I appreciate your response. For a writer, worse than being reviled is being unread.
I was disappointed not to have more reaction to my observations, say, from mainstream denominations, but I guess they are too busy with bingo and such.
You seem to have a subtext that one should not contemplate religion if not religious. My graduate degree is not in theology, but I have an abiding interest in the eccentricities of world religions and cultural traditions. What one can learn from history has been a continuing hobby.
For instance, it is fascinating how archeologists have confirmed much of ancient physical history, and how Mithraism was an inspiration for virgin birth stories. And how Napoleon, ever curious, crossed the Red Sea in 1799, and so on.
But being apathetic is about people’s choice of odd beliefs; that’s their choice. But there is an interest in those beliefs. It’s more like an entomologist studying bugs. Interesting for intellectual curiosity’s sake, but one doesn’t want to BE a bug.
Selective references are fun and can go on forever, e.g., I’ll see your Anthony Flew and raise you Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. We learn from others, but in the end, we must have our own opinion.
And I recognize logical inconsistencies. To leap from an observation that people cling to religion to assuage their miserable lives to throwing them in the gulag is just silly. Or that a professor of engineering isn’t qualified to have religious opinions. This is the fallacy called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.
Quoting the Bible is a source of literary interest, but as an argument, it is another fallacy, that of Circular Reasoning: “It must be true, it’s in the Bible.” “What makes you think so?” “Because it’s in the Bible.”
I remember a psychology class where the professor observed Jesus came with a nice simple little message, and organized religion has built this grand superstructure all over it to the point of making the message all but disappear. Special clothing, incense and funny hats are good fun, but what’s the purpose beyond intimidation?
It is clear that man is entrepreneurial and religion is a good business. Probably the first priest appeared when the first man could hunt and gather enough for two. Christian religions alone probably have tens of thousands of denominations, all of which purport to be the one true faith.
“Of course mine is the true one; it’s mine!”
And the amazing part is all of them are telling their flocks there is an invisible man in an invisible place that requires an intermediary and won’t be happy unless they give them money.
Thanks for leading me, an ardent philologist, to a new word, Antiphons. To quote one of your co-religionist friends of mine, “There is always a tendency to ‘go through the ritual’ and not really focus on the message.” I guess the robotic nature of the exercise is what put me off.
So, don’t be perplexed, it’s just that the evidence isn’t convincing.