Graham, you seem to be unhappy that not everyone is religious and/or believes in a God or two?
If religion is meant to make people happier and healthier, why do many of them stress out so much that the rest of society don't believe the same things they do?

No one has ever 'seen' or 'heard' from an actual God, so it isn't really a surprise that not everyone believes there is an invisible man up there is it?

Why can't we all just believe or don't believe in religion, without worrying what everyone else is doing?

I realise that many people take great comfort and joy in their religious beliefs, and in my job as a nurse I have to acknowledge this and never upset them by saying what my private views are.

Unless someone thinks less of me or derides me for not being religious, then I will respect their views and not have a go at them.

However, when any religious person believes I, or any other non-religious person, is in any way inferior to them then I will certainly become a little upset!

Dear George,

Although Durkheim believed that the origins of
religion were social, not supernatural he did
in fact also argue that shared religious beliefs
and the rituals that go with them are so important
that every society needs a religion, or at least
some belief system that serves the same functions.
He felt that the cause of much of the social disorder in
modern societies is that "the old gods are growing old
or are already dead, and others are not yet born."

In other words, people no longer believe deeply in traditional
religion, but have found no satisfying substitute. Lacking
commitment to a shared belief system, they tend to pursue their
private interests without regard for their fellows.

Modern sociiologists have elaborated on Durkheim's ideas.

As I've stated earlier - Durheim emphasized that a society
requires some shared set of beliefs to ensure its cohesion.
But do these beliefs have to be religious? Many would argue
that a functional equivalent - a social or cultural feature
that has the same effect may in that sense serve as a
substitute for it. But again, the essential difference
between such belief systems and religion as I mentioned
previously is, of course that though the former serve some of the
same functions as religion, they are not oriented toward the
supernatural.

For many years ti was widely felt that as science progressively
provided rational explanations for the mysteries of the
universe, religion would have less and less of a role to play
and would eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing more than
superstition. However there are still gaps in our understanding
that science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the
nature of morality - science is utterly silent and, by its
very nature, always will be

Few people of modern societies would utterly deny the
possibility of some higher power in the universe, some
supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this fundamental sense
religion is probably here to stay.

How do I stand in this debate?
Truly, what is to be made of me.
Once a follower, not only of one of the mass of Gods.
But of other failed dreams of a better world.
Few will deny me my right to long ago abandon Communism/Socialism.
But condemn me for awakening to the invention of God.
Am I too condemned for my view Christianity is likely to fade away.
And that Islam may be already larger in numbers.
Is it wrong to think humanity is better served by truth.
Hewy, heard of him?
An apparent Australian invention he greets the recently dead with beer in both hands and shares a laugh.
Maybe we do need Gods, but are those of us who do not think so evil.

Because something is beyond my ability to sense (naturally or with aids) does not mean it doesn't exist, nor that it does, so it becomes a matter of faith.

To choose the path of faith is fine but I see religion as I see the influenza virus. Nothing will ever eradicate it as it evolves continuously with the times to defeat attempts to do so. It is passed from generation to generation, each child injected before an age of reason or choice. To me, these aspects are why religion survives.

If we set ground zero as today, it would be interesting to see whether religion would get the large grip on societies that it has now. I think science might be an impediment to its re-establishment.

Although scientists do not know everything, the trend is that they are making progress. See the following link as an example of the scientific effort to explain the origin of the universe from nothing. Warning. its a bit long and jokes are esoteric

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=something%20from%20nothing%20dawkins&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7ImvlS8PLIo&ei=lp3-TviVG6WQiQe_moDVAQ&usg=AFQjCNGMXDDhsTplt4TDx9KjtPtn5tc7uA&cad=rja

Getting to the point of this thread, IMO, a health benefit seems a poor reason to embark on the path of religion, but it probably serves well as a justification for religiosity once one is infected with it.

I think in this matter all views need airing.
And yes some will indeed be very much ofensive to some.
God we are told created the heaven and the earth.
In 6 days he put every living thing on it or in the oceans.
From Adam and Eve all humanity came.
First Bible did not say this was other than purely as it took place.
The evolution of religion now sometimes, says this is purely descriptive.
But as one God made us all, including all the other Gods? or is this not true?
How did we stop being one?

Dear Lexi,

I liked your post, read it a couple of times to see if there was anything I could disagree with, and found nothing. These are standard views of the social function of religion, whether or not they originated with Durkheim (most of them probably did).

Where we might differ is just our preferred definitions of the very term “religion”, although you yourself write that “the essential difference … is … that though the former serve some of the same functions as religion, they are not oriented toward the supernatural” which - as seen from my quote in the previous post - was exactly Stark’s main reason for suggesting an alternative definition.

There are many definitions of religion, emphasizing this or that of its features, functions, which their authors find determining. I like also the anthropological definition by Geertz http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645. Although it does not mention the supernatural explicitly, it does not seem to reduce everything to the ritual. By the way, neither do you (if you are Foxy, see your definition in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495&page=0#83447).

As I keep on saying, from our contemporary point of view - as distinct from the ancient situations investigated by anthropologists - it all depends on what you call supernatural, i.e. that which is beyond the (material, physical) reality investigated by science (whether or not you believe in the existence of this “beyond”). This, however, would brings us to the not-so-easy questions of philosophy of science, (notably physics). “Constructive empiricism” or “scientific (critical) realism”, both compatible with theist as well as atheist initial positions (safe the naive versions of both), which, of course, is only marginally related to this thread.