Now that’s irrational, “fruit off the poisoned tree”, potential to color every conclusion etc.
A more reasonable approach would be to study the actual religious group’s beliefs, by-laws, study the output of the communities. In short, treat the societies scientifically rather than using an aphorism or a dogma-as-heuristic.
Meeting-with-laughter is entirely irrational. As comedy routine? Sure. As a serous position? Hardly.
There are a number of reasons so called new atheism isn’t taken seriously.
You’re restricting to tenets. I’m looking at social structures as they exist.
Forest vs seeds planted long ago.
Within religious there is a diversity of mix between reason and faith.
The “faith alone” is ridiculous. So, what’s left? A lot of it.
The pure dichotomy you present is only useful in “faith alone” systems. Most combine faith and secular.
But if you never take the effort to learn what makes religions different and lump them all as “faith alone”, you’ll never know that.
Among Christianity, Faith Alone is a distinguishing feature found in some theologies and not others.
“Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also known as justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine that distinguishes the Lutheran and Reformed branches of Protestant Christianity, as well as some other denominations, from the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and some parts of the Restoration Movement, as well as the Methodist Churches.”
I was raised Methodist and found “faith alone” to be ridiculous because I was taught it was ridiculous.
So for you to ask me to defend faith alone and I can’t because I never believed it.
If it’s not in the way, why remove it? It’s not like there’s many good purely secular replacements for community and tradition out there. This is a common complaint among atheists who want fellowship and tradition and can’t find it. This is one of the reasons why a pure untainted position can be a lonely one. More moderate atheists and agnostics can go to Unitarian or other groups that ask little or nothing out of them in the faith dept but where they can find community.
Community and mindfulness are precisely the worthy parts of religion and why eradication is hasty.
Muslim’s got the Sufi choice. There’s various esoterica in some Christianity, esp Orthodox and Catholic. There’s basic humanism lessons in liberal Christian protestant groups, mostly on the left to left center of the spectrum.
As far as the religious groups on the right? Zap ‘em. Toxic. They mix politics and religion and miss the point of the teachings most of the time.
I don’t care if moderate religion stays forever. There’s a lack of evidence of any large scale healthy entirely non-religious communities for common people out there, unless they surround a cause of some kind.
It might not even be possible to create purely secular communities that you propose that have any multigenerational lasting.
I once wrote up plans for a purely scientific church once. Education and factual with songs and rituals and things. Would I do it? Probably not, but it was a fun exercise.
Think: WHY do people gather as they do for such things? One strong reason that’s even beyond mindfuless (although it could be considered a part of it, but I think it’s on the outside of it) : is gratitude.
Can you be grateful that systems generally function?
I think so.
I’m grateful. “Who” am I grateful to? Doesn’t need a name or personality. I’m just glad. I might not exist and oops, I do.
[I’m not purporting “Random Chance” as my godhead with the “oops” btw. It was just a quick example]
I’m arguing for the utility of religion and that substitutes for functions lack the integration.
Also, ” want to replace magical thinking with logic and reason. If you do that, religion goes away on its own.”
I’m using a more broad view of religion, which is a common issue in these kinds of discussions.
You’re using religion as a synonym for magical thinking. I’m using religion as synonym for central ideology. You can’t eliminate that core I’m talking about, only substitute one with another.