How can I be categorised simultaneously as HAL9000 and drunken?! I would think they are mutually exclusive!
Usually you do a good job of interpreting me for the masses (that's a joke Carrol -- please do not flame me!), but this time you are a bit off the mark. I don't blame you since you understandably read this as a continuation of my rants on the atheism vs religion thread and my larger crusade against scientism. More below...
> Religion makes people happy.
>
> It creates community; it gives us comfort during
> difficult times; it provides hope of life after death.
> Religious people feel that ultimately, there is indeed
> justice in the world: God's judgment.
>
> This is powerful stuff which meets fundamental human
> needs - both material and emotional.
>
> Many of us on the Left are non-believers. We'd like
> to meet our common needs - and inspire people to
> progressive action - without depending upon lovely
> myths. But how can we compete with the durable power
> of religious belief?
>
> Peaceful coexistence.
Let me start with that last phrase, by which I meant all of us (humankind) living in peace and harmony in a productive way (yes, I can actually write stuff like that without wincing ;-)) -- I am not talking about us atheists/secularists living peacefully with the religious. So, I'll try to do a better job:
There is a bit from Howard Zinn that impressed me greatly... wait, Sean Gonsalves writes it up here: http://www.commondreams.org/ views01/0522-01.htm
That human beings have a collective history that includes a great (and increasing, if not monotonically) deal of fruitful co-existence is a fact that should stare any empirical thinker in the face on a constant basis. If such a thinker were to embark on a deductive project from first principles he bears a burden of proof rather than a position of privilege. If he wishes to offer an alternative to religion the confrontation is not so much on the grounds of "truth" (which is the way it is being played by the atheist left/ liberals) but on the grounds of working reality: how do we incorporate and enable those human activities and arrangements that have and continue to be productive?
For instance, you say:
> ... religious communities have many centuries of
> experience building associations; we can learn from
> their successes.
But what does learning mean, here? "Technique"? Offer free doughnuts and colourful imagery at the annual atheist convention? As the aphorism goes: nothing succeeds like success. Religious communities have success building associations because (again, among other things) that's what they are fundamentally (plus all the fancy stories, admonitions, gay-hating, etc), characteristics that have organically arisen based on evolutionary success.
The rest of your explication (making peace with our believing comrades, Dawkins, etc --- the difference crystallised in one episode from that dreary movie Borat, where the trivially clever Sasha Cohen makes many of us sympathise more with his courteous hosts than his crapbag packing character), is greatly agreeable, though not what I was trying to say.
--ravi