AJ Phillips,

It's important that humans do not need to know everything and we are likely to never find out everything some may want. For those who wish to exhaust themselves down the pathway of constant discovery of finding more..... well that is their choice, but these people have no right to push this principle onto others.

<<I think you’re worried about nothing>>

Yes! But only in terms of myself. In terms of others, that is different, and I am allowed to be concerned in that context.

For example, I am a member of a refugee support group. Refugees locally are put through very harsh government policies in Australia.

<<Speaking from personal experience, my drive to learn more has been immensely beneficial and satisfying.>>

That sounds somewhat self gratifying. Who was paying for that? Yourself? Government? Taxpayers? If such learning came from personal experience though I would take a different viewpoint.

You also ignored (or left out) my word 'constantly'. So learning (by itself) is not the issue. The matter is about something that can be taken on constantly, continually, frequently or by the hour.

These examples are relevant but depend on individual situations and can be questionable or overstated in terms of value, as it depends on the interpretations of individuals and their desire to want more, particularly if it's at the expense of ones personal health or life, compared to an overall balanced lifestyle or impacts on others.

For example I have five medical conditions. In no way would I put myself put through excessive treatments or medical testing simply to find "real solutions". I even refused to take one medication, as it went against positions I personally take, being vegetarian.

<<The argument that religion brings comfort to many is overly simplistic>>

Yes! And if one doesn't like what a religion provides today they can leave. It won't cost a lot of money, compared to a new television set (materialism) and if one doesn't want what is perceived as a simple lifestyle, this isn't enforceable, despite many experts now stating simpler lifestyles are inevitable, to reduce living costs.

Are we a nation of non believers?

No.

NathanJ,

Sure, humans don’t need to know everything, but evidently the pros of striving for that outweigh the cons.

<<… [Constant discovery] is their choice, but these people have no right to push this principle onto others.>>

Of course not. I’ve never seen anyone do that, either.

<<… and I am allowed to be concerned in that context.>>

Of course you are. Who’s said otherwise?

<<That sounds somewhat self gratifying.>>

In a sense, yes. Immensely beneficial, too, and not just for myself, either.

Most of what we do is self-gratifying to some extent. Your support for refugees included. After all, the good feeling we get from being charitable is one of the reasons we behave charitably. It’s an evolved trait which promotes altruism.

<<Who was paying for that? Yourself? Government? Taxpayers?>>

All of the above. The government funds education for a reason, too, by the way.

<<You also ignored ... my word 'constantly' ... The matter is about something that can be taken on constantly, continually, frequently or by the hour.>>

No, I didn’t ignore that. I just gave you enough credit to not assume that you would set up such an absurd straw man. I don’t think anyone indulges in discovery and learning every waking moment of their lives. This is a fallacious appeal to extremes:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes

<<… In no way would I put myself put through excessive treatments or medical testing simply to find "real solutions".>>

Of course not. Just as I’m sure most wouldn’t spend every waking moment of their lives learning and discovering, to the detriment of their health.

<<Yes! And if one doesn't like what a religion provides today they can leave.>>

I’m not sure what this has to do with the condescending view, that some poor dears just need religion, being an over-simplification; but, no, it’s not always that simple. Some stop believing yet still live in perpetual fear of what might happen if they stop at least faking it. I, personally, remember starting to hate some of the injustice in religious doctrine, but that didn’t mean I felt free to just leave.

I've just picked up again, the book by Dr Paul Collins,
"Believers: Does Australian Catholicism Have A Future?"
And in the Foreword by Geraldine Doogue I found a paragraph
that I think might be appropriate to this discussion:
Geraldine Doogue writes:

"In all the copious debates about religion and society,
one of the key questions is never properly canvassed:
what would Australia feel like WITHOUT an active, vaguely
relevant Catholic Church? Correctly, there's interest in
some of its poor legacies like sexual abuse. But consider the
vacuum caused by the surrender of a hopeful Church, together
with its ritual life, its routine generosity, its largeness
of spirit, its road map for a soul's journey through life
as opposed to Economic or Intellectual Man or Woman's Progress?
Imagine the profound gap that would leave."

"Dr Paul Collins' central challenge is not to broader society
but to Catholics. Does any of this still matter seriously to
us? See how these Christians love each other, was the Romans'
awestruck observation of the earliest Church people. Maybe our
version should be about hope. See how these 21st Century
Catholics' hope and how it revives them. And then how it
encourages them to act as though there is more to life than
meets the eye."

"As one Canadian churchman put it recently - those who don't
recognise the Church as a source of hope will instead perceive
it as a burden - one more burden they don't need in their
overburdened lives. This is the call that many of us can hardly
bear to hear. We can but live in hope that some of us do."

AJ Philips,

As you understand and I hope I am not misunderstanding you by saying that, I place very high value on having a secular State, a democracy with secular government and secular law.

General comment
At present the religions are tame and the flocks have the upper hand in Australia (I must exclude Islam from that). However it is forever a fight by those flocks to get what they want and need from one another, where priests always seem to seeking a directing and then a controlling role. Next minute, they will have the boot on the back of the neck again. Censorship is the very first target.

I am fearful that the welcoming of Islam by certain churchmen of Islam could be more motivated by a desire to regain the power over people that they have lost and they see it being exercised so effortlessly where the Koran is concerned.

It will always be a fight against fundamentalism and totalitarianism. Australians should never be lulled into a stats of false security. But they already are, through the insidious political correctness that is so deeply embedded that people self-censor without even realising.

Freedom of speech is the key to real freedom and ultimately the only defence against tyranny. It is lost by increments, as it was with political correctness.

Should be, "I am fearful that the welcoming of Islam by certain churchmen could be more motivated by a desire to regain the power over people that they have lost and they see it being exercised so effortlessly where the Koran is concerned."

Redundant words deleted.