's attention on God … »

I can’t see how that could help, Yuyutsu. Deities were the fruit of the imagination of primeval man. He represented them as various elements of nature : thunder, lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, hills, rocks, etc. His “attention” was not “focussed” on any one god until about 4,000 years ago, when a large movement began, among more knowledgeable and more civilised populations, to eliminate all the gods except one, single God.

That one single God was not represented by any element in nature – which is not surprising as it would be considered ridiculous to uphold the theory today, that any single element of nature that could be analysed and explained scientifically, is that one, single God who created and controls everything in the universe.

With this in mind, I wonder what you, personally, think of when you focus your attention on God, Yuyutsu ? What exactly do you focus on (as you say you have no idea what he looks like) ?

.

Dear Banjo,

The issue of time (past-present-future) is complex and would require a full discussion by itself, but I fail to see the connection with this topic. Do you consider it relevant here?

Please don't complicate things further than they need to be by introducing consciousness because knowledge can also be acquired and used without consciousness. We can tell how well earthworms function, but we can't really tell to what degree they are conscious. Yes, science requires logic, but machines can use logic too and are getting better at that. Much of what happens inside our bodies is also unconscious.

Deities are not religion: deities can be used as a religious technique
(analogy: watches are not punctuality, watches can be used to aid punctuality).
Religion in the broader sense was never invented - it preceded the universe: what is constantly being invented and revised, however, are religious techniques, to suit the time and conditions.

Were deities initially invented by religious people or by materialistic people? I'm afraid that we might never know the answer, though it seems more likely that one group borrowed the idea from the other and less likely that both groups invented the deities independently.

Nothing extraordinary occurred 4,000 years ago. As part of the evolution of gods and due to local conditions, a group of Middle-Eastern people invented a new deity which, unlike others, they considered to be jealous of the other deities. That's the main difference.

Since God has no qualities, it is, as you say, next to impossible (without many years of practice and some divine grace) to focus one's attention directly on God. It is therefore useful and much easier to focus on God through a beloved deity. This is not obligatory: one could focus their attention on a candle-flame instead, or on a beautiful pebble, but a deity is usually more effective, more enticing so one tends to keep their attention on it longer and more often. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim god is one such useful deity.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« The issue of time (past-present-future) is complex and would require a full discussion by itself, but I fail to see the connection with this topic. Do you consider it relevant here? »

Well, perhaps you will recall, Yuyutsu, you raised the topic yourelf, by declaring :

« Hopes, wishes and expectations belong in the future »

Apparently, you thought it was relevant - otherwise, you would not have evoked "the future". That’s why I commented on "the issue of time".
.

You then objected :

« Please don't complicate things further than they need to be by introducing consciousness because knowledge can also be acquired and used without consciousness »

Again, I was simply replying to your statement :

« Those actions of primeval man which you describe indeed cannot be classified as modern science, but they had … in common [the fact that] they assumed some knowledge of the univers »

The point I was making was that primeval man had invented gods and religion as a survival strategy in order to cope with their hostile natural environment (thunder, lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, floods, etc.). You considered it was not modern science, but science nevertheless, not strategy, stating that as it may be assumed they had “some knowledge of the universe” it could be qualified as science. I pointed out that primeval man’s limited knowledge of the universe could hardly be described as science, but simply consciousness, i.e., awareness.

Now, you declare that “knowledge can also be acquired and used without consciousness”. As I understand it that is a highly controversial question which, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been scientifically demonstrated. Even if it were the case, I very much doubt that whatever knowledge of the universe primeval man “acquired and used without consciousness” was sufficient to qualify as science.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You noted :

« Deities are not religion … »

That’s correct. Deities (or a deity, e.g., God) are (or is) generally the object of religious belief.
.

You posit :

« Religion in the broader sense was never invented - it preceded the universe: what is constantly being invented and revised, however, are religious techniques, to suit the time and conditions »

That comes as a surprise, Yuyutsu. When I asked you for your definition of what you referred to as “religion itself”, you replied :

« In the broadest sense, Religion is the process of coming closer to God, by whatever means, whatever works. In a stricter sense, religion only includes conscious efforts and practices that aim for and achieve that purpose »

This is in complete contradiction with what you now affirm : that religion “preceded the universe”. How can religion “precede the universe” if there are no human beings around to “come closer to God” ? If there are no human beings, there can be no religion.

On the other hand, in my opinion, it is not necessary for there be a “God” for there to be religion. All that is necessary are human beings who believe that there is a “God”.

It is a belief in "God" that is necessary for there to be religion. Whether there actually is a "God" or not is irrelevant.

As it is written in the Christian bible : "by you faith you will be saved", (which seems to imply : whether there is a god or not !)
.

Many thanks, Yuyutsu, for explaining how you focus your attention on God. It must not be easy. I understand the difficulties.

.

Dear Banjo,

Regarding time (past-present-future), I was drawn into it because you mentioned it earlier. So let's leave that issue.

«The point I was making was that primeval man had invented gods and religion as a survival strategy in order to cope with their hostile natural environment»

You seem to know something that I don't and which the archaeological community would be eager to find. I do not discard this possibility, but I wonder how you can tell that it were survival-seekers who invented gods first and only subsequently, religious people borrowed this concept from them for their spiritual endeavours? How can you tell that it wasn't the other way around?

«I pointed out that primeval man’s limited knowledge of the universe could hardly be described as science, but simply consciousness, i.e., awareness.»

So let's keep it simple: they either knew something or thought they did, then they proceeded to use it for survival and material betterment. This attitude is something they had in common with modern science, though other aspects might not have been in common.

«If there are no human beings, there can be no religion.»

In the most general sense, religion exists because everything inherently yearns to return to God. But yes, if for practical reasons we count only conscious efforts, then you need humans (or equivalent species in other planets/galaxies) to develop religion.

«All that is necessary are human beings who believe that there is a “God”»

Actually, a belief in "God" is not a requisite for religion, though it can help. OTOH, there are people who profess a belief in God, but who are not at all religious (for example, Muslim terrorists and Catholic-priest child-molestors).

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I had prepared a detailed response to your latest post but decided not to send it when I reached the passage where you wrote :

« … religion exists because everything inherently yearns to return to God … )

That’s an outlandish statement to say the least, Yuyutsu. Everything means “all things” (OED definition). People are not things. Do you honestly think that tables and chairs, knives and forks, etc. practise religion, but that people do not ?

If that is the case I’m afraid I prefer to withdraw from this discussion.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson, You have my email address. I no longer have yours. I inadvertently destroyed both my list of contacts and my unanswered emails. Please resend your emails that I have not answered.

Dear Banjo,

«Do you honestly think that tables and chairs, knives and forks, etc. practise religion, but that people do not?»

Obviously people do. In fact, people (and perhaps similar species on other planets/galaxies/worlds) are special in that they are the only ones who practise religion consciously.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Judging from the way you now describe it, Yuyutsu, it appears to me to be more of a parody of religion than “religion itself” (even according to your own definition) – closer, I should say, to delirium than mysticism.

.

Dear Banjo,

The most common parody on religion is how some churches and clergymen behave. Many of them no longer understand what religion is about.

Man's capacity for conscious effort can accelerate religion perhaps by a factor of billions.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« The most common parody on religion is how some churches and clergymen behave. Many of them no longer understand what religion is about »

That’s my impression too, Yuyutsu. But, then, we do not all have the same definition of “religion”. And, even those who profess some particular religion rarely practise it in accordance with the theoretical definition of that religion.

And you added :

« Man's capacity for conscious effort can accelerate religion perhaps by a factor of billions »

Again, it depends on one’s definition of religion. Probably, the most common factor of most religions is worship, and, it seems that, in terms of worship, man’s folly knows no bounds.

Personally, I find fawning obsequiousness and worship perfectly repulsive and nauseating. I can’t imagine anybody appreciating such behaviour. I can’t imagine any God, if there were one, wanting to be adored, worshiped and treated in a cringing, submissive and servile manner by his/her/its subjects, humbly bowing and scraping and slurping and crawling on their knees with an angelic look on their faces.

Nor can I imagine that such a God would be favourably impressed by fanatics whipping themselves on their bleeding backs, plunging themselves into an ecstatic trance of adoration, or blowing themselves up with joy in his/her/its name after having massacred as many infidels as possible.

I can’t even imagine why such a God would want everybody huddling around him/her/it and spending the rest of eternity, prostrated in his/her/its presence if, as you indicate in your definition of religion : « In the broadest sense, Religion is the process of coming closer to God, by whatever means, whatever works. In a stricter sense, religion only includes conscious efforts and practices that aim for and achieve that purpose ».

If that’s religion, I’m willing to bet that “God” is not in the least bit religious – and is even horrified at the thought that there are billions of people in the world whose sole objective in life is to “come closer to him/her/it, by whatever means …”.

.

Dear Banjo,

«And, even those who profess some particular religion rarely practise it in accordance with the theoretical definition of that religion.»

I could not agree more!

«the most common factor of most religions is worship»

A common mistake is that in order to come closer to God, one needs to add things and credentials, but recall what Jesus said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven". The process of coming closer to God is rather of subtraction, not addition, of shedding away those things, those credentials and especially one's pride, which are in the way.

- And worship is a great way to shed pride and other obstacles such as worries, expectations and worldly thoughts.

Then of course there are the pitfalls: if one becomes proud of their worship or develops expectations for rewards, then their worship becomes counter-productive, which is where your comment fits that: "man’s folly knows no bounds".

«I can’t imagine any God, if there were one, wanting to be adored, worshiped and treated in a cringing, submissive and servile manner by his/her/its subjects»

Well God doesn't want anything and the small-g gods are products of imagination anyway, so why would they want anything?

Worship is there to help the devotee. Submissiveness is good for beating down one's ego (and some need it more than others, I wouldn't recommend submissiveness to everyone) and when one worships without expectations, how could cringing possibly arise?

As for massacring infidels, can you show me just one person who massacred [what they believed to be] infidels without becoming proud of it?!

«I can’t even imagine why such a God would want everybody huddling around him/her/it»

It makes no difference to God. From a divine perspective, we are already one with Him.

«I’m willing to bet that “God” is not in the least bit religious»

So we are in agreement: Indeed He isn't. Religion is for you and me, God doesn't need it.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thanks, Yuyutsu, but I noticed a few incoherencies with your explanations.

For example, in reply to my comment “I can’t imagine any God, if there were one, wanting to be adored, worshiped, etc., …”, you wrote :
« Well God doesn't want anything … Worship is there to help the devotee ».

In other words, worship of “God” is, in fact, only an act of egotism and religious devotees are simply sycophants. Mind you, that does not come as much of a a surprise to me.

You ask :

« As for massacring infidels, can you show me just one person who massacred [what they believed to be] infidels without becoming proud of it?! ».

So far as I know, all those who massacred innocent people either blew themselves up or were shot and killed by the police during the massacres. They were never able to express their sentiments if, indeed, they had any to express.

In response to my comment: “I can’t even imagine why such a God would want everybody huddling around him/her/it”, you replied :

« It makes no difference to God. From a divine perspective, we are already one with Him ».

So if “we” are already one with “Him”, as you say, and religion is just “the process of coming closer to God” as you indicated in your definition of religion, no need for religion at all. We’re already home and dry. And, as worship is the essential feature of religion, no need to worship “God” either.

That being the case, all we need to do is get on with our lives – whether we believe in “God” or not – and whether there is a “God” or not.

That sounds easy. I can go along with that.

.

Blessings, Banjo, on this holy day of Shivaratri.

Today I am not in an intellectual/theological mood, I am fasting and looking forward with joy and excitement for tonight, when I have the privilege of offering Bilva (Bael) leaves at Shiva's Lingam.

«That being the case, all we need to do is get on with our lives»

This IS my life, the best part of it!

What better can we ask for in life than the presence of God, as Psalm 23 concludes: "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever."

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I wish you and your family a very happy Shivaratri day, Yuyutsu.

Until we meet again on some other thread on this forum …

.

Thanks, Banjo!

(...continued)

«I would invite you to seek God too.»

I've been doing so all my life - and previously too.

«To Seek God through Jesus»

So you are asking me to change course and go in a wrong direction, one that would in fact increase my sin? That direction may suit you, that direction probably suited the poor Jews of Jesus' times, who were misled into dark alleys by both their priests and Pharisees, so Jesus had to come and save them, but I am coming from a very different place, so how dare you attempt to divert me away from my path to God?

«through prayer, and through study the f the bible.»

Yes, prayer is great. As for the bible, I think I know it quite well, but do you know how many volumes of scripture are still waiting on my shelf to be read? Upanishads, Vedas and more - truly it will take me years to go through them, so there are priorities.

«Not Know Him like Jesus knows Him. But know Him still well enough.»

Please do not be discouraged: is this all you hope? is this all you offer? I tell you, if you are dedicated, one-pointed and desperate enough, reject the world and you can reach God in this very lifetime: your body is much younger than mine, so you have the time!

«Hope that if God ever calls out you can say "yes Lord, here I am." As many of the prophets had done and then did as they were instructed.»

Thank you, I hope so too.

«Seek Jim because it is worth while to do so»

Sorry, but I will not be seeking Jim or any other person - I want God and God alone.
A bit more spelling-check can express better respect for God.

Sorry, my last post belong elsewhere. Please ignore it.