I have never liked the comparison that a person who has religious belief is infected with some sort of “virus.” I understand the logic and the eloquent explanation of those who hold this view. I don’t even like the explanation that it is a delusion even though this concept can be substantiated if you manipulate the definition of delusion to conform to the idea that religious practices are oppressive, insulting, and completely irrational, not to mention, man-made, therefore untrue.
I have found myself at times stating that religious beliefs are delusional, only to find that I am at odds with myself. I pushed these feelings aside for some time simply to conform to what many atheists believe. I think many atheists believe this simply because of the “God Delusion” by Dawkins. I think he coined the phrase in a masterful way to give a wake-up call to the absurdity of the belief systems of religious and the harm it can cause humanity. I am not arguing with the concepts that Dawkins wrote about, or even saying that he is wrong.
I do however believe profoundly differently. I take a sociological approach to religion. I think Max Weber got it right in his profound work, “The Sociology of Religion.” His historical analysis begins with a simple…very simple premise: People pursue their interests. Weber is an idealist like myself, (why I like him so much…) His approach to say that ideas are the major influence human action is spot on. Ann Swidler writes: “He does not argue that ideas always or necessarily influence action. He does try to understand variation in the influence of ideas on action.” From these building blocks, “he builds a powerful theory to explain why some kinds of cultural systems have much more influence on economic and political action than others do. He analyzes the critical historical contingencies that determine whether and how ideas guide action.” Furthermore, “Weber argues that once a religion is sufficiently “rationalized” – systematized and unified – its core religious ideas come to have a logic of their own.”
His Verstehen approach (interpretive) allows for a more empathetic, and participatory approach, (notice I did not say condoning approach) towards the understanding, of religion in general.
My own feelings towards the matter: I do not believe religion is a phenomenon we should be hostile towards. Religion is nothing more than a sociological concept. I do believe we should separate the phenomenon itself from the ideas and actions of the individuals who perpetuate, teach, and try to implement, or force into our society. The difference being that we can ultimately evaluate and see religion on an empathic basis rather, than a force to be eliminated.
Religion has evolved with us and through us and has formed much of what we see in culture today. The ideas and actions are what can be poisonous if used (or misused) to have power and control over another person(s), or entity. Just as we would take an approach to rid our society of an imbalance of power and control, (we already do this with other sociological problems such as domestic violence) we can also make a more positive impact politically and interpersonally. I believe the key to being heard and having a TRUE lasting impact, is to take a sociological approach to understanding, and to use this knowledge to rationalize and demonstrate why the atheist position is the more mature approach for humanity. It would seem to me that we might actually see a change in public (religious) opinion, persona, stereotype, and awareness of what atheist actually stand for.
Random, I realise, but I've been on the Atkins diet for one year now, and I have lost a total of 60 pounds - I'm almost at my target size. I have photographs as evidence, but critically, my doctor has been charting my progress with delight. My blood pressure has also dropped from 158/110 to 120/80 steadily, during the process. (I have already given my doctor permission to use my data any way he feels like, so if anyone really wants corroboration, it's available)
My wife has been on it for two months now and lost 30 pounds. She is close to her target weight. Frankly we don't actually care why it works - we just know it does.
Its why I started my post *random* - let's imagine you used a different example and it supported your statement. I'm never offended - it's too much effort!
Well, if you think that you are doing a good job cleaning your teeth by just brushing, then you are deluded. The cause of being deluded can vary, however.
It's kind of like the difference between being ignorant and being willfully ignorant. In both cases the person is ignorant, but one type is more egregious than the other.
I think what you did re: Atkins diet is commit the fallacy of "composition" where you take some cases (where some people—maybe most—got fatter on the diet) and assumed that it applied to all cases. I'm sure that ANY diet works for some people but not others. Obviously, it worked for Strega and her partner. Dieting just makes things worse for many people.
I see my doc about once every three months. We check my cholesterol levels alongside my thyroxine level (I have a very low thyroid function that requires 150mg thyroxine daily) and blood pressure. He has me on a low level statin (5mg) to keep things in check.
You are right that it isn't for everyone, but it does work for me, and the doc visits are important, I agree. I am not advocating it for everyone, but I did have to interject when I read the claim that it makes you fatter.
@Strega - how long before we get jpegs in bikinis?
You are SUCH a perv, you make other pervs pale in comparison :)