Hi PS,

You say: “religion might or might not have been quantified. But fact is, people do quantify it in real life.”

If you say so. All the same, I have no idea what that would mean. You say: “Even if only compared with mono-theism and atheism. Even if only with Darwin and 2000 year old phylosophical's genisis. Even if only stated as sense and nonsense.” None of those suggests anything quantitative, nor even really non-parametrically comparative. Having one god more means having that much religion more?

Do me a favour!  

You say : “So what is religion?” What indeed? And what is the “Habitual Assumption Bridge”, or the significance of “attitude according to group consent”? Particularly in respect of anything relevant to the definition of religion? Remember that, if on hearing your explanation of any such term, I feel no clearer on the meaning of religion, or how to distinguish it from non-religion, let alone know how or why to quantify it, it is of no value as a definition.   

OK, I have now read on and all I could glean from your “Habitual Assumption Bridge”. After a fair amount of re-reading and interpretation, all I got was that if you choose a course of action you implicitly choose the consequences. Did I interpret that correctly? If not, then what?

You say (if I interpret you correctly) that custom can outlive the usefulness of the behaviour patterns it prescribes (such as say, the need to avoid eating certain kinds of meat). Well, OK again. What does that have to do with religion? Certainly many religions have liturgy, sacraments, and rituals without compelling significance in our day, but how do any of those define the concept of religion? In my view they simply are behaviour patterns of no intellectual or moral significance greater than the steps of a formal dance. If they do nothing to persuade me of the rightness or the rewarding consequences of observing the imperatives of the doctrines, aphorisms, and rites, then why should I be interested? So far, I repeat: in particular, what does any of the likes of that have to do with religion, or for that matter, irreligion?

>I hope that clears up, in small part, what religion (according to me) is. Science in such is also part of it, as your assumption of one or the other might not be as rewarding in a social group, even if science itself isn't religion.<

I am afraid it does not.

>For reference of current view concerning religion and atheism, I refer to the to general public available Wikipedia.<

You also might find much valuable material at:

http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=religion+atheism

This includes a large number of sometimes excellent essays plus a fine search facility.

However, you might find it useful to contemplate the following as a start to developing a means of discriminating between science and religion. Notice that it does not imply that everything must be either science or religion. It says nothing about rightness or wrongness nor, necessarily, about ethics. It does not claim to be the only possible distinction, nor does it deal with the question of how one might go about finding or evaluating the usefulness of alternative distinctions, nor even supplementary distinctions. If you have any better ideas, good luck to you, but until you can get past the basic concepts of this distinction, I do not think that we have much basis for further discussion of the matter.

Firstly: the only attribute that I personally have found common all religions that I have considered, (with a few special aspects that we need not deal with here and now) is that each one includes certain implicit or explicit doctrines, dogmas, or articles of faith, call them what you will, that you must accept if you are to call yourself a member of that faith (or religion). For example, anyone claiming to be a Christian, and who denies any special significance to Christ, would have a hard time, in the light of his denial, persuading most people of his Christianity. I am sure that you could think of analogous tenets concerning the godhead of any other explicit religion. No matter how cleanly and logically you could poke holes in the doctrinal structure of any faith, your conclusions would not be acceptable within that effect. In fact, throughout the ages, and even in parts of the first world today, you could find it radically unhealthy to do so too persuasively nowadays. As Bertrand Russell once said: " The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell. " I am equally sure that if you sat down and thought about it you could think of all sorts of exceptions and arguments. Suit yourself. If with equal concentration you thought of extensions to the idea, you could resolve the contradictions yourself. I don't have time to do it here and now, and if I did I am sure that you would not have time to read it all.

Rather interestingly I think, science is the exact opposite. I do not say that this is a virtue or otherwise. The important thing about it is that (ignoring for the moment distinctions between formal disciplines, such as mathematics and logic on the one hand, and empirical science on the other) is concerned only with the formulation of meaningful propositions (or hypotheses if you prefer) and selection of the strongest of any given set of mutually incompatible hypotheses. In the event that practitioners of scientific activities disagree on the relative strength of rival hypotheses, whether on the basis of reasoning or evidence, then the only valid compulsion open to practitioners with mutually dissenting views, is to present available evidence and reasoning. If the opponent does not accept the evidence and reasoning, that is as far as it goes. He does not have to, and the proponent does not have to do anything else; unless he chooses to do so, in which case either or both parties can go off and prepare more evidence.

And what counts as evidence? When a given hypothesis incorrectly predict the behaviour of some aspect of the empirically observe world, we regard that as strong evidence. There are many other kinds of evidence, such as anecdotes, political speeches, and obsolete textbooks, but we hold them in lower esteem. They don't have to be wrong, please note, but they have been known to be.

And who, you should be asking by now, imposes these strict, almost monastic, mystical views?

No one. There is no compulsion upon anyone to be a "scientist" or to behave "scientifically". But if he does not, then how meaningful is it for him to claim to be acting scientifically? And if he does so claim, then whom will he convince? And what will it matter whether he convinces anyone or not?

And what is important about "science" or "scientific activity" if that is all there is to it?

Nothing whatsoever if you don't care about it.

One does observe however, from the point of view of the historian, that so far science has been so disproportionately powerful as the basis for discovery of the nature of the secular world, as to totally eclipse all rival alternatives, such as the pronouncements of superlatively wise men. Furthermore, discovery and understanding of the nature of the secular world has had consequences of great pitch and moment. To quote Russell once again: "We know very little, and yet it is astonishing that we know so much, and still more astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power."

Think about it. But don't confuse it with science, or scientific behaviour.

But don't undervalue it either.

Now PS, I hope you will forgive me if I bow out of this conversation until such time as you can show that we are talking about the same thing. I am sure you will agree that if we are not, then we both can spend our time more profitably than by speaking at cross purposes.

Go well,

Jon

My apologies. I see that I neglected to answer your question: "What does define and what causes religion and believes etc and what is the (social) function of it. Is it valid to assume that its function is to span the bridge what you can't know and can't spend the effort or energy to know?"

I have given you, if not the definition of religion, at least a diagnostic test for religious behaviour. Its function is another and larger subject, and not necessarily one that I am equipped to answer. In this I think that you have a large part of the answer. There is no doubt that the need for reassurance and certainty is a major factor. That is one of the reasons why people tend to fly into a rage when you question any of their tenets, why they believe the most ridiculous things, even when they are not logically necessary for their faith. For example, the Abrahamic faiths do not meaningfully have any logical requirement to oppose any aspect of branch of science, let alone say, evolution, but because some of their prominent apologists have at various times assumed that they knew it all, and their followers agreed, various sects have painted themselves into corners time and again.

The fact is that it is easier to browbeat and kill than to admit that anyone but one's religious leaders might know anything important, and as I said about "Infliction of cruelty with a good conscience" it also is more fun.

The social function varies. One function is simply domination. (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones  and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh) Other functions include wish-fulfilment and the need to belong.

And oh yes, the money... (See http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300851h.html )

I have seldom seen much more to it than that sort of thing, but if you have noticed anything, sure, let us know.