>Shane "That's why he wrote a book skewering Mother Teresa?"
>
>[WS:] This illustrates the problem of radical atheists, methinks.
>They replace one deity with an anti-deity and worship the latter by
>arduously denouncing any manifestation of the former.
>
>As I see it, religion is just a genre of literary fiction. By itself,
>it does not do anything. It all depends how people use it, just as it
>is the case of any other literary text. If they use it to get out of
>depression or to find motivation to help those who need help - it is a
>good thing. If they use it to brainwash people and pave the way for
>an authoritarian right wing power to take over - it a bad thing. But
>in the latter case, attacking religion is like dog biting the stick
>that hits him instead of going for the throat of the man who wields
>the stick. Put bullets through the heads of reactionary political
>leaders who use religion as a tool for their causes and leave Mother
>Theresas alone. As far as theological debates are concerned, they are
>just another form of literary criticism - sometimes entertaining,
>mostly boring.
You seem to share with the radical atheists a fundamental misunderstanding of what religion is. You seem to think that "deity-worship" is the central element.
However that is not the case. Actually, I seem to recall that some religions don't even have a God, or Gods, as such. Not all religions believe in an after-life, as such.
in accordance with historic materialist principles, we must surely assume that a human practice which is as long-lasting and widespread as religion must have, or at least have had, a very crucial function. And it did, or does, it has performed the most fundamental function in human society.
The myths and magic are mere trivial window dressing to this vital function of religion. A mere bagatelle. Yet like children the likes of Hitchens and that other twit Dawkins are so dazzled by this trifling aspect of religion that they think this is the whole thing.
Frankly I would have expected a bit better of you. I have always admired your perspicasity. Yet you seem to accept this without question.
To summarise, religion is the method by which human societies, from time immemorial, have passed their culture from generation to generation. All the important customs, knowledge and belief of a particular society must be passed on, for a human culture to survive. And for most of human history and pre-history religion was patently the most (if not the only) successful method of doing this.
The magic and the deities and the other beliefs contained in any particular religion are not the important thing. They are the contents of the package, they are not the package. Religion is a *method*, a *technology* in a manner of speaking, of passing on our knowledge and culture to future generations. It is a dogmatic method because, presumably, material conditions dictated that this was the only or at least the best way to get the job done. We are only now, in the last hundred years perhaps, even able to dimly conceive of a different technology for performing this crucial function.
As historical materialists, I think we have to acknowledge that only when material conditions permit, only when a superior method or technology is available, and practical, is social change conceivable. Only then can religion, the dogmatic method of passing our culture from generation to generation, be superceded.
But in the meantime, let's not make fools of ourselves by failing to recognise religion for what it is.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell tas