Dear Saltpetre,

You've raised some interesting thoughts.

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.

I used to think that I was not religious, and perhaps
I was not. I was raised as a Roman Catholic. My grandmother
was a Russian Orthodox Eastern Rites Christian.

I didn't like what organised religion had done to the world.
I still do not. But I have come to see, however, that true
religion is internal, not external. What some have done in
the name of religion - does not make religion as a mystical
phenomenon invalid.

Organized religions have in many cases become as calcified
as other institutions that form the structure of our modern
world. Our religious institutions have far too often
become handmaidens of the status quo, while the genuine
religious is anything but that.

Organized religious institutions will have to step up - or
they will wither away. For the simple reason that people
have become genuinely religious in spite of them.

Dear Foxy,

I completely agree with your last post (Thursday, 30 July 2020 6:16:49 PM).

Going back:

«Religion is a universal social institution.»

Nope. Religion influences society just as it influences everything else, but this is not its purpose, just as it is not the moon's purpose to influence ocean-tides.

«Even the primitive Neanderthal people of that time,
had some concept of a supernatural realm that lay
beyond everyday reality.»

Quite likely, but even if they did not, this does not mean that they had no religion.

«a single feature is common to
all religions - and that is - a sharp distinction between
the sacred and the profane.»

There are rare exceptions: distinction between the sacred and the profane can be a useful religious technique/method, but it is not mandatory, not ALL religions must use it.

«The sacred is anything that is regarded as part of the
supernatural rather than the ordinary world, as such it
inspires awe, reverence, and deep respect.»

How about the Christian communion-chalice?
I think you would agree that it is not supernatural.
But it is considered sacred and inspires reverence and deep respect for what it represents.

«a religious community always
approaches the sacred through a ritual - a formal
stylized procedure such as prayer, incantation, or
ceremonial cleansing.»

I would just change that "always" to an "often".

«Ritual is a necessary part of religion»

Again, I would qualify this: ritual can be a useful religious technique/method, but it is not mandatory for ALL religions to use it.

«We can then say that religion is a system of communally
shared beliefs»

As above, belief too can be a useful religious technique/method, but is not mandatory.

«The phenomenon is of
of such universal social importance»

It is, also, but its ultimate importance goes way further than its social effects.

Foxy,

I'm not sure what you mean by "people have become genuinely religious in spite of them".
My understanding and observations of religion today, is that fewer and fewer are practicing it.
I wonder if it is because of education or simply laziness or some other social factors at play.
My understanding is that education is the leading reason for mass departure from religion because too many people are finding out things that are preached in such holy books as the bible to be untrue and socially un-acceptable to this promiscuous and entitled generation.
I don't feel that people have faith in very much any more.
We seem to be living amongst very short term thinkers, such as believing that they do not expect to stay in the same job for too long either by personal choice or the job situation.
Faith in marriage is no longer what it was, and respect for the vows and the institution of marriage have been, in the past, and as such are headed for complete irrelevance, as we see today's society choosing to "live in sin", than commit to a long term full 'end of life' commitment with each other.
I can't think of anything people of today have faith in, our govt's, our job's and future, our security, both locally and internationally?
The list is endless.
If someone can give me one or more examples of what we are showing faith in apart from religion, which I believe is loosing followers faster than ever anyway.

Dear Saltpetre,

«Maybe Hindus consider hope a sign of weakness because hope has failed so many of them for so long.»

While India experienced some setbacks and foreign invasions in the last millennium, the scriptures that explain why hope is not a good thing, date longer before that.

«In any event, hoping is really a totally lost cause, the last resort of the hopeless and the helpless, as only action can produce results, not wishing and hoping - no matter who to, or how fervently.»

Correct, one only has control over their actions, not over their results.

Also, hope is closely related to desire.
One hopes because they are invested in having their desires fulfilled, thus their happiness and contentment are conditional and temporary.

Dear Altrav,

ORGANISED religion is currently on the decline as people no longer consider churches and the like as true representatives of religion. I can't find evidence that religion itself is declining.

«If someone can give me one or more examples of what we are showing faith in apart from religion, which I believe is loosing followers faster than ever anyway.»

Science? Doctors?

Dear Foxy,

I have to agree with everything in your last post.
It all makes so much sense.
For myself, I continue to be both amazed and uncertain.

When I consider the odds against the possibility of our Earth and its capacity to support life, and our Moon being so instrumental in life being able to make the transit from the sea to the land, the very odds against the establishment of the components fundamental to the formation of amino acids and then proteins in the 'primordial soup', and the very formation of that 'soup' in the first instance, and then 'life', single-celled accumulations of amino acids and protein, and, most important of all, a spark, an evolution, an essence beyond the mere organic, of 'life', powering living, reproducing life-forms, in massive numbers and diversity.

Supposedly, from what we are told, if two of these single-celled critters collided with one-another, one would normally consume the other.
However, we are told that two particular ones of these, different from one-another, joined to form the first multi-celled life-form, and from which all subsequent 'life' has arisen. The Alpha, the prototype, to be found at the foundation of 'all' currently existing life on Earth.

Why only one successful 'union', and why so successful that life persisted, survived, and was able to evolve into all we have and all we are?

So many coincidences, so many questions.
Can all this have been by pure chance?
Or, has some careful 'tweaking' been essential along the way?
What an amazing and near-incredible scenario.

I do not need to look beyond Earth, and the night sky, to suspect this astonishing life experiment could not be purely accidental.
Why are we? A purpose?
I am satisfied to be, and to be constantly amazed, and incredibly thankful for the privilege.
But, I do fear 'Man's' insatiability and potential to destroy it all.
The 'mind' is not the pinnacle, but merely 'the key'.