The "What should replace religion?" question

[dann]

A "religious understanding of how the universe works" has become irrelevant today, and in most industrialized countries it was replaced by the scientific view of the world decades ago. Nowadays even new agers resort to justifying their belief system with references to (their idea of) quantum mechanics.
In Scandinavia you hardly find anybody who still believes in Genesis. Creationism has been exploded to the extent that even skeptics don't have to pay much attention to it.
Whether science "should" replace religion is therefore a silly question. The people who still cling to a belief in Genesis don't do so for epistemological reasons.

PS My "clashes with Acleron" are due to his conspiracy theory of religion - nothing else. He is in denial about people's need for religion, so whenever somebody points to this fact, like other 'truthers' he assumes that they must be a part of the religious Illuminati. He is (not innately, but ....) incapable of grasping the concept that the word need justifies neither religion nor the need for it. This is the only reason why he repeatedly makes up accusations that he can't support with a single piece of evidence.

 

[dann]

I wouldn't read too much into that particular soundbite. He explained that he meant a psychological need for an imaginary friend, father, big brother, confessor, confidant figure.

real friend, therapist, counsellor ...?

All interesting questions; a careful comparison might be able to confirm or falsify the hypothesis - do the secular societies have behaviours and activities, not found to the same extent in religious societies, that could reasonably be said to satisfy, fill, or substitute for a psychological need for an imaginary friend, father, big brother, confessor, confidant figure?

I suspect not.

Or did the alleged "gap" or "psychological need" disappear - along with the uncertainty of existence? See Phil Zuckerman's argument.

That's the idea. It's pretty widely accepted that we appear to have an innate tendency towards magical thinking (superstition, attribution of agency, etc.), and questions are being asked about how religion and god beliefs are related to this - e.g. is the god belief the result of combining a tendency for magical thinking with the appeal of a patriarchal authority figure, or is it something more specific?

I suspect it's the former, that the god belief (and religion) appeals because it can satisfy a variety of needs & drives, not because there's a specific innate need ('god-shaped gap') for it.

I (more than) suspect that the alleged "innate tendency towards magical thinking" is not innate at all, but one that appears only when people are placed in unpleasant (or even life-threatening) situations beyond their control, and they therefore look for solutions to their predicament beyond reality. This is the reason why there aren't many atheists in foxholes. And the solution to the problem of religion is obvious: Do away with foxholes and living conditions that resemble foxholes.
See my references to cases and (mainly) recent scientific studies above:
Opium of the people
Poverty and witchcraft
The children in Beslan (The Harry-Potter religion)
The need for fortunetellers (not innate!)
James Randi and the need to believe (I´ve never heard him claim that the need is in any way innate!)
Competitive sports & religion, lack of control & superstion
Access to proper healthcare as a precondition for discarding witchcraft
People's tendency to deny the explanations of medical doctors when palliative treatment is all they have In view of Zuckerman's studies it would be interesting to know if there are major differences between the USA and Scandinavia in this respect.

 

[dlorde]

...I (more than) suspect that the alleged "innate tendency towards magical thinking" is not innate at all, but one that appears only when people are placed in unpleasant (or even life-threatening) situations beyond their control, and they therefore look for solutions to their predicament beyond reality. This is the reason why there aren't many atheists in foxholes. And the solution to the problem of religion is obvious: Do away with foxholes and living conditions that resemble foxholes.

The kind of magical thinking I think may be innate is shown in superstitious behaviours - the same kind of misattribution-of-causality behaviours demonstrated in animals during response-independent reinforcement (by Skinner and others). It would be a result of the heuristics of Type 1 thinking (fast, intuitive). It can be superseded by Type 2 thinking (deliberative), but is a 'lazy' default.

It would not be surprising at times of stress or life-threatening situations to see this exaggerated as Type 1 thinking becomes predominant. It seems to me one can interpret the god belief as an extreme case of misattribution of causality; perhaps not in itself innate, but a cultural extension of misattribution of agency.

 

[Humes fork]

A "religious understanding of how the universe works" has become irrelevant today

True, but a lot of people don't know it.

and in most industrialized countries it was replaced by the scientific view of the world decades ago.

Woo, pseudoscience and superstition is still prevalent though.

Nowadays even new agers resort to justifying their belief system with references to (their idea of) quantum mechanics.

And they can get away with it because...?

In Scandinavia you hardly find anybody who still believes in Genesis. Creationism has been exploded to the extent that even skeptics don't have to pay much attention to it.
Whether science "should" replace religion is therefore a silly question. The people who still cling to a belief in Genesis don't do so for epistemological reasons.

I don't get it. You reply that it is a silly question, that it already has, that what matters is people getting comfort.

You might be interested in reading about Religion in Sweden. I think it sums it up very well, and I would be very surprised if it is different in Denmark.

 

[Humes fork]

I (more than) suspect that the alleged "innate tendency towards magical thinking" is not innate at all, but one that appears only when people are placed in unpleasant (or even life-threatening) situations beyond their control, and they therefore look for solutions to their predicament beyond reality. This is the reason why there aren't many atheists in foxholes. And the solution to the problem of religion is obvious: Do away with foxholes and living conditions that resemble foxholes.

Magical thinking can manifest itself in religion, but that's not the only possibility. People believe in lucky numbers, are generally superstitious etc. For example a pretty common superstitious belief in Sweden is that if you see a black cat cross the street, you should spit three times to avoid bad luck.

Again, I think you look at religion sociological rather than scientifical.

Materially I'm living a pretty comfortable life. But if I ended up in economic ruin and misery I wouldn't become religious, because I know these beliefs are false.

 

[Correa Neto]

Maybe god was shaped to fit in the hole?

Just my 2 cents, but I think there is not clear simple answer, no single reason. The "god-shaped-hole" may have evolved from some sort of need for an answer coupled with "rituals" (maybe something similar to Skinner's pigeons) which seemed to work. Quite likely a blend of both, I believe. Once this stage is set, god is shaped to fit the hole. Thousands of years of feedback, countless iteractions later, the products are our current gods and gaps.

Innate to our culture and to ourselves, to a certain point.

 

[dann]

True, but a lot of people don't know it.

In most industrialised countries a majority of people do know.

Woo, pseudoscience and superstition is still prevalent though.

Yes, they are, but not because science hasn't defeated religion. They are prevalent because living conditions still suck for many people.

And they can get away with it because...?

... because they know absolutely nothing about quantum mechanics. What they do know, however, is that you have to pay tribute to science when you want to justify whatever weird belief you adher to.
It is interesting to read how H. G. Wells' description of the relationship between science and superstition a century ago. He describes his problem as a writer of fantastic literature who has to make his readers 'suspend their disbelief' at an age when science has become the accepted way of looking at the world:

And that is where there was a certain slight novelty in my stories when first they appeared. Hitherto, except in exploration fantasies, the fantastic element was brought in by magic. Frankenstein even, used some jiggery-pokery magic to animate his artificial monster. There was trouble about the thing's soul. But by the end of last century it had become difficult to squeeze even a momentary belief out of magic any longer. It occurred to me that instead of the usual interview with the devil or a magician, an ingenious use of scientific patter might with advantage be substituted. That was no great discovery. I simply brought the fetish stuff up to date, and made it as near actual theory as possible. - http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/wellss_law (my italics, dann)

However, unlike Wells, who was very much aware of what he was doing, the new agers don't know that their references to quantum mechanics are nothing but scientifc patter and fetish stuff = fiction!

I don't get it. You reply that it is a silly question, that it already has, that what matters is people getting comfort.

What matters is that people are comfortable, that their living conditions are safe and secure, so no "gap" arises that needs to be filled by the kind of wishful thinking that gives rise to the clergymen, the suppliers of the religious demand - most of them, by the way, true believers themselves and not the kind of monsters that Acleron needs to believe in to make his world seem "beautifully understandable".
It goes without saying that some of them actually are predators taking advantage of the gullible, of course, but once you decide to believe you make it very difficult for yourself to distinguish between the predatory and the more benign kind of preacher.

You might be interested in reading about Religion in Sweden. I think it sums it up very well, and I would be very surprised if it is different in Denmark.

I don't think that Denmark and Sweden are very different in this respect. The American Phil Zuckerman finds the two countries very similar.

 

[dann]

Magical thinking can manifest itself in religion, but that's not the only possibility. People believe in lucky numbers, are generally superstitious etc. For example a pretty common superstitious belief in Sweden is that if you see a black cat cross the street, you should spit three times to avoid bad luck.

Again, I think you look at religion sociological rather than scientifical.

Materially I'm living a pretty comfortable life. But if I ended up in economic ruin and misery I wouldn't become religious, because I know these beliefs are false.

Yes, there are many superstitions - even in the modern industrialised world and even among the wealthiest and best educated - but notice when and where they tend to appear: Professional athletes, stockbrokers and actors, i.e. people whose (sometimes quite extraordinary) livelihood depends on circumstances that are beyond their control typically cling to superstitious rituals as do otherwise rational youngsters at their exams. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9352794&postcount=201

I also don't think that I would succumb to religion or superstition in case of bankruptcy. A long life of rational thinking tends to make you more or less unable to seek comfort in wishful thinking. However, I'm often astonished by the irrational ideas and behaviour of otherwise sane people.

 

[dann]

Maybe god was shaped to fit in the hole?

Just my 2 cents, but I think there is not clear simple answer, no single reason. The "god-shaped-hole" may have evolved from some sort of need for an answer coupled with "rituals" (maybe something similar to Skinner's pigeons) which seemed to work. Quite likely a blend of both, I believe. Once this stage is set, god is shaped to fit the hole. Thousands of years of feedback, countless iteractions later, the products are our current gods and gaps.

Innate to our culture and to ourselves, to a certain point.

As metaphors go, your "hole" or Dawkins's "God-shaped gap in the brain" is extremely poor.
This whole discussion is a little like saying that rickets or beriberi are symptoms of an innate need for some kind of 'stuffing' withour worrying about the actual cause of the problem: in the case of rickets and beriberi most people now know what causes these diseases: vitamin D, phosphorous and/or calcium defiency in one, vitamin B 1 deficiency in the other. There may be several reasons why you don't get enough of those, e.g. lack of sunlight, milk, a proper, versatile diet - and, of course, in the case of beriberi polishing your rice when your diet is pretty unbalanced and consists mainly of rice, but still the cure is pretty clear and simple.
As it is in the case of religion: When children as well as adults have proper living conditions, safe and secure lives, they don't develop "some sort of need for an answer" to the question why life is so awful and doesn't make any sense.
Because it does!
My list of links to cases and research.
People aren't pigeons, by the way. Pigeons don't come up with a theology to explain the mystery of when the food appears and when it doesn't. Religion is not a simple 'response' to a certain 'stimulus'. Behaviourism sucks.

 

[dann]

Atheists seem to be very keen to replace religion with something else without doing away with the problem that makes people resort to religion in the first place. Their agenda seems to be along the lines of: 'How do we turn people into atheists without bothering to improve the living conditions that cause their need for religion?'
This is the reason why their remedies are so silly: They would rather have people believe in the wonderful world of science than religion, but they seem to be incapable of grasping the fact that a mere belief in the science of, e.g. medicine, apart from a few exceptional cases, is irrelevant in the lives of people who don't have any access to proper, i.e. science-based, medical care.
Many atheists wouldn't be bothered much by people's miserable living conditions, if only they didn't die worshipping the false gods of religion ...
This constitutes the poverty of atheism.
Unfortunately, JREF's own Leo Igwe is one of the many skeptics who tend to ignore the role that people's living conditions play in religion and superstition.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php...craft-accusation-rages-in-northern-ghana.html

 

[Correa Neto]

As metaphors go, your "hole" or Dawkins's "God-shaped gap in the brain" is extremely poor.
This whole discussion is a little like saying that rickets or beriberi are symptoms of an innate need for some kind of 'stuffing' withour worrying about the actual cause of the problem: in the case of rickets and beriberi most people now know what causes these diseases: vitamin D, phosphorous and/or calcium defiency in one, vitamin B 1 deficiency in the other. There may be several reasons why you don't get enough of those, e.g. lack of sunlight, milk, a proper, versatile diet - and, of course, in the case of beriberi polishing your rice when your diet is pretty unbalanced and consists mainly of rice, but still the cure is pretty clear and simple.
As it is in the case of religion: When children as well as adults have proper living conditions, safe and secure lives, they don't develop "some sort of need for an answer" to the question why life is so awful and doesn't make any sense.
Because it does!
My list of links to cases and research.
People aren't pigeons, by the way. Pigeons don't come up with a theology to explain the mystery of when the food appears and when it doesn't. Religion is not a simple 'response' to a certain 'stimulus'. Behaviourism sucks.

The role you are attributing to religion is, im my opinion, an oversimplification.

Religions are not just attempts to provide answers; they much more complex. They may have started as ways to provide answers and/or as "magic rituals" but over this base they evolved to and became multipurpose tools whose uses span from building the indentity of a community to bring individual support during difficult times. "The hole" is the need for answers and comfort. Gods were built to fill it. Gods and religion also proved to be useful tools to keep human groups in order, thus they -and "the hole" were and are still being adjusted, perfected.

Education and proper living conditions, safe and secure lives may decrease the incidence of religious fanatism and fundamentalism, but they will not, at least not quickly, make religion go away. Some people will still want answers, people will still need comfort in hard times. Some answers will not be what they want or need to hear. How many well educated people with secure lives we know turned to woo, for example, when faced with death?

You also seem to have built somehow the conclusion that I am adopting a position regarding religion solely based on behaviorism. I believe I was quite clear when I said religions are the results of complex proccesses which may have at their very roots behaviors which we inherited from our ancestors. We are not pigeons, sure. We are more complex criatures, with much more complex behaviors, but we have many inherited traits. Our complex behaviors were and are built over some very basic needs. Muscle cars, fashion, the need for the latest gadgets and many behaviors which are not hard to observe at a nightclub can be tied to the very same competition for mating partners and for social dominance we can see in animals such as chimpanzees, wolves and pigeons. Pigeons have not developed theology, but we did it, over similar foundations because our ancestors had the tools for it.

Atheists seem to be very keen to replace religion with something else without doing away with the problem that makes people resort to religion in the first place. Their agenda seems to be along the lines of: 'How do we turn people into atheists without bothering to improve the living conditions that cause their need for religion?'
This is the reason why their remedies are so silly: They would rather have people believe in the wonderful world of science than religion, but they seem to be incapable of grasping the fact that a mere belief in the science of, e.g. medicine, apart from a few exceptional cases, is irrelevant in the lives of people who don't have any access to proper, i.e. science-based, medical care.

I must have mised that memo from the atheists' pope...
Science can not, I think, completely cover religions' grounds. Science beats the magic healing powers of religions, with all their prayers, priests and gods. Science can not, however, provide comfort for those whose friends and relatives departed -unless we include some drugs on the list, but this will just make them numb to the pain for a while. I doubt any atheist will disagree.

Sex, drugs and rock n' roll plus a supportive, caring community can potentially cover these grounds and fill the gap.

 

[deaman]

A man hears what he wants to hear, and diregards the rest.

Paul Simon

 

[dann]

"The hole" is the need for answers and comfort.

No, the alleged hole is a need for comforting answers, i.e. it never really looks for answers to the questions that rational individuals might ask of the world; it actually tends towards animosity to these answers because they don't provide the required comfort.

Education and proper living conditions, safe and secure lives may decrease the incidence of religious fanatism and fundamentalism, but they will not, at least not quickly, make religion go away.

And when did speed all of a sudden become so important in the question of abolishing religion? I'd actually love to "decrease the incidence of religious fanaticism and fundamentalism" (I'd love to decrease the atheist fanaticism and fundamentalism too, by the way!) And nice and easy appears to be the way to do it ...

Some people will still want answers, people will still need comfort in hard times. Some answers will not be what they want or need to hear.

Yes, you are right if what you're trying to say is that the fundamentalist atheist dream of a world completely and utterly bereft of religion is impossible to achieve. But there's no arguing with fanatics like that anyway. Who cares?

How many well educated people with secure lives we know turned to woo, for example, when faced with death?

I don't know, I didn't count them. Did you?! Who cares if the dying turn to woo anyway? I can't think of anything to lift their spirits in that situation - except, maybe, that I hope that they've lived fulfulling and satisfying lives, which, on the other hand, I know that many of them haven't. I certainly don't intend to preach atheism to them. I'm concerned with the living, not the dying, sorry!
And you appear to be completely unimpressed by the number of secular Scandinavians who don't 'turn to woo' "when faced with death".

You also seem to have built somehow the conclusion that I am adopting a position regarding religion solely based on behaviorism. I believe I was quite clear when I said religions are the results of complex proccesses which may have at their very roots behaviors which we inherited from our ancestors. We are not pigeons, sure. We are more complex criatures, with much more complex behaviors, but we have many inherited traits. Our complex behaviors were and are built over some very basic needs. Muscle cars, fashion, the need for the latest gadgets and many behaviors which are not hard to observe at a nightclub can be tied to the very same competition for mating partners and for social dominance we can see in animals such as chimpanzees, wolves and pigeons. Pigeons have not developed theology, but we did it, over similar foundations because our ancestors had the tools for it.

Yes, you told us that already: We are very, very complicated pigeons. And the latest gadgets are nothing but very, very complicated pigeon mating rituals!

Science can not, I think, completely cover religions' grounds.

Science not only cannot, it should not cover religion's grounds. It comforts the grieving relatives of seriously ill people by making the seriously ill well again - a lot of the time - or at least free from pain. That is what it's got to offer - in the best case scenario. It was never meant to be an alternative to religion. Only guys like Dawkins come up with silly ideas like that because they consider the relationship between science and religion to be a kind of competition, which is why they regularly offer science as an alternative to religion the same way the local vicar offers Jesus as an alternative to sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.
That you want to go the other way 'round in your competition with the vicar doesn't surprise me at all.

Sex, drugs and rock n' roll plus a supportive, caring community can potentially cover these grounds and fill the gap.

 

[Correa Neto]

No, the alleged hole is a need for comforting answers, i.e. it never really looks for answers to the questions that rational individuals might ask of the world; it actually tends towards animosity to these answers because they don't provide the required comfort.

Its more complicated. Its part of us to look for answers. "Magical thinking" may have been a first approach to questions we could not -and many still can not- answer. Questions ranging from how we came to be to why bad things happen. Sure, "**** happens" is an answer many don't like, thus the favorable bias towards the anwers which sound better to our ears. This will happen within religions too. That doctrine, that dogma, I don't like it, so I'll head towards the next church. Since science quite often will answer "**** happens" or "it was your fault"...

And when did speed all of a sudden become so important in the question of abolishing religion? I'd actually love to "decrease the incidence of religious fanaticism and fundamentalism" (I'd love to decrease the atheist fanaticism and fundamentalism too, by the way!) And nice and easy appears to be the way to do it ...

I don't think a single approach is the answer. Being "nice an easy" has its times, being harsh, sarcastic and relentless have their time too.

Yes, you are right if what you're trying to say is that the fundamentalist atheist dream of a world completely and utterly bereft of religion is impossible to achieve. But there's no arguing with fanatics like that anyway. Who cares?

I just don't know if it is possible or not. I would like to see one, I believe (note the word "believe") it would be a better world. If this turns me in to a fanatic in your view...

I don't know, I didn't count them. Did you?! Who cares if the dying turn to woo anyway? I can't think of anything to lift their spirits in that situation - except, maybe, that I hope that they've lived fulfulling and satisfying lives, which, on the other hand, I know that many of them haven't. I certainly don't intend to preach atheism to them. I'm concerned with the living, not the dying, sorry!

Sorry, but I can not agree with what you wrote above. I am concerned with both the living and the dying. Both are human beings, both are part of our societies, both deserve care and comfort.

Not to mention I believe I was quite clear when I said that religion provides comfort to both. Actually religious rites were basically developed to provide comfort for those who stay, for the living. Some will seek comfort at a rite, others at the bottom of a bottle, others at the embrace of a beloved person, many will use all the above.

And you appear to be completely unimpressed by the number of secular Scandinavians who don't 'turn to woo' "when faced with death".

No. I just happen to live somewhere else, with another cultural and historical background. I acknowledge individual humans beings are different from each other and what fits me may not fit the person standing besides me.

Yes, you told us that already: We are very, very complicated pigeons. And the latest gadgets are nothing but very, very complicated pigeon mating rituals!

Not pigeons. Apes, actually.
It may not sound good to the ears of some who want "to feel special", but reality does not -can not- care about what human beings like. Humans can't select whats real or not.

Science not only cannot, it should not cover religion's grounds. It comforts the grieving relatives of seriously ill people by making the seriously ill well again - a lot of the time - or at least free from pain. That is what it's got to offer - in the best case scenario. It was never meant to be an alternative to religion. Only guys like Dawkins come up with silly ideas like that because they consider the relationship between science and religion to be a kind of competition, which is why they regularly offer science as an alternative to religion the same way the local vicar offers Jesus as an alternative to sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.

No, its not that simple.

Religions fight among themselves for the market of faith and the rights to tell humans how to behave. However, these fights will not be restricted within religions, because religions make claims about the nature of the universe and how humans must behave because of their religious dogmas. At this point, competition with science will begin. Science will provide alternative answers to religion when it comes down to several questions, ranging from cosmogeny to sexual behavior. Religious dogmas are contradicted and the competition starts. Dawkins is concerned with these conflicts, with this competition. When religion seeks to influence science, education. When religion is used to back prejudice and retrograde behavior. He can be harsh sometimes, I do not agree with everything he says, but I think he has a number of points and I agreee with lots of things he says. If you think this is enough to labell me a fanatic "New Atheists", well, sorry, but the world is not black and white and you are being as radical as those you are criticizing.

That you want to go the other way 'round in your competition with the vicar doesn't surprise me at all.

If the vicar is not a fanatic, if the vicar is not trying to evangelize me and my family, if the vicar is not pushing his/hers dogmas and doctrines over me and my family, I am not in competition with him/her.

 

[dann]

Its more complicated. Its part of us to look for answers. "Magical thinking" may have been a first approach to questions we could not -and many still can not- answer. Questions ranging from how we came to be to why bad things happen. Sure, "**** happens" is an answer many don't like, thus the favorable bias towards the anwers which sound better to our ears. This will happen within religions too. That doctrine, that dogma, I don't like it, so I'll head towards the next church. Since science quite often will answer "**** happens" or "it was your fault"...

So now you blame the pattern-seeking tendency of humanity? You don't seem to grasp the fact that we're not living in the times when mankind huddled together around the campfire, at the mercy of the elements, when nobody knew anything and had to make up stories to explain what (= who) made it rain and snow. A religious person doesn't ask questions. A religious person doesn't want to know. The religious sentiment requires very specific (= comforting) answers. This has nothing to do with pattern seeking. Neither do the answers "**** happens" or "it was your fault", by the way, answers favoured my many atheists, apparently.
Many atheists seem to enjoy their own cleverness when they come up with these answers - unlike Christians, who blame God or the Devil. And indeed, hurricane Katrina may simply have happened, but being dirt poor and unable to get out of its way didn't just happen. The same thing can be said about most other so-called natural disasters this day and age. They may be natural, but their disastrous impact on people's lives isn't. People aren't poor and miserable because "**** happens".

I don't think a single approach is the answer. Being "nice an easy" has its times, being harsh, sarcastic and relentless have their time too.

Yes, and so does completely ignoring what is actually meant by "nice and easy".

 

[dann]

I just don't know if it is possible or not. I would like to see one, I believe (note the word "believe") it would be a better world. If this turns me in to a fanatic in your view...

It is impossible! There is always going to be somebody who is struck by lightning, dies from a rare and until now undiscovered genetic defect etc. - and that somebody's relatives - who may therefore (and in spite of knowing all there is to know about electricity, the atmosphere, genetics etc. - feel the need to come up with comforting answers that are out of this world. This, by the way, is how some religious people argue the alleged necessity of religion, as if comforting, supernatural answers cannot be made up on the spot when somebody feels the need.
The fundamentalism of atheists in this question begins when they try to argue against this religious argument, instead of simply acknowledging that, yes, it is impossible to eradicate the need for religion one hundred per cent, since it's impossible to eradicate unfortunate accidents one hundred per cent, but 99,5 % would be satisfactory, too!
And the prevalent misery doesn't result from a stroke of fate ....

 

[dann]

Sorry, but I can not agree with what you wrote above. I am concerned with both the living and the dying. Both are human beings, both are part of our societies, both deserve care and comfort.

Not to mention I believe I was quite clear when I said that religion provides comfort to both. Actually religious rites were basically developed to provide comfort for those who stay, for the living. Some will seek comfort at a rite, others at the bottom of a bottle, others at the embrace of a beloved person, many will use all the above.

Sorry, but it seems to me that you tend to forget what the argument was:
I said:

I don't know, I didn't count them. Did you?! Who cares if the dying turn to woo anyway? I can't think of anything to lift their spirits in that situation - except, maybe, that I hope that they've lived fulfulling and satisfying lives, which, on the other hand, I know that many of them haven't. I certainly don't intend to preach atheism to them. I'm concerned with the living, not the dying, sorry!

Because you had said:

How many well educated people with secure lives we know turned to woo, for example, when faced with death?

After having considered it a serious argument against the abolishment of religion by means of improving people's lives that it wouldn't be fast enough for you:

Education and proper living conditions, safe and secure lives may decrease the incidence of religious fanatism and fundamentalism, but they will not, at least not quickly, make religion go away.

Which to me seems to indicate that you don't really know what you're talking about. Religious fanaticism is more or less a thing of the past in Denmark and Sweden. I don't really care if it happened too slow for your tastes, nor do I find your argument against decreasing "religious fanaticism and fundamentalism" particularly bright: that it does not "make religion go away", since it actually does seem to make religion 'go away' for a lot of people.

And I've got nothing against improving the conditions for the dying, man! What I've said is that, as far as the abolishment of religion goes, they're not the audience I'm catering to. In the case of the living there's still hope: They may actually still improve their lives, i.e. their living conditions, but they themselves as well as other who object to these conditions will have to do something about the circumstances that dictate them. The dying are almost by defition unable to do any such thing, which is why I will not only leave their 'people's opium' alone, I wouldn't even bother trying to persuade them to give up the actual opium they're using.
In both cases I won't claim that their lives will improve if they give up the drugs they crave, the real ones or those of the imagination.

This makes your 'who cares more for the dying' attitude absurd!!!

 

[dann]

Not pigeons. Apes, actually.

And I'm the one you accuse of simplifying things: "Its more complicated."

 

[Quinn]

There is always going to be somebody who is struck by lightning, dies from a rare and until now undiscovered genetic defect etc. - and that somebody's relatives - who may therefore (and in spite of knowing all there is to know about electricity, the atmosphere, genetics etc. - feel the need to come up with comforting answers that are out of this world.

The kind of comforting answers people come up with will depend largely on cultural reinforcement. In a culture where irrational answers are supported, of course people will come up with them. But in a culture where religion simply wasn't part of day-to-day life, for the bereaved or for anyone else, I think it's a lot less likely that those kinds of answers would pop up out of nowhere.

Additionally, that stance relies on what I would consider a rather dim view of human nature. "Educate them and elevate their standard of living all you want, but as soon as things start to go south, they'll be back to worshipping trees and sun gods within a day." I'm a fairly cynical individual, but that's a bit much even for me.

 

[dann]

The kind of comforting answers people come up with will depend largely on cultural reinforcement. In a culture where irrational answers are supported, of course people will come up with them. But in a culture where religion simply wasn't part of day-to-day life, for the bereaved or for anyone else, I think it's a lot less likely that those kinds of answers would pop up out of nowhere.

Additionally, that stance relies on what I would consider a rather dim view of human nature. "Educate them and elevate their standard of living all you want, but as soon as things start to go south, they'll be back to worshipping trees and sun gods within a day." I'm a fairly cynical individual, but that's a bit much even for me. (My italics, dann)

It is a "dim view of human nature", indeed, but, in a way, you are merely confirming what I've been saying all along. And your disappointment is a little like conversations I've had with Cuban communists, who, in spite of their alleged materialist point of view, proved to be pretty extreme idealists when the topic of discussion was prostitution:
It is no secret that Cuba in the first half of the 20th century had turned into the whorehouse of the USA, and the Cubans were justifably proud that it had been completely abolished in the 1970s and '80s - but only to return with a vengeance in the poverty-stricken 1990s (along with religion, by the way).
I tried to tell them that, no, the women who resorted to prostitution weren't primarily bad people lacking 'moral fibre' etc., that they were simply people who found that taking this unpleasant step was less unpleasant than poverty without the things they could get by prostituting themselves, i.e. that prostitution was caused by poverty: that it cannot simply be banned away, but if you remove its cause, i.e. poverty (again), which may include (re)educating the prostitutes, it will disappear.

You seem to lament the human race simply because peple are not impervious to being "bereaved" or having "things start to go south". And since your very cynical ideal appears to be a society "where religion simply (?!) wasn't part of day-to-day life, for the bereaved (!!!) or for anyone (!!!) else", you are bound to have your cynicism confirmed by reality again and again because the kind of immunity to irrational thinking that you seem to demand is impossible. It's a pretty steep demand that even the bereaved should be impervious to wishing that their departed loved ones whom they can't bear to live without are somehow alive somewhere - the Christian way or the new-age way (whatever). Reality will never be able to live up to your high standards, but even so, as I've pointed out with a link above, "in a culture where religion simply wasn't part of day-to-day life," rejection of religion seems to be pretty resilient: 'The most God-less place on Earth'