Dear Lexi,

Thanks for the concise description of Durkheim’s contribution to the sociology of religion, which I do not think contradicts what I wrote. Explicitly, he defined religion as

“a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, as quoted in Wikipedia, pointing out that in his definition, Durkheim avoids references to supernatural or God.)

On the other hand, there are sociologists who see it differently. For instance, Rodney Stark (not a theist either) writes:

“How can we distinguish between religions and other ideological systems? … (T)he answer was given by those … men whose position Durkheim attempted to burry: religions involve some conception of a supernatural being, world, or force, and the notion that the supernatural is active, that events and conditions here on earth are influenced by the supernatural.” (The Future of Religion, University of Califorrnia Press 1985, p.5)

>> Durkheim believed that the origins of religion were
social, not supernatural.<<

True, but I think whether or not he believed in the supernatural origins (which would presuppose that he believed in the supernatural as such) is here almost irrelevant. If we talked e.g about physics I would even drop the “almost” part, since in physics your world-view presuppositions are irrelevant to your scholarly work (among physicists who support superstring theory you will find those who "believe in the supernatural" as well as those who do not, the same among those who do not support the theory). With social science it is apparently more complicated, but still: if in your description of Christian beliefs you left out the part about Trinity you would be wrong irrespective of whether you yourself believed in the Trinity.

Since I am not a sociologists I cannot offer scholarly arguments in favour or against, Durkheim's or Stark's definition, hence my subjective last paragraph in the previous post. Also, I admit having read much more from Stark than from Durkheim.

...The most successful method for removing Christianity from society would be to remove alcohol from society! Alcohol is the interface between Islam and Christianity!

Or maybe...Christianity should be promoted in bottle-shops!

I very firmly believe no God ever existed.
Just as firmly that belief in one, practicing that belief, is for most of benefit.
I too think society benefits from that.
But not always, not every follower.
Did the Priests and leaders of other faiths, who molested children believe in a God?
Or did they just use a Church to fore fill evil intent.
The very true hurting, in pain , lost who find the straw/hope/God are rarely injured by the find.
Graham talks of one view, but I think we need to ask this.
Why must any God, please never forget their numbers, have any say in what others think or do.
If as I think Gods are mans inventions, then the reasons are not purely evil.
In the beginning I think brilliant minds wanted to install hope and respect for every one.
Rule that made living together with civility possible.
Look back, before the first written holly book.
See the basic control and yes power, granted to the heads of even pagan idols.
Man may well ask is our current lack of thought for others white collar crime, a product of our shrinking belief?
I think, yes truly, we will see one religion crafted to cover all the world.
One God one direction.
A fable yes impossible? look at north Korea.

I read it as complete political correctness. Afterall, you'll be advised to take up meditation or yoga to cope with high blood pressure, for example, or to take more exercise or to change your diet. I can't see why on the list of questions you wouldn't also have one suggesting that if you have a religion that getting more active in it might help.

It's an objective fact, and by recommending meditation or yoga, there is a good chance that a medical practitioner is recommending Buddhist practice, but they possibly don't understand that to be the case.

It seems to me to be a case of how you can believe in just about anything according to the intellectual class, no matter how tenuous, but you can't believe in religion.

Oh, you poor religion believers. I never knew you were sooo persecuted.

"It seems to me to be a case of how you can believe in just about anything according to the intellectual class, no matter how tenuous, but you can't believe in religion."

Except of course where the authors recommend freedom of religion to prevent undue mental stress.

It seems to me that it is more of a personal thing, rather than a public health recommendation. As an example, regular sex actually has a wider range of significant health benefits, but you don't see doctors recommending that to their patients as a public health measure. Well, at least to the unmarried eh?