.

Dear Foxy,

.

I fully agree, but you are only looking at the positive sign of the coin. Like everything human, it has two sides.

But before we go into that, allow me to say a few words on the origin of religion :

I understand that we human beings branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about five to seven million years ago. Life in those early days must have been quite terrifying, not only before we developed intellectual faculties superior to other biological species, but even long after we were able to employ them. Nature, for no apparent reason, often became terribly aggressive. We found ourselves subjected to violent hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanos, droughts, snow storms, bush fires, as well as the occasional devastating meteorite. We had no warning and no explanation for any of it.

It is not surprising that little by little, due to the development of our intellectual capacity to conceptualise, we gradually replaced our instinctive reaction of terror to these natural phenomena with logical, supernatural explanations. Animist religions, which continue to be largely present today, attributed a god or spirit to each of earth’s physical features as well as to each of the terrifying manifestations of nature. The concept of anthropomorphic gods soon followed. Human characteristics such as reason, motivation, personality and the possibility to communicate were attributed to the animist gods.

Having invented the supernatural, we elaborated a strategy for survival based on this concept. The strategy consisted in contacting whichever god we had attributed to a particular natural phenomenon and begging him to spare us from his wrath and protect us from harm. If prayers, worship and acts of submission failed to produce the desired result, we offered animal and human sacrifice.

This strategy for survival is what we call religion today. The person or animal we offered to the gods in exchange for the salvation of the rest of the community is now reputed to be a scapegoat. The Christian religions integrated the concept into their dogma.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The concept of an anthropomorphic deity is unique to Christianity among the three principal Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Both Judaism and Islam reject an anthropomorphic deity, believing that God is beyond human comprehension. Neither Yahweh nor Allah has a face nor anything else human for that matter.

As for its rituals and ceremonies, there is evidence that Christianity has, in fact, invented very little. It has largely cannibalised and plagiarised so-called paganism and other ancient religions. Here are a few examples :

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_33.htm
.

On the other side of the coin, from time immemorial, political leaders have used religion as an effective means of subjugating and controlling their subjects. Also, as Karl Marx observed : “religion is the opium” of the people.

Religion also breeds intolerance and bigotry. It has been the cause of many religious wars or so-called “holy wars”, numerous massacres, genocides and indiscriminate terrorist attacks against innocent civilians.

While on the one hand, as you correctly indicate, religion serves to “bring people together, to remind them of their common group membership …”, on the other hand, it does exactly the contrary. It divides citzens, creates ghettos and promotes religious sectarianism.

In addition, regrettably, it is evident that many religious people are hypocrites, professing virtues they do not actually put into practice in their daily lives. They pretend to be what they are not.

As a result, it's problematic as to whether the end result of religion can be said to be positive or negative.

Finally, you note :

« … the early sociologist … Durkheim argued, 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 »

In fact, it was another Frenchman, Auguste Comte, who invented the term “sociology” as well as the term “altruism”. He saw altruism as the solicitude for fellow human beings that would eventually constitute a new religion, replacing what he considered to be false, theological, pre-scientific, and metaphysical religion.

No sign of that happening so far !

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Although religion is a universal social institution, it
takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods,
ancestors, or totems. Believers may practice solitary
meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer.
The great variety of religious behaviour and belief
makes it very difficult to say exactly what "religion"
is. Many definitions have been offered in the past.
Most of the ones we're familiar with have been biased
by ethnocentric Judeo-Christian ideas about religion.
Based on the central beliefs that there exists one
supreme being or God that God created the universe and
all life and takes a continuing interest in the creation;
that there is life hereafter, and that our moral behaviour
in this life influences our fate in the next.

In cross-cultural terms, however, this particular
combination of beliefs is unusual. Many religions do not
recognise a supreme being, and a number do not believe in
gods at all.Several religions ignore questions about the
origins of the universe and life, leaving these problems to
be dealt with instead by nonreligious myth.

Most religions assume that the gods take little interest in
human affairs. Some have almost nothing to say about life
after death - and many - perhaps most- do not think our
earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.
Obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of Western
religious tradition alone.

What then is religion?

It's a system of communally shared beliefs and rituals that
are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural realm.

As I stated earlier - it brings me comfort.

Hi Foxy,

There is the rub, make a clear rational decision, it is true some degenerate into such a state that they are obviously not fit to make that informed decision. However I do not believe that should in itself exclude those terminally ill people who are capable of making such a decision from choosing to die with dignity, it should be their choice. I would think the majority who are capable of making a clear choice would choose to live, in the hope that a miracle will happen.
We all have personal stories of a loved one who died in not the best of circumstances. often living without dignity and in pain for a long time until death brings relief, and that is a very sad thing. Medical science can give quantity of life, but not the quality of life that is so necessary.

"As I stated earlier - it brings me comfort." Foxy, as an atheists I have no problem with that. Those who want to believe in something or other is fine by me, if people worship 'Marshmallow Man' offering up jelly beans to him, that's okay as well. It is when the adherents use their religion to start interfering with the rest of us, and want to impose their norms onto society in general, because Marshmallow Man commands it, then I have a problem.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I thoroughly agree with your comments and, of course, as previously noted, understand why so many people such as yourself cherish their religion, whatever form it may take.

As a matter of fact, one of the painters on the Place du Tertre, here in Montmartre in Paris where I live, recently introduced me to what he considers as the only “true” religion. It is called “hypnoregression”. He is a great painter and is absolutely convinced that “hypnoregression” has been proved scientifically.

You might like to take a look at it :

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+michael++newton&view=detail&mid=1A65B6A17A16D8AD6D731A65B6A17A16D8AD6D73&FORM=VIRE

.