Touche.

I'd be intrigued to read how "eating", "vengeance" and "physical exercise" count as reasons for religiosity.

But he forgot number 17:

Reading too muchPhilip Larkin

�I don�t think there has been a comprehensive theory of religion that was scientifically testable,�

Did Harry pen this?

Brit:

So, you are still brooding in that Left Bank cafe, are you? Why not take up jogging or march to save Spaceship Earth from the rapacious multinationals?

Well, if Philip Larkin is #17, then the deep seated desire to cram a particular version of absolute truth down people' throats with the largest available cudgel would have to be #18.

That would be the flip side of "acceptance."

Jeff:

"Accept me," the egoist demanded.

Jeff:

And how would you describe your position on gay marriage by judicial fiat?

As far as I can tell from the OSU article, these psychological traits apply more to how one views religion, rather than whether or not one will be religious.

Peter B:

It's called "justice".

Brit:

Those with a high need for vengeance prefer images of a God of War, or Justice, those with a low need for vengeance prefer images of a peaceful, forgiving God, as explained in the OSU link, as well as why "eating" is on the list... Physical exercise wasn't touched on.

Jeff:

# 18 doesn't apply to Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus or Jews, so it's hardly a universal trait.

Peter:

I'd love to, but my black rollneck was starting to give me a rash, and the absinthe was playing havoc with the old digestive system.

Michael:

Don't upset Jeff. He is very comfortable with his absolute truths.

Can I call you the next time I need an ex cathedra pronouncement on what justice is?

Michael: Me, too. I have some insurance policy provisions I'd appreciate having some Absolute Truth shone on...

#18 doesn't apply to Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus or Jews? Um, that's a huge lie.

The Protestant Reformation and the subsequent wars of religion wasn't about letting everyone worship their own religion, but mandating that people worship in the religion of their local lords. And Protestant England certainly warred and oppressed dissenters both Catholic and Protestant.

Buddhists in both China and Japan vociferously opposed Christian missionaries and appealed to their governments to forcifully suppress the new religion. And even today Buddhists in Sri Lanka are seeking to use the government against conversions.

Hinduism has long cudgeled its own people with the caste system, and has harassed dalits and others who have converted to another religion. And the former ruling party was a Hindu nationalist party whose supporters have overrun and destroyed certain mosques.

And let's not forget that the original Zealots were Jews, and that Christianity was a Jewish heresy that was persecuted to various degrees by the then ruling priest class. And in Israel the Orthodox lobby has effectively said that new convert immigrants to Israel from other Jewish practices, like Reform, aren't really Jews.

A "deep seated desire to cram a particular version of absolute truth down people' throats with the largest available cudgel" happens to be a universal trait in mankind. That it pops up in religion shouldn't blind people that it also appears in atheist and secular ideologies as well and in politics of all stripes. To see it most in action, join almost any local club about any interest and you will see fierce office politics of the stripe at some point during your membership.

I do doubt how you could scientifically test why people are religious. Where would you find your controls?

Harry:

Babboons.

If this is true, then it would tend to undermine the case for the truth of religious claims, as it provides a naturalistic explanation for the existence of religious faith. There is no longer a need to posit supernatural revelations from God to explain faith.

It would be a more convincing argument for the truth of Biblical revelation if humans had no psychological propensity for religious faith. It would be much harder to explain how such a book came to be, if supernatural visitations were the exception to cultural legends, instead of the norm.

Except that nature exists.

Peter:

I never advocated judicial fiat for gay marriage.

I do remember suggesting those with religious convictions against gays at least consider the possbility God made them that way.

That is hardly an absolutist position.

Orrin, I thought your position is that we cannot know whether nature exists or not.

We can't know anything, but we can speak of many things on their own terms.

Jeff:

Considered. Dismissed.

Chris:

We disagree about what constitutes a "large" cudgel.

As to Hindus burning mosques: In the first place, they're dealing with Muslims. As is said of mules, when you want to get their attention, first you have to whack 'em in the head with a 2'X 4'.

Secondly, a lot of it is ethnic and political, not strictly religious. If Pakistan didn't exist, India's Hindus and Muslims would probably clash less often.

Not confidently, according to you.

You cannot be simultaneously philosophically amorphous and morally certain.

OJ:

You seem rather too confident you know God's mind.

Harry:

Of course you can--we just make aesthetic choices.

Jeff:

Well, we do have His word to go by.

Aesthetic choices cannot, by definition, be moral.

At least, a morality that is merely a matter of taste cannot have any claim to attention.

Aesthetic choices are always moral choices--the beautiful is good, and vice versa. Your error, as in all things, is in thinking aesthetics a matter of "taste."

OJ:

Ummm...what precisely does God, as opposed to mere man, have to say on this issue?

Also, where does beauty reside?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

...unless thy neighbour is Dennis Thatcher?

Brit:

Let he who is without sin...

Even the good Lord Himself has to covet the Iron Lady in His weaker moments.

Well now that dear old Den has shuffled off this mortal coil, I guess Maggie's on the market.

Don't all rush at once, gentlemen - form an orderly queue.

Hard to explain why styles change, if so.