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.