If it was purely an offshoot of our primitive past we should be accepting the secularisation thesis. That evidence is decidedly mixed. And note that religion behaves like standard 'goods' (e.g. monopoly, through a lack of innovation, is associated with lower demand).
All arguments can be reduced down to a nuclear fundamental at one point of its existence or another.... scientifically speaking...
This just misses the point. When in doubt, you very often fall back on a style of argument that denies the possibility that we can agree on what makes sense. This is the equivalent of saying that there is only nonsense, AKA nihilism.
That is simply your interpretation and does nothing to refute the claim that "All arguments can be reduced down to a nuclear fundamental at one point of its existence or another.... scientifically speaking..."
I agree that religion is a commodity. But there is no need for a commodity to be rational. All it needs to be is desired. And often our desires are not rational. I certianly reject the "primitive" argument. The bulk of the content of any religion is a product of its era. I have argued that the authors of the book of Genesis can be considered to have employed a kind of primitive science that, while they set out to explain things in a way not dissimilar from science, lacked the large supporting theoretical body we now have about empricism, falsifiability, experimentation, independent verification, etc. Not that this is not an absolutist sort of primitivism. A 1,000 years from now, we could be seen as the primitives. I have argued that the rise of monotheism is a result of increasing secularism (among other things) which seems to blur the lines and thus agree with you to some extent. I argue that modern monotheism is largely a result of many people thinking about the God-idea, trying to make sense of it, then comparing notes. This process began very early but picked up steam with the rise of scholasticism and hit a first high point with Aquinas.
Its difficult to understand commodities without reference to rationality. Whilst we can refer to behavioural aspects that demonstrate aspects of irrationality, typically we have to refer to utility maximisation (or, at least, satisficing behaviour)
Finally Kmisho, you made a statement that I can agree with (emphasized in red above). The last statement however, would be dependent upon the person who is seeking the fulfillment of that desire. To onlookers, the methodology utilized in seeking that commodity, may certainly appear as 'not rational', but for the purpose of satisfying the economy surrounding that commodity, then the person seeking that commodity may view his/her methodology absolutely rational under the given circumstances that led him/her to seek out the commodity. Read here for further explanation. http://www.working-minds.com/WMessay61.htm
One shouldn't be scared of human behaviour that we find disagreeable! Again, its simply factual to note that trends in religious behaviour can be understood within rational choice theory.
Wrong again kmisho. 'Reason' has a very clear set of definitions which includes the act 'normal thinking'. Normal thinking does not necessarily create a condition of fantasy nor does 'normal thinking' mandate the use of fantasy.
Wrong...again... Rationality does not include normal thinking. Rationality is an example of normal thinking. You have your venn diagram backwards. Nevertheless, the intent of the kind of argument you frequently fall back on is to deny that argument is possible.
If we agree that religion is a commodity, then we need make no appeal to the rationality behind religion. That the buying and selling of religion is rational is merely incidental to it being a commodity. We may be talking on two different levels. In more than one sense a schizophrenic ccan be said to be behaving rationally. 1) His own delusional world may be internally consistent. 2) The material function of his brain may be rational despite its outpout being irrational, that is, given its malformed nature, it behaves exactly as it must.
If we agree that religion is a commodity, then rationality will be a key feature in understanding religious demand. Its possible to question just how much free will we have. We've seen that, for example, in an extreme case of paedophilia and a link with a brain tumour. However, that isn't going to help us explain religious trends. We're left with an uncomfortable result: we just don't like their decision-making!
There you have it folks... the absolute bottom line... Atheists and other non-theists simply "don't like their decision-making" and that leaves the Atheists and other non-theists "left with an uncomfortable result". Yet when an Atheist or other non-theist is involved in the same type of behavior.... then what??????
Sorry, but I do NOT fear irrational and disagreeable beliefs. I do prepare for and plan for irrational, and disagreeable behavior/actions. I do not care what people believe, I do prepare to prevent them from taking actions to ME, based on those beliefs.
Without knowing it, you've provided an aspect where rationality becomes a key factor: for example, economics of terrorism has been rather important in understanding the nature of the shift of transnational terrorist activity towards fundamentalism
Yeah. Even the courts have recognized that economics of terrorism when they declared that they were experiencing a new wave of 'paper terrorism' being directed at the courts and other financial and corporate institutions. A terrible thing for people to launch such 'terror filled' documents against such well established institutions.
Normal thinking is irrational, emotional, stupid and foolish. Abnormal thinking is rational, logical and intelligent.
Sorry but the term FREE WILL is meaningless. Humans and some other animals have a will (the ability to make choices). They can fight or run, make love or war, hate or love, and on and on. Will is nothing but the ability to make choices. Some have a strong will and make their own choices, others are weak willed and choose to allow others to make choices for them. The religious are weak willed, they allow outdated nonsense to make their decisions for them.
Ok, now that you have the doublespeak out of your system, try using plain English, instead of buzzwords and meaningless multi-meaning phrases.
ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/ Noun: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Sorry, but "courts", need to learn to use a dictionary. Here is a LEGAL definition of terrorism. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d) (d) Definitions As used in this section (2) the term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; The bold is mine. Paperwork is NOT violence.
I did use English. Are you telling me, whilst your tut about religion, you haven't actually read any of the literature on the subject? The economics of terrorism is a minor part of it, but significant given the shift in transnational terrorist groups I mentioned. Consider, for example, the extreme of suicide bombing. A horrendous act that can be understood with an understanding of excess demand coupled with rational suicide
Now you are declaring that abnormality in thinking is the preferred manner in thinking? Well, if you trace the link in words, you will find that you have created an oxymoron. abnormal = Abnormal is a description that means unusual, odd or out of the ordinary. "rational = ra·tion·al     adjective 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development. 2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator. 3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational. 4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings. 5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty" "Reason = an explanation or justification of an act, idea, etc. a cause or motive the ability to think, form judgments, draw conclusions, etc. sound thought or judgment; good sense normal mental powers; a sound mind; sanity" Whereas 'abnormal' infers that a condition exists that is not 'normal'... "ab-" = away, from, from off, down: abdicate" meaning away from "normal"
