To:    Thinkingallowed@bbc.co.uk
Re:    Each to his own (concept of) God, and a sociology of religion
Date:  Tuesday 15 August 06

Radio 4 could (and I believe, should) devote a whole series of broadcasts to the "Sociology of Religion", the derivation of which from Latin is well worth considering: "religare", meaning "to bind together". It conveys an idea fundamental to the human condition and the existence of a healthy society. 

Science undermined the Judeo-Christian religion we (both as individuals and as a society) once depended on, but failed to put anything remotely adequate in its place. Which is why so many of us, and our society at large, are so sick and lost (even if many do not realise it).

Creating a new religion, or rather, religions (i.e. religious societies) that cater for everyone's individual "spiritual" and social needs, especially the urgent and overarching need for SUSTAINABLE economies and ways of life for 6 (soon 7-9) billion people on our finite and vulnerable planet, to replace the inherently unsustainable economy, lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations we have at the moment, is the most (essentially, the only) important thing in the world.

I've been thinking about what you and Prof. Barker said in last Wednesday's broadcast about God and religion in response to my and other listeners' emails. You mentioned the trend for people to develop and adhere to their own personal (Shella?) religions, but that contradicts the meaning and essential purpose of religion to bind people together (L. religare) and completely undermines its social and evolutionary function.

Each of us having their own personal religion makes no social (or evolutionary) sense. What does make sense, however, is for people to have their own personal (concept of) God, which most of us probably do anyway, if defined broadly enough.  I doubt that any two individuals, even if they belong to the same Christian sect, share concepts of God that are completely identical.

A particular religion, or religious sect, comes (or has the potential to come) into being when a number of individuals consider their own concepts of God to be sufficiently similar to make it seem worth while "getting together" (L. religare!). Up until now, as far as I know, this has always happened arse about face. Someone (a prophet) declares his (or her) concept of God to be the one true (concept of) God (at least for his own people, e.g. the Hebrew speaking tribes of Palestine) and others are cajoled (true to their animal nature, with threats and promises) into sharing it and forming a religion.

The social cohesion (solidarity, shared values, aims etc.) that a particular population thus gains must have been of huge value in the struggle for survival and advantage in competition with other human populations (tribes). Unfortunately for them (in the short-term, at least, but perhaps not in the long-term) the Hebrews were still no match for the ancient, vast and monolithic civilizations they were surrounded by and had to contend with.

The Jews, it seems to me, provide the best known example of the power of religion (a shared concept of God and the moral code and rituals associated with it), especially when it is combined with tribal blood ties (ethnicity). The more a particular group or population share and have in common the better, i.e the greater its potential (for good or evil). This, I suspect, is why the Jews have survived "as a people" longer than any other I am aware of. And not only have they survived, they have also contributed positively to civilisation out of all proportion their numbers.

I think there is a lesson here for us all, Laurie. One with a great deal of potential for development.

BBC Radio 4 - Thinking Allowed