>
> It seems to me that religion is a mode of thought, expression
> and behavior; that is, something people do, rather than a sort
> of devil that afflicts them. And given that it covers subjects
> that humans find at once unknowable and irresistible, it seems
> pretty inevitable. Perhaps you all mean that a different
> religion should be substituted for the bad ones now dominant,
> in order to improve mankind?
>
some say it should be the new religion of "science". there are also the religion of "enlightenment" or "reason" or "rationality". some or all of these might be better. are you sure we cannot just give up these unknowable questions and live in uncertainty? it won't happen overnight, but is there something fundamental about the way we think (since you identify religion as a mode of thought) that makes that entirely impossible?
--ravi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.