The author of the original original article rightly concludes that religion is a personal problem because religion is used as an antidote for uncomfortable questions we would rather not face.

These questions not only centre on death and the afterlife but in my opinion are more concerned with everyday existence. People experience aggression and injustice almost on a daily basis and this causes them to feel fear and anger. It is these two feelings that cause anxiety in most cases and people ‘deal’ with them in all manner of inappropriate ways. Some turn to drugs, some to alcohol, some to work, some to gambling. Religion is just one of those ways people try to deal with anxiety.

Religious people resort to religious behaviour and religious beliefs whenever they cannot deal with everyday anxiety. Dealing with fear and anger is a psychological problem and not a religious or philosophical one. The question is why I personally feel anxiety in this particular situation I now find myself in – like an unjust boss or a bullying partner. Death of a loved one also raises these issues. Telling myself that the unjust boss will get his comeuppance from God or that the bullying partner will not be around in heaven does not work anymore than a whiskey bottle.

Turning psychological problems into philosophical ones is just another ‘coping’ mechanism to avoid dealing with real problems which we can resolve if we are prepared to really confront them.

We don’t know what happens after death because we don’t need to know. We don’t know if there is a God because we don’t need to know. We need to know how to live and we do know that. We can find out only if we let go of our ‘crutches’.

The expected outrage was there, with the blind faith on display, as with all these sort of articles.

After-life? Seems unlikely.

I do suggest the pro-religionists have a read of AC Grayling's latest paperback 'Towards the light: the story of the struggles for Liberty and Rights that made the modern West'.

Well worth a read to see how much energy the Christian Church has expended in denying 'the Truth' and forcing its absolutist rule on to us all.

The battle to keep the Englightenment light burning continues apace, today, here in Australia, right now.

I had always thought of the Enlightenment as a period of time, in history, past and done with.

Not so, we are still in it, which is probably why Mao (was it him?), said it was too early to tell what the effects of the French Revolution are.

And so it is, because we are still fighting to keep our schools secular, to have intelligent politicians who do not resort to calling up Jesus every five minutes, to finding a way to deal with religion inspired terror, and on and on and on.

Death is a funny thing though. I once faced death square on, having been stuck in the guts by some passing nutter who knifed me and kept on walking. No robbery, I didn't know them, no obvious motive, never caught.

At first I was unaware but then pain made me look down, and I saw my insides sticking out through my cut shirt.

I kept walking home, which was not far.

I had a sudden feeling of 'oh dear, this is all there is to life then.... over so suddenly, what a shame'.

I lived, care of science and medicine, ambo's and friends.

Life is brief, or long, good, or bad, or many shades in between, but it is highly unlikely that any gods, or a single God, have much to do with any of it.

Did 'He' instruct the knifer, or save the knifed?

Like Kerry Packer, I've been to the 'other side', and back, and it wasn't there.

While it is certainly tempting to find one simple explanation for religious beliefs, I think it's actually more complicated than that.

For anyone interested in the question of why people believe in gods, spirits, the afterlife, etc - I highly recommend a book called "Religion Explained", by Pascal Boyer.

Boyer looks at a number of the most prominent explanations for the existence of religion - including the one that puts it all down to the human response to death - and shows how none of them is completely satisfactory.

His own explanation (which I found quite convincing) is based on evolutionary psychology, and even though it's quite complex, he manages to explain it in a way that even a simple layperson like me can grasp. And the "response to death" is part of it, but by no means the full story.

A good read if you like that sort of thing!

Cheers,

Rhys.

God - actually stands for good
Devil - actuall stands for evil

Life is a constant battle between the two

Religion brings about some self relection

Self reflection can in some cases bring about change hopefully for the better

With no self reflection - religion based or otherwise we become the owners of a very selfish and therefore sick society. Often there are members of society whom are unable to grasp the complexities of psychology for whom religion can do a better job.

Whether people believe in God or not is their own choice - this is not important, what is important is the part we play in our own life just by being here and what we pass on to the next generations.

People do cling to religion when anxious or in fear, others cling to their psychological reasoning. Either way both promote self relection and therefore learning. We are here to learn!

People often connect blind faith to religion - but if you look you will find it very prominent in the scientific area. How many scientists have theories or inventions that they persue often without proof, and often at the disgust of their fellow scientists. There is no proof and until there some scientists will not condone or believe. Therefore those scientists whom go out and prove otherwise often do so with only blind faith that their knowledge was correct.

Brett Walker destroyed his credibility with the sweeping statement, “The defenders of religion preface their entire argument upon the acceptance of their position on blind faith.” This is simply untrue. Some people blindly follow religious beliefs, but for many it is an intellectual exercise, an attempt to live a meaningful, fulfilling life. Not that different to people exploring yoga, meditation or environmental causes. Seems a bit hypocritical to complain about unwanted evangelism when you have joined the holy crusade against religion. Yet many readers (zealots!) blindly and uncritically accepted Brett’s article.

Scholar, great summary of the article. I agree entirely. The author makes a stack of huge statements about the "rationale" for religion and so forth.

Yet here's the kicker- his own viewpoint, based on the article, seems to be based on a few personal anecdotes rather than any kind of reasoned evaluation of the truth claims of any religion.

It's kind of funny how people so often malign the religious for having blind faith, and believing with no regard for reason etc. And yet, quite often people reject faith for very simple and childish reasons- 'I've never seen a miracle so I don't believe it happens' and things like that. It just goes to show- regardless of belief, Christian or otherwise, there are people who have blind faith and those that look into evidence and look into reasons for believing what they believe.

I'm not necessarily saying the author falls into that category, it's a general observation. But based on this article alone it seems to be the case. He certainly hasn't made any attempt to back his big claims with any sort of reasoned evaluation in this instance. So basically he's guilty of what atheists so often accuse the religious of. Pot and kettle.