BTW, I got the link to appear via email: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninian_Smart

Professor Roderick Ninian Smart (6 May 1927–29 January 2001) was a Scottish writer and university educator. He is considered by many to have been a pioneer in the field of secular religious studies.

Experience – “Religious experience”, very non-ordinary
Social – More than one person claiming Experience
Narrative – Story of Experience for later participants
Doctrinal – Beliefs, must be rational and logical within entire system
Ethical – Behaviours that correspond to beliefs
Ritual – Repeated access to Experience
Material – Material manifestation for participants

Atheism and Humanism fit into about four of them, but they fit more of what I listed for society.

According to M. D. Faber’s The Psychological Roots of Religious Belief, although we are born free of religious inclinations, widespread belief in a personal God has its roots in our early childhood development. In infancy, for instance, a child relies on his or her seemingly omnipotent caregiver (a “proto-deity”) to supplicate cries (“proto-prayer”) for nourishment and care. The child is consequently primed to map this process onto a religious narrative complete with its Parent-God. By promoting a religious narrative early on, religious institutions lay the groundwork for religious belief by exploiting an essentially subconscious process before a child has fully developed the ability to reason. None of us are quite “wired for God,” however; the existence of nonbelievers testifies to the possibility of accepting alternative narratives by the time one is exposed to religious ones.

Mind you, this is only a book review and not a section out of the book.

Ok everything else deals with what I said before about religious ideology being a symptom of mental illness. Note: Mental illness is an extreme of the norm. So, any extreme of anything, even religion, can be a symptom of mental illness. IF we were to take religion out of society, would it still be a symptom of mental illness? That’s just something to ponder for those of us who understand psychology, sociology and alike.

Child Development (copyright 1994):

This is where the family unit comes into play. One of the functions of family is to “perform vital services for the society of which it is a part of” and each of the following functions “must be” carried out for a society to survive:

1. reproduction
2. economic services
3. social order: Procedures must exist for reducing conflict and maintaining orderly conduct.
4. socialization: The young must be trained by mature members to become competent, participating members of society.
5. emotional support: Procedures must exist for binding individuals together, harmonizing their goals, dealing with emotional crises, and fostering a sense of commitment and purpose in each person.

Over the years institutions developed to assist with certian functions, and familiest became linked to larger social structures. One them being religious institutions. “Religious institutions supplemented both child-rearing and emotional-support functions by offering family members educational services and set of common beliefs that enhanced their sense of purpose and shared goals (Lerner, Spanier, & Belsky, 1982).”

Again, religion is a social creation to unify, create conformity, and shared values/beliefs. It is once again a cultural invention. Religion is not inate to the human being, but rather an indocternation of shared beliefs for a society. Start at an early age and you instill conformity of the young to the society in which they are being raised.

Religion and Basic Values (in summery):

The cultural religion brought over in the early centuries of the U.S. were primarily English and Protestant- Quaker, Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregationalists and Separatists, Puritan, and Baptist is what they list. They helped to form Separation of Church and State, but the English dominance decreased Catholic, Jewish, and other religions. So, religion is very cultural.

“Puritanism was important in establishing the “Protestant work ethic” at the center of the value system. Idleness was regarded as a sin. So again, it is cultural and the culture is Anglo-Protestant. Not the Roman Culture or we’d all be Catholic and affiliated with Rome, not Britian. Or if we were an Islamic nation we’d be affiliated with the Middle East. OR if the Indians had been lucky enough to colonize the U.S., we’d be various sects of Hindus. The list continues, but it shows that religion is very much a human creation, cultural, and societal.

It speaks of how the Roman Catholic Church has been very important to Italian Americans. It also discusses the religious cultural aspects of Judaism too. Again this is cultural.

Long story short with this book: Religion is made up of society’s cultural norms.

Therefore, religion itself has nothing to do with morals, but rather one’s culture. It is a human creation to control society. So, we could all be atheists and still have many social norms without any established religion. Religion or a belief in a deity has nothing to do with anything except one’s cultural background.

Up next Abnormal Psychology (Copyright 1994)

OK not the one I was reading, but the Adjustment and Growth text book (copyright page is missing, but I took this class in the early 90s) has a whole section called “One Nation Under Gods” and is discussing the U.S.

In summery, it says “The U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the world (no surprise). Religion is one of the shapers of human beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. People’s religions refect and contribute to human nature. They (religions) not only provide a sense of people’s place in the universe and moral codes of conduct, they also provide traditions which help people adjust to life cycle events such as birth, marriage, and death.”

So it is very social and the Humanists are not too far off when they say religion fills a social need, thus the Humanist ministers provide Naming Services, marriages, and Funeral celebrations because they are important social events and life passages for the human(s).

The Racial and Ethnic Relations (copyright 1996) has many pages on it, so give me time to summerize it in another post. I’m sure you don’t want the many pages typed here.