cont'd ...

Having said that - we all know that harbouring slightly
different beliefs or cultures or lifestyles can often
become unacceptable and in some cases dangerous.

If anyone seriously studies history they will learn
that a multitude of wars were fought over religion,
ideologies, politics, or land. That is because
communities or even societies that are hostile to one
another often use religion as an ideological weapon
emphasizing differences in faith in order to justify
conflict.

A nation at war often assumes that its gods are on its
side. The medieval Crusades appear at first to have
been fought purely on religious grounds in which
European Christians were trying to recover the Holy
Land from Muslims. A closer analysis suggests an
additional reason, however; the European nobility
launched the Crusades partly to gain control of the
trade routes to the East and partly to divert widespread
unrest among the peasantry.

Similarly contemporary conflict between Jews and Muslims
in the Middle East may seem to arise from religious
differences but the tension in really over competing
claims by two different ethnic groups, the Israeli
and the Palestinians for the same homeland.

In much the same way the conflict in Northern Ireland
seemed on the surface to be one between Catholics and
Protestants, but its roots lay much deeper in ethnic and
class divisions between Irish of native descent and those
descended from British settlers.

Interesting - when one looks closer at things.

Dear Foxy,

No one would disagree about the importance of Durkheim and his 'conscience collective' but one needs to keep in mind that for Durkheim everything had to be explained in terms of 'social facts'. He even proposed that something as personal as suicide should be explained by social facts.

Totally agree on how fascinating history can be when one looks at the role of religion. But keep in mind that there is a very important element between ancient and modern religious forms that definitely sets modern religious institutions down a particular historical path. Can you guess what that is?

Dear Mr Opinion,

In the preindustrial societies in which most human
beings have lived throughout history, people accepted
without much question whatever religious beliefs their
society offered.

Their religion was simply another part of their reality,
learned by everyone in the course of socialization.
In these relatively simple societies, religion suffuses
social life; everyday activities, such as eating, hunting,
or caring for the sick, are surrounded with religious
ritual. But as societies have industrialised, they have
tended to undergo secularization, the process by which
religion loses its social influence.

In these highly diversified modern societies, traditional
religion increasingly becomes a separate and distinct
institution, its influence eroded by other institutions such
as government, science, and education.

Indeed, these societies typically include large numbers of
people who have little commitment to religion, or who are
actually irreligious. How far has this trend towards
secularization gone - and what future, if any, does religion
have in the emerging postindustrial societies of the
world is a question that needs looking into?

One way to measure secularization is through public opinion
polls that periodically gather data on people's religious
beliefs in various societies.

However, the fact that sociocultural evolution has meant
some secularization in the past does not mean that this
must necessarily be so in the future.

What we have seen is the growing religious diversity in
the postindustrial future, reflecting the increased
individualism and diversity of those societies.
Particularly in times of uncertainty and rapid social
change, people in the future may well look, as they have
done in the past, to religious values to stabilize and
revitalize their culture.

It may well be the case, in fact, that the need for
religion will eventually reassert itself most powerfully
in precisely those societies that have become
the most industrialised, rationalised, and materialistic.

cont'd ...

Dear Mr Opinion,

For many years it 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. But 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 citizens 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.

Opinionated,

Of course not. Please read slowly and carefully: there is a multitude of narratives which people believe, without reflection or much evidence to back them up. None of them may be valid. None.

Some narratives develop (or degenerate) into religious beliefs, or as strong as. It's easier to believe than to spend time trying to justify what one believes. Hence dodgy narratives.

I don't know how to make the distinction between reality and narrative any clearer.

Christ, it's hard trying to talk to half-witted children.

Joe

Dear Foxy,

It's good to see you are also well versed in Weber.

When I asked Can you guess what that is? I was referring to something a bit more pragmatic that the great world religions seem to have that the ancient religions did not. I'll give you a hint: mhaze has one and swears by it.