Dear Banjo Paterson,

«the fastest-growing religion in Australia identified over the two last censuses has been Hinduism, which has increased from 0.7% to 1.3% to 2.7% of the population.»

This is rubbish: most people don't know what religion is, and whatever they enter in their census is based on social affiliations instead.
I for one, never answer that question.

«As possible explanations of the phenomenon»

All four schools you mentioned are completely blind and without a clue, because they attempt to understand the spiritual in terms of the material.

1) Religion does not offer (or attempts to offer) explanations for material nature.
2) Those who mimic the behaviour of religious people in an attempt to gain psychological comfort, may perhaps gain some psychological comfort, but aren't religious.
3) Religion does not provide social cohesiveness. A religious person is loyal to and cares about God alone.
4) Those who want to control others, are not religious, but impostors.

---

Dear Paul,

«What I find astounding is that very intelligent people, including Priests, that I talk with seem unable or willing to ditch the irrational in favour of the rational when it comes to religious beliefs.«

Religious beliefs mean such beliefs that help bringing their believer closer to God.
It is therefore rational and an intelligent choice for those who want to come closer to God, to believe in them.
And for others who aren't interested to come closer to God, entertaining such beliefs would indeed be irrational.

In other words, it isn't the content of the belief which matters and determines its rationality or otherwise, but rather how that belief affects the believer.

«With Christianity I have great difficulty making the quantum leap from Jesus Christ the man, to Jesus Christ the God, the supernatural being, the mystical deity.»

You are not the only one with such difficulty.
It takes lifetimes of hard efforts.
So if you wish to make that quantum leap, then keep working on it, don't give up!

Note also that God is neither a being nor a deity, even the Bible does not make such absurd claims.

.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and expressions of empathy.
.

You wrote :

« E.B. Tylor appears to have come from a broken home after the death of his parents. Frazer appears to come from a line of serial academics. These sorts of backgrounds seem to explain why in some cases people have rejected UK cultural traditions »
.

Allow me simply to observe that while the death of E.B. Tylor’s parents when he was 16 years old must have contributed to the shaping of his worldview as an adult, he was a Quaker and believed that animism is the true natural religion and the essence of all religions.

He considered that the fact that modern religious practitioners continued to believe in spirits showed that they were no more advanced than primitive societies. This implied that contemporary religious practitioners did not understand the ways of the universe and how life truly works because they had excluded science from their understanding of the world.

Tylor’s concept of religion certainly evolved but I don’t think it is true to say that he rejected the UK cultural traditions he acquired during his youth, nor, for that matter, those he later acquired in the US after migrating to that country like many other British Quakers.

As for James Frazer (later known as Sir James George Frazer), he is often considered an atheist in light of his criticism of Christianity and especially Roman Catholicism in his book "The Golden Bough" (a comparative study of mythology and religion) but his later writings and unpublished materials suggest an ambivalent relationship with Neoplatonism (a doctrine that all reality derives from a single principle, "the One") and Hermeticism (a religious system based on occult philosophy and magic).
.

In my view, it is difficult to shake off one’s culture, whether inherited or acquired, even long after certain firmly held beliefs are found to be irrelevant and consequently discarded.

.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"Religious beliefs mean such beliefs that help bringing their believer closer to God."

Possibly beginning with a false premise; the existence of a god or gods. I am ambivalent on the subject of the existence of supernatural beings, and see myself as agnostic on the subject of the existence of god(s). If one accepts the existence of the Christian God, then one can accept the existence of all gods, Egyptian, Greek, Roman etc etc, literally thousands of gods.

With Jesus Christ, many early Christians particularly the "School Of St James" (brother of Christ) did not accept Christ was God, a great prophet and leader, a reformer of Judaism, but not God. It was Saul of Tarsus (St Paul 5 AD - 65 AD) the most influential of early Christians who successfully propagated the notion that Christ was God. It was in the Gospel of Matthew (circa 85-90 AD) that the notion of a "Trinity of God" was first written, it included Jesus as part of that Trinity.

Dear Paul,

«Possibly beginning with a false premise; the existence of a god or gods.»

Well I was not relying on any such premise.
If you follow my posts here over many years, you may know already that I do not support the idea of God's existence (in fact, that idea can easily be refuted).

Nevertheless, the ability to come to closer to God does not depend on God's existence, so if you claim that it is not possible (for whatever reason) to come closer to God, then you are effectively claiming that religion does not exist. If that is your belief, then why not just say so?

«I am ambivalent on the subject of the existence of supernatural beings»

Whichever the case, religion is not about and does not depend on the existence of supernatural beings.

The source of that confusion, as if religion was related with supernatural beings, is in the fact that worshipping supernatural beings can, in some contexts, be used as a religious technique/method. Their actual existence, however, is not required for the worship to produce the intended results.

«and see myself as agnostic on the subject of the existence of god(s)...»

Fine, that is a scientific question, not a religious one.
You are welcome to research it if so inclined.

«...many early Christians... did not accept Christ was God»

Christ was God, You are God, I am God, this forum is God, the keyboard you type on is God, etc. because there is nothing and can be nothing but God.

The only difference is that Jesus Christ knew that beyond any doubt, while the rest of us still doubt it.

«It was Saul of Tarsus... who successfully propagated the notion that Christ was God. It was in the Gospel of Matthew (circa 85-90 AD) that the notion of a "Trinity of God" was first written, it included Jesus as part of that Trinity.»

Assuming these are true facts, that means that Saul started looking at God from two particular angles while Matthew started looking at God from three particular angles.

Comment Posted by Banjo Paterson

Allow me simply to observe that while the death of E.B. Tylor’s parents when he was 16 years old must have contributed to the shaping of his worldview as an adult, he was a Quaker and believed that animism is the true natural religion and the essence of all religions.

Answer-

Some 89% of Quakers worldwide belong to evangelical and programmed branches[9] that hold services with singing and a prepared Bible message coordinated by a pastor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers

Comment-

He considered that the fact that modern religious practitioners continued to believe in spirits showed that they were no more advanced than primitive societies. This implied that contemporary religious practitioners did not understand the ways of the universe and how life truly works because they had excluded science from their understanding of the world.

Answer-

I believe it's Don Cupitt's series that talks about the division of subject matter into ethical (church- moral value) vs non-ethical (Science, other- descriptive). According to Cupitt- Galileo was only persecuted when he threatened the distinction between Church and Science. Some call this Scientism.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVUIaMDAYwqjMlxhXDehb4k8Oqa5n5KAP

Does "Banjo Paterson" think that other belief's such as Hinduism, and paranormal Buddhist teachings, as well as the unscientific elements of communism should be considered primitive and be destroyed under these auspice's. Or is it just White Western Nations that should shed their culture? In many cases I've found similar views to be Anti-White.

Do we just follow Aristotle's view that all idea's need to be tested to be true- and reject Plato's abstraction. Does this mean that analogy should be banned in the superior colonialist expansionist nation of "Banjo Paterson"

There are ideas that transcend "perceived reality". There is an argument between Hebrew physicists Lee Smolin's "Anthropic Universe" and Leonard Susskind who says the idea isn't scientific because it's unfalsifiable.

Yip Man said that Bruce Lee's criticism of Wing Chun Kung Fu in the creation of Jeet Kune Do was invalid because he didn't finish his studies and therefore didn't understand Wing Chun. The same could be said here.

There are those that struggle to find success in society and so seek to tear it down rather than working within the system. Otoh there are some systems that deserve to be torn down- like Communism. I'm reluctant to tear down systems that have been in existence for thousands of years- in the name of Nihilism. Ayn Rand and Nietzsche talk about the culture of envy and theft. Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged indicates that John Galt doesn't want to stand in the way of others morality but to get out of the way of his morality- in the end those with a successful morality will survive.

Cultural principles are the bones of survival- perhaps the idea's of "Banjo Paterson" are the ones that should be "discarded"