I think there is an understanding that ""all" is impossible to cover, but you aim for as broad a representative sampling as is practically possible, and you reveal patterns that are generally applicable and instructive about the roles and effects of various elements of religion.

@MikeInBatonRouge Obviously, but there is a ton of power in who decides which religions are included, what grade it starts in, the standards that are set, if it'll be national or states, etc. And don't tell me you can't see Texas saying, "Here's Christianity" for half the year and then "here's all the other/fake/untrue religions competing with it."

@JeffMurray I see your point. I just think we are having different conversations. I don't think the post's implication was to teach religion like Sunday school, non-critically. And of course, logistically in the States, given the very aggressive involvement of Evangelical forces into every corner of public issues it can barge into, it would at this point in history most surly be taught very disparately across various school juristions. The implementation clearly would be problematic.

It us just a really nice idea to teach critical thinking skills for examining religion, as evidenced by how well it has ended up promoting secularism in western Europe.

@MikeInBatonRouge
A fine goal, to be sure. If I could add anything to the curriculum, however, it would be a series of logic classes. I think the ability to think critically and logically, starting from an early age, would probably be just as or more beneficial with WAY less risk. For me, until it can be taught as mythology, I'm pretty nervous about it.

As an American who was raised steeped in evangelical Christianity at home and church but never in public school...but then spent a year in German high school, I certainly experienced what you are talking about in Europe, and that was actually an important part of me overcoming my own indoctrination. Religion classs in Germany tore the Bible to shreds by analizing it. It was a marvelous revelation for me.

You're right, ...that you "don't see," because you have it exactly backward. In fact, you ignore his point about natural selection, which does not need research to happen. The research is a want, rather than a need, (both are defined subjectively, I admit.) We research for our own edification. There are certainly many good individuals who are sincere in their religious belief. But religions, as structured social forces, have done more harm than good in the world and have allowed hurtful, hateful people to hide behind a mask of piety. Moreover, religion actively denigrates the many good people who are not religious and tries to deny the truth of their good works.

By the way, those widows and orphans you talk about helping? Televangelists have collectively bilked billions from trusting widows and orphans who could ill afford it. Just how much money has Reverend Smiley, Joel Osteen, amassed by duping these poor trusting souls?

And you can say televangelists don't represent true religion. Well of course, because none of it is objectively true. But religions depends on the self-appointed spokespeople to proliferate. And they are doing much harm.

@MikeInBatonRouge Attorneys are no different than t.v. preachers that has nothing to do with religion. Attorneys make 1000s off of disability claimaints trying to get just small monthly check.

Attorneys that charge a percentage from the disability income is just rubbing disability people.

@MikeInBatonRouge If you look up the definition in the dictionary of the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God then you see illogical atheist define religion as such things as televangelists scamming people of money. This is a subjective definition.

If you understand the etymology of religion it has to with being used for a person saying they are bound or have a bond. Tied to something. A modern word that better explains what they were originally saying is that a person had a "responsibility," or was bound to help widows and orphans etc. Religion in the objectiveness of the origional usage moreso means responsibly.

@Word re. Attorneys, true, and irrelevant.

@Word your "religion" etymology explanation is nonsense, just on par with sermons I was subjected to in my youth. Terms are not defined by their ancient roots. They are defined by common usage. Looking at their origins only serves to offer possible clues or insight into some nuances of the word in question, but there are many many words and phrases for which correct common usage and understanding you can find in dictionary definitions bear little to no relation to those origins. "Under-stand?"

@MikeInBatonRouge The etymology wasn't disputed. What was disputed is the way you are playing with etymology in order to get it to fit your desired narrative.
The word religion means to "bind back" or "yoke" [edited], i.e. to seek an understanding of the universe and our place in it.

Here you are retconing. The religio or bond/obligation refers to a monastic vow. It has nothing to do with seeking an understanding of the universe or our place in it. Therefore, the etymology of the word religion is completely irrelevant to the conversation. [news.ycombinator.com].

@MikeInBatonRouge thank you, but religion to ",bind" as to a responsibility is not nonsense.

@Word nonsense by virtue of having no relevance to the current issues. I looked up the same origns as you did. Bonds of monastic vows are hardly relevant to much modern western use of religion. If any, it is only a very narrow slice. I did a project for a treatment group some years ago in which I looked up as many definitions of "religion" and of "spirituality" as I could find. There were many, some quite divergent.

Sociologically, the most useful definition I found for "religion" was as a system of beliefs and practices intended to serve the dual goals of providing the individual adherents with guidance for how to live and reassurance in the face of fear and uncertainty, while also serving the social group by encouraging adherence to a common moral code. It utilizes the mechanisms of doctrine--oral or written, living leaders to motivate and oversee, traditions and rituals to provide the comfort of familiarity, and community to provide sense of belonging and peer pressure to keep members from straying.

Oxford's definition is much simpler, "a belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a person God or gods."

In this modern society, being "bound" by religion is a misleading implication, as people choose whether to join and/or stay with particular religious groups, and even those actively involved in organized religion select "cafe style" which tenets they will try to follow.

The problem with Oxford's definition is what it leaves out. Religion is not merely belief. It is a "system of beliefs and practices," and as such it relies heavily on spokespersons to indoctrinate, motivate, police, and even scare the participants. Like it or not, sleezy televangelists are a part of the mix, just as the Vatican, the Spanish Inquisition, witch burnings, and people publically proclaiming supposed prophecy are(or were) all part of Christian religious systems.

Dennets supposition that using our brains to reason is much preferable to relying on religious systems to lull us into blind faith makes a lot of sense. His idea of religion resulting from natural selection processes is curious but intriguing and potentially quite useful for helping freethinkers figure how best to respond to religious social forces.

@MikeInBatonRouge "Bonds of monastic vows" didn't start until "(480-543 or 547 AD) is considered to be the founder of western monasticism. " wikipedia the book of James most likely first century written.

"Bonds" can still be understood as saying "responsibility." Bound to do, responsible to do.

As to "spirit" English translation it takes away from the biblical word "Ruach". In English ghost is often used interchangeably with spirit, which is rather erroneous translation.

Ruach is a force like breath, wind or storm. Ruach could be better understood translated into English as kinetic energy, and add something about a communication with the kinetic energy.

Here is one of the better studies I have found for Ruach. [hebrew-streams.org]

@MikeInBatonRouge in this chat thread "Religious Naturalism" I had made discussion if you care to look back at some of the first few discussions for this group. Not trying to copy and paste here. "Religious Naturalism"
You would have to click "previous " to get to the first set of discussions.
Then, if your not interested, don't bother.

@MikeInBatonRouge belief means accept something (information) as true.

So a system of beliefs would be several things connected that are accepted to be true.

@MikeInBatonRouge in this thread you can look over my discussions about spiritual and spirituality that can explain it more in terms of ruach as a force of motivation. "SPIRITUAL: A Third Definition"

@MikeInBatonRouge Do you understand evolution of words and their means and usages? Do you know what a connotation is? Words in the past used together in such away the not only become connatation of each outer, the words evolve to absorb the connotations of each other. Now, we have words, concepts, and definitions that are not anywhere near the original.

@Word whether I am interested or not will vary with how much time I have to kill. Perhaps later, but as I look at this now at 1:15 a.m., needing to get to bed, ...not so much.

@Word re. Evolution of words and connotation, I have said that exact thing myself previously, which went to my point of it not being helpful to imply so much emphasis on the original meanings of root componentnts of terms, because the current usage, yes recognized by dictionary writers, can often be quite a departure from that origin.

@Word re. Bond and spirit, yes, I am familiar with these meanings. Modern German has a cognate of Ruach, which is smoke, such as in " to smoke a cigarette...take into one's lungs." Bond is any sort of constraint or coercion or expectation.
None of this negates my point, which was that your nitpicking at DangerDave's valid choice of terminology is effectively missing the forrest for the trees. Religion has a broader meaning, though your sense of the term is included in that. And gnostic or agnostic relate to one's profession of what is known or unknown or knowable or unknowable. These are applied to the question of deity, but they also legitimately apply to broader subjects. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said, one can and arguably should profess agnosticism about a great number of things. Atheism's narrower focus is on deity and lack of belief in such. It is NOT merely "one without god." It is, more to the point, "one without belief in God. Profession of Belief is crucially a somewhat different question than profession of knowledge or the limits of knowledge. So No, gnostic atheist is not oxymoronic, and reaching back to the origins of root components does not prove otherwise.

@Word Incidentally, as we both of us spend a ridiculous amount of time entertaining ourselves with this back and forth and have both ostensibly done some research on this academic question, I chuckle at your claim that Dennet suggests too heavy an investment in "research" regarding morality or paths to morality. Ernest religionists seem to like nothing more than to spend lifetimes on academic questions of morality and morality code.

@MikeInBatonRouge Perhaps in another post I would discuss the "good and bad(evil)" conceptual understanding development that is the other have of most definitions of moral. "Right and wrong" and "good and evil" are extremely synonymous, often used interchangeably, but still have distinctive and developmental differences.

(From Google search)
Moral

1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
   "the moral dimensions of medical intervention"
   Similar:
   virtuous
   good
   righteous
   upright
   upstanding
   high-minded
   right-minded
   principled
   proper
   honorable
   honest
   just
   noble
   incorruptible
   scrupulous
   respectable
   decent
   irreproachable
   truthful
   law-abiding
   clean-living
   chaste
   pure
   blameless
   sinless
   Opposite:
   immoral
   bad
   dishonorable
   concerned with or derived from the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society.
   "an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code"
   Similar:
   ethical
   social
   behavioral
   to do with right and wrong
   examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct.
   "moral philosophers"

2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
   "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person"
   noun
   noun: moral; plural noun: morals

3. a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
   "the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
   Similar:
   lesson
   message
   meaning
   significance
   signification
   import
   point
   precept
   teaching

4. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
   "the corruption of public morals"

@MikeInBatonRouge Belief means accept something(information) as TRUE. To say the opposite, disbelief would be to accept something(information) as FALSE.

Not understanding or accepting the evidence is a major factor illogical atheist do not handle well. The reasoning can range from, simply the fact that an illogical atheist is not educated on the facts, to the point of some illogical atheist being dishonest evil wicked people and simply not accepting the truth for what it is because they have no personal integerty.

When you are dealing with plural god thingies at the same time logic would give: multiple god thingies existing at the same time could not each be all-powerful at the same time and omnipresent at the same time as each other. So then, the multi-gods would be of lesser power capabilities and would not be required to possess all the qualities of a mono or singular all-powerful god thingie. So then when dealing with gods in the plural it must be accepted that the lesser capabilities are allowed and not all powerful and not all present and not all knowing etc.

There is evidence that a style of god exist. This style of god that has been accepted to exist is not Harry Potter, Willy Wanka nor specifically proving all powerful knowledge to be known instantly at each end of infinity in every direction. Nonetheless, A style of god has been overwhelmingly approved to exist AND it does not require that ALL styles of gods be proven.

For brevity not all references will be specifically cited: Biblical text has in it's writings that people are accepted to be gods. John 10:34 Jesus answered saying "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'? 3 things that shows support for biblical text as written:

1. Guinness book of world record for most copies of a book of it's kind.
2. Peer reviewed for at least almost 2000 years.
3. Christian is now what a person can be called because they accept what it written as to what Jesus character said. There is infact many people that label themselves as Christian.

Atheism by defination and premise is infact incorrect, wrong or illogical.

@MikeInBatonRouge Morality in part (as explained below) is dependent upon rules/laws imposed upon someone and their ability or lack of ability to follow those rules/laws. The issue about this part of morality is that rules/laws can be arbitrary.
arbitrary
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"

(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"

With rules/laws being arbitrary this means that the fact of non-sense laws can affect the apparent morality level that a person has. I could argue that the traffic laws of a stop sign requiring a complete and total stop is at times not so hard set necessary for a driver given some situations. However, in view of such a law, the law itself does not care if the stop sign is out in the country 20 miles from any other stop sign and only 5 cars a day drive down the road. A local farmer living near the stop sign and not coming to a total complete stop ever time makes for the farmer to have technically a lower level of morality because the farmer "rolls" thru the stop sign because he can see for miles either way to know that no cars are crossing the intersection.

You say, "Richard Dawkins says that some people believe that they draw their morality from Science and some say you cannot draw morality form science."

Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Principle is defined as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. www.lexico.com

Moral comes from the Latin word mores, for habits. The moral of a story is supposed to teach you how to be a better person. If moral is used as an adjective, it means good, or ethical. If you have a strong moral character, you are a good member of society. If someone is a cheat and a liar, you might say, "She is not a moral person." [vocabulary.com]

"... draw their morality from Science" Science is the study of nature. People do learn things from observation of nature.

Moral/morality is viewing the actions, activity, habits, etc. of a person and then comparing those to 2 different things.

1. First, those things are compared to standards, rules, or laws that establishes 'RIGHTS AND WRONGS".

Example: The rules says: no chewing bubble gum while walking. Sue was seen chewing bubble gum while walking. Sue violated the rule. Sue would have low morals in view of the rule of "no chewing bubble gum while walking".

OR

2. Second, those things are compared to good and bad (evil).

Example: Sue walked while chewing bubble gum. While walking works out leg muscles it does not specifically work out facial muscles. Chewing gum gave the added benifit (good) for Sue to get her facial muscles worked out while walking. No one was harmed(suffered an evil) by the fact that Sue chewed bubble gum while walking. Sue would have high morals( good health habit) for chewing bubble gum while walking.

Sue was immoral for violation of the rule but was moral in view of a health benefit.

etymology moral(adj):
mid-14c., "associated with or characterized by right behavior," also "associated with or concerning conduct or moral principles" (good or bad), from Old French moral (14c.) and directly from Latin moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," literally "pertaining to manners," coined by Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate Greek ethikos (see ethics) from Latin mos (genitive moris) "one's disposition," in plural, "mores, customs, manners, morals," a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps sharing a PIE root with English mood (n.1).

From late 14c. as "of or pertaining to rules of right conduct" (opposed to non-moral, amoral) and "morally good, in accordance with rules of right conduct" (opposed to immoral). Of persons, "habitually conforming to moral rules," 1630s. From 1680s with reference to rights, duties, etc., "founded on morality" (opposed to legal).

Applied to indirect effect in moral support (1823), moral victory (1888), where the notion is "pertaining to or affecting the character or conduct" (as distinguished from the intellectual or physical nature), a sense attested from 1590s; in this sense, compare morale. Related: Morally.

moral(noun):
"moral exposition of a story, the doctrine inculcated by a fable or fiction, the practical lesson which anything is designed to teach," c. 1500, from moral (adj.) and from French moral and Medieval Latin moralia. In this sense, morality was used from late 14c. The earlier noun use of moral was "a commandment pertaining to morals."

[etymonline.com]

@MikeInBatonRouge as to biblical text modern usage is different that what was originally intended this would cause something along the lines of:

In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence. Wikipedia

There might be a better explination than equivocation but best I can thing of that is closely related.

It's like, some one would say biblical text is "religious " text. Where as it appears to me to be more like selected documents from the national archives of the nation of Israel that has former law structure (laws of Moses), writtings of poetry, executive writtings (books of prophets), prophets could be compared to modern executive position like a president, written testimony of events purported to of happened.

United States of America is not considered the legal jurisdiction of the nation of Israel and the laws such as stoning a child or other laws are considered antiquated. It's not a matter of out of context that many illogical atheist and uneducated Christians dispute about but rather a matter of out of Jurisdiction.