The Harm of Belief in God

[Zinegata]

Does it suggest anything to you, that you have to invent your own meanings for words in order to try and keep your argument staggering along?

If you have anything resembling a functional argument you should be able to prosecute it using the accepted meanings for words that the rest of us are using. I don't see any reason that you should get to twist definitions for your convenience.

Yeah, it suggests to me that some people have an axe to grind.

I defined faith and ignorance very specifically, because they're rather general terms open to wide interpretation. This was done as I was attempting to isolate the mechanics of how one can both believe in God and evolution at the same time.

And yet... I'm getting responses that quite simply ignore the definition I said, and bring up stuff like "Catholic Dogma is not compatible with evolution!", despite the fact that's not what I'm even arguing about.

If you're gonna complain about "twisting definitions", you should have done so when I made them. Not responded with something that is, in fact, unrelated.

Or, better yet, come up with a better word for that I'm describing. What is belief in something despite knowing there is a gap in information? Faith? A hunch? A guess?

Because if you're saying my definition is wrong, then what is the correct one?

[Ghost Rider]

So by using a subjective definition of words and going "the dictionary is not the meaning I am using" Zinegata is shifting goalposts because he cannot be wrong, others must be. Because we are not using the definition laid out by him, for his purposes.

Truly one of the tenets of a Wall of Ignorance.

EDIT: To add a point because idiots are spewing faith and science while igoring the point of meaning of science is the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

and faith is

1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Think about it. If someone is faithful to science, they are trusting of it, but if they are then doing it wrong since science asks them to question it. Religion allows no questions towards faith, just unswerving belief that a higher power then yourself is correct.

[Channel72]

Look, guys - this is pointless. Zinegata is explicitly not trying to say that any particular religion is reconcilable with science. He's just saying that a general belief in God can be reconcilable with a scientific worldview, without any cognitive dissonance.

Therefore, what I'm trying to reconcile is science, with the general idea of a Higher Power.

So what he's saying is basically correct. Science does nothing to explicitly rule out a God. A belief in God can be labeled as fundamentally pointless, since God is certainly not a parsimonious explanation for any observed fact. But if someone simply has faith, for whatever reason, that there is, in fact, a God somewhere, then this particular belief is not at odds with any observation or scientific theory. It's simply an unnecessary belief.

For example, Deism is completely reconcilable with science. It doesn't provide a parsimonious cosmology, but it's not contradicted by any scientific fact or observation. So there's really nothing to argue about here.

Note to Zinegata: it helps to really be clear about what you're arguing. If you claim something like "faith is reconcilable with science", most people are going to interpret that as meaning [insert my particular religious sect here] is reconcilable with science.

[Zinegata]

So by using a subjective definition of words and going "the dictionary is not the meaning I am using" Zinegata is shifting goalposts because he cannot be wrong, others must be. Because we are not using the definition laid out by him, for his purposes.

Truly one of the tenets of a Wall of Ignorance.

No sir. Again, I am asking you, if "Faith" and "Ignorance" are the incorrect terms, then how would you define:

Belief in something even though you don't have enough information to prove it true.

Belief in something because you were given wrong information.

If the answer is "no terms exist", then I will drop using the words faith and ignorance and instead use these entire phrases from hereon out.

Also, to be perfectly honest, I have no idea what is "Wall of Ignorance"? Clearly, it's meant to be some kind of insult, but to be blunt I don't think you were interested in actually debating anyway, given that you dropped the morality tangent entirely despite you starting it.

[Zinegata]

Note to Zinegata: it helps to really be clear about what you're arguing. If you claim something like "faith is reconcilable with science", most people are going to interpret that as meaning [insert my particular religious sect here] is reconcilable with science.

Thanks. I think I learned my lesson and will just use whole and complete phrases from now on that leave little room for misinterpretation.

[Zinegata]

Zinegata, the phrase Wall of Ignorance describes a debating tactic in which one's interlocutor basically ignores any information or construct that undermines their argument, and proceeds to repeat themselves as though nothing had been presented to them that requires a response.

While it's not exactly an insult, it's not exactly a compliment, either.

Ah. Okay. Like I said, I probably worded my initial argument rather poorly and should have just stuck with the whole phrases (rather than saying it's faith and ignorance), because then it would have closed the door for anyone who is simply talking about faith and ignorance in general terms, as opposed to the specific aspects which I was focusing on.

My bad.

[Surlethe]

Aranfan's tangent split.

Enough chatty bullshit from the rest of you. If you want to sip drinks and lean back, take it to Testing.

[Metahive]

So what he's saying is basically correct. Science does nothing to explicitly rule out a God.

Which is really a near bloody useless observation considering science doesn't categorically rule out a great many other things either, namely all those for which there, like gods, exist no evidence whatsoever for a start. Belief in god doesn't contradict science? Well, neither does belief in the invisible, intangible showboat gremlin of Me-gas-tu. So what?

Being forced to define god pretty much out of the universe just to make sure it doesn't collide with scientific observation is just a declaration of defeat for the apologists in my opinion. What do they achieve by doing so? "Yeah, God exists, but in a way that makes it indistinguishable from non-existence" Such deities are not worshiped by any religion for a good reason and I pretty much think that they shouldn't be even given the god-label in the first place since they differ so much from the traditional idea, an anthropomorph, sentient guiding force in/of the universe.

Any religion that doesn't want to make itself irrelevant and isn't evidence based will collide with science sooner or later.

[Maj]

So why is it so hard for you to grasp that religion can be harmful?

Have I denied it? Of course religion can be harmful. So can traditions, political beliefs, hammers... But that's a far cry from saying that it's so badwrong that it should be completely eliminated. Or that humanity would be better off without it.

Last I checked, Mormons (being a subset of Christianity) still obeyed "thou shalt not have any god before me". Indignation doesn't change that.

Some help: Inactive means I don't go to church. "Mormon" means that at some point in my life, I was baptized.

Now, if you want to claim that you don't in fact believe in God or the church or any of that shit, why the fuck are you so defensive about it? Serious question. I'm not making any unreasonable assumptions here.

What a curious question... Why would I be able to say nice things about an organization whose beliefs I don't entirely share (I do share some, though my concept of God isn't one of them)?

I have a lot of respect for the Mormon church. Despite the fact that I don't believe a lot of what the church says, that doesn't mean that they haven't influenced me in ways that I consider really good. And when someone pulls off an amazing knee-jerk response founded on nothing but complete and utter bullshit, I'm not going to be entirely quiet about it.

Maj has a point. Religion does not necessarily make people do bad things. They may use it to justify doing bad things, but even rational science can twisted and used to justify commiting evil acts too. To say that every religious person is an intolerant, book-burning extremist, is to also say that every person who believes in evolution believes in eugenics and genocide.

Its not that she's defending evolution-- its that she's trying to act like its a moral authority.

I'm not deliberately trying to do that. Seriously, how can Evolution tell people how to act?

I've always accepted Evolution as a theory, but nothing made me behold the power of it as much as giving birth. The experience was so powerful that I can't even put it into words, but the net result is that I ask why a lot more. Some of those questions are easy to understand, but others aren't. And one of those questions is: Why do people believe weird and wacky shit?

Believing weird and wacky stuff is not the domain of a minority of people - it's the domain of most people across history. If it's accepted that people on this forum don't also believe weird and wacky stuff, then it seems to me that disbelieving takes one hell of a lot of hard work and effort.

So why do people believe it? I don't really know... But I wish I did, and there are lots of people - scientists included - who want to know, too.

Until then, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water and declare belief in wierd and wacky shit to be stupid, wrong, completely harmful, whatever. I'm totally willing to compromise, however, and say that some people who believe weird and wacky shit may be stupid, and/or wrong, and/or dangerous.

Both [Science and Religion] however try to explain the same thing, reality.

I actually don't really see that. Religion - in my mind, at least - deals with questions like "What's our purpose?" or "Why are we here?" Science doesn't touch those. Further, Religion, especially of the organized variety - again, in my mind - was also the origin of systems meant to enable people to live together. It dealt with questions like "Is killing a bad thing to do?" or "Reasons why you shouldn't screw your best friend's wife." Again, those aren't the realm of Science.

And that's why religion and science can, in fact, co-exist.

Religion and Science have coexisted for millennia. It's only been relatively recently that people believe they can't.

Given these conundrums, and the Confucianism thing, I think I have to take a step back and look at this from a more basic angle:

What is religion?

[Liberty]

What is religion?

Funny, I just spent a whole hour in a religious studies class discussing just that.

[Formless]

Have I denied it? Of course religion can be harmful. So can traditions, political beliefs, hammers... But that's a far cry from saying that it's so badwrong that it should be completely eliminated. Or that humanity would be better off without it.

When there is an AIDS epidemic that the RCC is making worse through propaganda and sheer lies? I don't expect to change your mind on this, but frankly I think my position is quite justified.

Edit: I should probably also mention that this is on top of local superstitions, and IIRC you get folk beliefs about HIV/AIDS and how to prevent it that just don't work.

ome help: Inactive means I don't go to church. "Mormon" means that at some point in my life, I was baptized.

So was I. In fact, I was even Confirmed into the RCC. Do I call myself a Catholic? Not unless the person I'm talking to is one of those few people like certain family members I have deemed better off not telling otherwise. I certainly don't identify as a Catholic. Do you see where I'm coming from yet? You were being too vague, so you shouldn't be surprised that I jumped to conclusions about what you believe.

What a curious question... Why would I be able to say nice things about an organization whose beliefs I don't entirely share (I do share some, though my concept of God isn't one of them)?

I have a lot of respect for the Mormon church. Despite the fact that I don't believe a lot of what the church says, that doesn't mean that they haven't influenced me in ways that I consider really good. And when someone pulls off an amazing knee-jerk response founded on nothing but complete and utter bullshit, I'm not going to be entirely quiet about it.

You could have spared us both a lot of grief if you just said so in the first place rather than get upset about it. When someone says they are a christian or a mormon or any other faith I think I am justified to assume they hold certain tenants of those faiths until told otherwise. For example, you say you don't share the mormon conception of God, but that statement implies that you do believe in God. Do you understand?

Until then, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water and declare belief in wierd and wacky shit to be stupid, wrong, completely harmful, whatever. I'm totally willing to compromise, however, and say that some people who believe weird and wacky shit may be stupid, and/or wrong, and/or dangerous.

Fine. Personally, I think its better to keep weird and wacky shit in the annals of fiction where it belongs (hey, I am an SF fan, so don't think I'm trying to diss weird and wacky shit), but I guess there we will have to disagree.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Have I denied it? Of course religion can be harmful. So can traditions, political beliefs, hammers... But that's a far cry from saying that it's so badwrong that it should be completely eliminated. Or that humanity would be better off without it.

Unless there are hidden benefits, then yes, humanity would be better without it.

[Sela]

@Maj:

I believe that people believe weird and wacky shit as you put it for a very sensible, though not quite demonstrable reason: evolution.

Look up the "Monte Carlo Fallacy" on wikipedia for some fun reading later.


Basically the idea is this: Human beings have evolved over time and one of the chief selection criteria has been our ability to see patterns. If our ancient ancestors thought they saw a rustle in the bushes there were four possibilities:

A1.) They would not notice a visual pattern or not make an association (subconciously). Since there was nothing there.
A2.) They would not notice a pattern/make association even though there WAS a tiger there.
B1.) They would notice a pattern even though there was NO tiger!
B2.) They WOULD notice a pattern, and tell its a tiger.

In the case of B1 and B2, they run. In the case of A1 and A2, they sit around. In the case of A2, they die; in all other cases, they live. As such, those who were best at seeing patterns *period* would last longer. Furthermore, there was not nearly as much of a selection criteria AGAINST seeing patterns that did not exist.

Additionally, there's the issue of selective analysis of data. In nature, there aren't many things (this is a layperson's analysis, so if I'm wrong please correct me here) which are purely stochastically random. Rather, the range of probabilities tend to be mostly stable over a period of time, and then change with changing environmental conditions. The odds of seeing a white-furry rabbit in winter are pretty good, the odds of seeing the same species in the summer less-so. A better example: say there are 500 trees in a forest which would work well as firewood. Odds are good they'll be spaced out but nearer to each other; so someone who believes that any given square foot has equal probability as the last to contain a tree is likely going to not last as long as someone who instinctively thinks of it as "the less trees i've seen the more 'unlucky' my odds of finding the next.' As such it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that those who thought in terms of absolute probabilities with all outcomes assorting individiually would be selected against in favor of those who instinctively expected things based on their previous experience. And nowadays casino's can exploit the average gambler to their hearts content based on this.

Fastforward several hundred years - and you still see that those who believed a bunch of false associations as well as a few correct ones came out ahead most the time. Old wives tales are great examples - since the ones that last the longest usually had some associated truth (like not eating dairy with fish; when nowadays we know that certain types of poorly pastuerized dairy react horribly with the bacteria seen on some fish).


That's my take on belief. Throughout our history, there is a definite BIOLOGICAL impetus to believe things and to form connections whether or not they're true. It is only recently that this is proving to be a massive problem, since most people have to unlearn that instinct before they have a shot at really objectively analyzing things.

[Maj]

Funny, I just spent a whole hour in a religious studies class discussing just that.

So what conclusions did you come to?

When there is an AIDS epidemic that the RCC is making worse through propaganda and sheer lies?

The RCC isn't religion. It's a religion. One of many across thousands of years. Catholicism isn't Religion, or even Christianity. It's just Catholicism.

So was I. In fact, I was even Confirmed into the RCC. Do I call myself a Catholic? Not unless the person I'm talking to is one of those few people like certain family members I have deemed better off not telling otherwise. I certainly don't identify as a Catholic. Do you see where I'm coming from yet? You were being too vague, so you shouldn't be surprised that I jumped to conclusions about what you believe.

And see, here's where I sort of have a catch-22. The post where I declared that I was an inactive Mormon happened to be a post wherein I was discussing Mormonism as it applied to a book. So I had to pull out the religious credential in order to justify speaking with some measure of authority on the topic.

But I did mention there that I was no longer an active member of the church, which should have meant enough to at least ask before the assumption.

And on top of that, you hit one of my personal trigger buttons: Being told what I think. You have no way of knowing that's part of what triggered the fight that made me leave home a decade ago.

When someone says they are a christian or a mormon or any other faith I think I am justified to assume they hold certain tenants of those faiths until told otherwise.

See, that's where you and I differ. My major in college was in comparative religion, specifically the Abrahamic traditions. During my studies, I realized that even though people may go to church and claim a denomination, beliefs are surprisingly varied. Some people attend church for social benefits. Some go because they're being nice to their spouses. Some go because they feel good there, but don't entirely believe.

For example, you say you don't share the mormon conception of God, but that statement implies that you do believe in God. Do you understand?

I understand your words. And I feel like I do believe in God, but what I call God - for lack of a better term - is an omnipresent, non-sentient, non-potent idontknowwhat. Which makes me largely pantheistic, I do believe.

I don't know how to resolve that in a discussion - especially in a discussion where my personal beliefs are not the topic at hand, yet are the targets of attacks.

That's my take on belief.

<nod> Interesting read.

Right now, I'm reading a lot of stuff that relates to this topic, but I can't read it fast enough to keep up with real life and this thread. Maybe once I get further into the books, I'll have more to debate with.

[Liberty]

Funny, I just spent a whole hour in a religious studies class discussing just that.

So what conclusions did you come to?

Nothing conclusive. Since I'm studying religion for my profession (or rather, religious history), I want to put a lot more thought into it before I come up with my definition.

The definition in the book we were looking (Albanese) at defined religion as "a system of symbols (creed, code, cultus) by means of which people (a community) orient themselves in the world with reference to both ordinary and extraordinary powers, meanings, and values." By this definition, EVERYONE has religion.

Albanese also differentiates between ordinary and extraordinary religion. Ordinary religion is analogous to civil religion (see this image: http://www.abbeville.com/interiors.asp? ... nNumber=04, or culture. Extraordinary religion involves the belief in the divine, or supernatural.

Like I said, I'm still trying to think through just what religion is. This may seem stupid, but it's important to think this through (for me with my profession, anyway). It's not as simple as it might seem.

[Formless]

The RCC isn't religion. It's a religion. One of many across thousands of years. Catholicism isn't Religion, or even Christianity. It's just Catholicism

I did give a fairly comprehensive list of evils both past and present that were or are being caused by religion on the last page. That's just the most dramatic, modern day example I can think of that doesn't violate the IvP moratorium.

What is religion?

Here's a fairly neutral definition I think we can all agree on:

An organized belief system that involves the worship, veneration, or faith in a supernatural power.

Note that this definition does not necessitate having an institution to organize it under. It does not exclude folk beliefs per say, as long as they and the associated traditions, concepts, and so on are sufficiently regular throughout the population. Many do not, so they would be relegated into "general belief in the supernatural". It also does not conflate philosophy, cultural tradition, and other such things with religion as Liberty's textbook does.

Of course, all definitions are going to have exceptions or blurry areas: this is just the best I can think of off the top of my head.

[Sela]

What constitutes a supernatural power - for the purpose of discussion - Formless? I mean, would we consider Jainism or a belief in an omnipresent 'life-force' . .. or Tao. . . a religion? How about "The Force"? The way of the Jedi definitely doesn't come across as a religion to me (although it's canonically stated to be such).

I don't have a better counter-definition. My working definition (read: in my head) for religion is how one chooses to allow belief/faith in that which is disjoint/not-directly-corroborated by evidence/reality affect their lives. I further define reality in this context as 'that which does not go away if we stop believing in it'. Thing I like about this definition is it includes everyone - even atheists. It also gets at what - to me - is the crux of religion: What it makes you DO.

[Sela]

Ghetto Edit: Forget what I just said - I realized upon re-reading it it was pointless and self-contradictory .

[Formless]

That's alright, I agree that "(super)natural" is something hard to define in itself. Some people might suggest that "natural" and "real" are synonyms, but in practice I think most people would understand what a supernatural power would look like even if a definition can't be articulated. "Tao", "the Force", and "Karma" would all certainly qualify, I think.

[Maj]

Nothing conclusive.

What makes it so difficult?

The definition in the book we were looking (Albanese) at defined religion as "a system of symbols (creed, code, cultus) by means of which people (a community) orient themselves in the world with reference to both ordinary and extraordinary powers, meanings, and values." By this definition, EVERYONE has religion.

Well, looking at other uses of the word, if someone does something "religiously," it means they're consistent and conscientious about doing it. So I guess that everyone having religion shouldn't be that much of a stretch.

Albanese also differentiates between ordinary and extraordinary religion. Ordinary religion is analogous to civil religion (see this image: http://www.abbeville.com/interiors.asp? ... nNumber=04, or culture. Extraordinary religion involves the belief in the divine, or supernatural.

Is there an explanation of why she does this?

Like I said, I'm still trying to think through just what religion is. This may seem stupid, but it's important to think this through (for me with my profession, anyway). It's not as simple as it might seem.

One of the best classes I ever took was a philosophical and psychological look at Evil. By the end of the quarter, we still didn't have any sort of consensus as to what Evil actually was. You'll get no objections from me to being thoughtful in your definitions.

I did give a fairly comprehensive list of evils both past and present that were or are being caused by religion on the last page. That's just the most dramatic, modern day example I can think of that doesn't violate the IvP moratorium.

I went back a few pages and saw Hitler (nominally Catholic), the Inquisition (Catholic), and the Crusades (Catholic). Looking a little harder, I also got Galileo (Catholic), the KKK (Christian), Intelligent Design (Christian), and Manifest Destiny (Arguably not religious, but the originator of the term was some form of Christian). Oh, and witch hunts were mentioned somewhere, too (Christian).

So looking at that list, about half of the crimes against humanity attributed to Religion are Catholic, with the remainder being Christian. From where I sit, that looks remarkably like anti-Christian bigotry disguised as intellectual disavowal of the vileness of Religion.

Since I don't want to attribute anti-Christian bigotry to you (unless it's true), I think that perhaps giving some more examples of other religions' atrocities - especially not of the Big Three - would be a good way of bolstering your case.

On a personal note, I am very interested in any atrocities that were not committed in the name of Religion - mostly for a base line.

Of course, all definitions are going to have exceptions or blurry areas: this is just the best I can think of off the top of my head.

I have some concerns with this definition. The biggest problem I have is that it doesn't take into account personal experience. By your definition, anyone who has an affiliation with a denomination can be considered religious, even if their motivations aren't directly inspired by their religion. My personal understanding of the Inquisition - though I'm not so attached to it that I'll defend it to the death - is that it was mostly motivated by money and power, despite the claim of abolishing heresy. While I'm not willing to say the Catholic church was entirely innocent in the matter, I can't entirely attribute the Inquisition to Religion, either.

I'm totally willing to say that someone like Joan of Arc was motivated by her religion. That's a clear case of an individual's belief in God and personal religious experience guiding their actions. But a lot of of situations are not motivated by God - they just use God as a flag because everyone knows who he is.

[Formless]

Since I don't want to attribute anti-Christian bigotry to you (unless it's true), I think that perhaps giving some more examples of other religions' atrocities - especially not of the Big Three - would be a good way of bolstering your case.

You missed the part where I lambasted the Hindu cast system for creating a self-perpetuating class of poor people. And the three cults I mentioned (Scientology, Jim Jones, and Aum Shinrikyo). And of course my arguments against more general superstitions like homeopathic medicine. The three Abrahamic faiths do have far more crimes to their names than most of the other religions of the world, but then that shouldn't be surprising considering that they are so widespread and powerful politically. If the Greek or Roman religions were still around we'd likely be discussing the oppression of Jews and Christians by the Empire in the name of Zeus/Jupiter. But they aren't, so we don't.

So no, its not bigotry against Christianity. They've just made themselves a nice target over the ages.

I have some concerns with this definition. The biggest problem I have is that it doesn't take into account personal experience. By your definition, anyone who has an affiliation with a denomination can be considered religious, even if their motivations aren't directly inspired by their religion. My personal understanding of the Inquisition - though I'm not so attached to it that I'll defend it to the death - is that it was mostly motivated by money and power, despite the claim of abolishing heresy. While I'm not willing to say the Catholic church was entirely innocent in the matter, I can't entirely attribute the Inquisition to Religion, either.

I'm totally willing to say that someone like Joan of Arc was motivated by her religion. That's a clear case of an individual's belief in God and personal religious experience guiding their actions. But a lot of of situations are not motivated by God - they just use God as a flag because everyone knows who he is.

Well, I'm a Pragmatist, so when I call it a belief system there is the inherent implication that people are willing and motivated to act on these beliefs. So our understanding of religion isn't so different as you might think. For example, on the other side of my family everyone is only really nominally religious, and in practice it would probably be best to consider them indifferent to religion. (they will still tell you they are christian if you ask, though)

[Kanastrous]

That's alright, I agree that "(super)natural" is something hard to define in itself. Some people might suggest that "natural" and "real" are synonyms, but in practice I think most people would understand what a supernatural power would look like even if a definition can't be articulated. "Tao", "the Force", and "Karma" would all certainly qualify, I think.

It doesn't impress me as being difficult to define, at all. A supernatural power is a power than can cause effects to occur that violate natural laws, for example an isolated system within which entropy decreases, or a pair of free electrons net-attracting one another, or more biblically the sun standing still in the sky, or a woman developing and delivering a full-term healthy pregnancy without ever having had an egg fertilized by anyone's sperm.

[Sela]

By that logic we are supernatural since we have repeatedly broken what we once deemed 'natural law'. Err..perhaps it's better rephrased as we are not capable of being able to tell what a supernatural being is or isn't.

And human parthenogenesis, while certainly seemingly unprecedented and unproven, is not a violation of natural laws.


Also, your definition of supernatural does not include those (believed) phenomenon that manifest themselves in ways that concur with natural laws. Not that I object to such a definition, mind, but would you then say that Karma - the idea that what good you do and what bad you do will all come back to shape your life - is not supernatural since it always demonstrates itself via natural means? Or what of theistic evolution? Almost by definition non-contradictory with what we know of natural laws and yet definitely ascribing a supernatural agency to it.

[Formless]

Not that I object to such a definition, mind, but would you then say that Karma - the idea that what good you do and what bad you do will all come back to shape your life - is not supernatural since it always demonstrates itself via natural means? Or what of theistic evolution? Almost by definition non-contradictory with what we know of natural laws and yet definitely ascribing a supernatural agency to it.

Karma is more than that: it first of all rests on the notion of reincarnation (being a Hindu belief, after all) and second it says that the way good or bad deeds affect your afterlife will be an extrinsic punishment or reward, respectively. This requires a supernatural agency, because frankly people can go their whole lives without seeing a single good deed rewarded or a bad deed punished.

As for Theistic evolution it actually does involve supernatural agency, because it asserts that evolution is being "guided" by some kind of intelligence (rather than the purely naturalistic, mechanical model science teaches).

[Liberty]

Nothing conclusive.

What makes it so difficult?

If I'm going to spend my life studying the history of religion, I really need to make sure I know what religion is. This means I need to think it through and determine what definition I think is best. This takes time, and I don't want to be hasty. And I'm also taking three graduate seminars at the moment, which takes time, and balancing the needs of my husband and small child (not to mention the dishes, the shopping, the laundry, and, oh yeah, the 12 baby mice we have because the pet store apparently can't tell between male and female mice). That's why I haven't gotten it completely thought through yet. Somehow I never thought about needing to think it through until this semester, and this very provocative graduate seminar. And now I feel dumb for taking it for granted and not thinking it through before!

Albanese also differentiates between ordinary and extraordinary religion. Ordinary religion is analogous to civil religion (see this image: http://www.abbeville.com/interiors.asp? ... nNumber=04, or culture. Extraordinary religion involves the belief in the divine, or supernatural.

Is there an explanation of why she does this?

Well, we do have sets of codes, creeds, etc, by which our society lives. We celebrate state holidays, we have a national mythology, etc. These things are all strangely similar to religion...except that they do not involve the supernatural. And hence she coins the term "ordinary religion."

Like I said, I'm still trying to think through just what religion is. This may seem stupid, but it's important to think this through (for me with my profession, anyway). It's not as simple as it might seem.

One of the best classes I ever took was a philosophical and psychological look at Evil. By the end of the quarter, we still didn't have any sort of consensus as to what Evil actually was. You'll get no objections from me to being thoughtful in your definitions.

Exactly.

If you have any questions about American religious history, feel free to ask. It's what I'm studying, after all!