Reflex wrote: ↑Sun May 13, 2018 1:27 amThe evolutionary idea has been a productive one for the scientific imagination, but the theory has its dangers outside the field of the natural sciences. True, there is a growing consensus that the religious impulse is hard-wired, but its survival value is still very much in question. It has well been said that “from the moment in which man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the will-to-live, the principle of (physical) evolution has been violated.” Between this state, which is wholly subjective, and that in which a man finds interest devising a spear for hunting, there is a greater distance, logically, than there is between inertia and life or between reason and what the mystics call "inspiration."
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” I believe this true. I believe it is also true that someone living comfortably in a make-believe world, secular or religious, has neither reason nor desire to escape. So, is the God-concept the product of imagination having evolved over the course of thousands of years, or is it a conceptual interpretation of genuine experience? Evelyn Underhill wrote:
“There is no trustworthy standard by which we can separate the “real” from the “unreal” aspects of phenomena. Such standards as exist are conventional: and correspond to convenience, not to truth. It is no argument to say that most men see the world in much the same way, and that this “way” is the true standard of reality: though for practical purposes we have agreed that sanity consists in sharing the hallucinations of our neighbours. Those who are honest with themselves know that this “sharing” is at best incomplete.”
I've always had a strained relationship with authority of any kind. Politics aside, I'm open to science telling me what can be said
about the natural world, but telling me how the world
is is outside its purview and way out of bounds. By the same token, I'm open to what all the religious traditions have to say, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let any of them tell me what I should or should not believe.
I agree with much of this. As an agnostic I find myself debating both believers and non-believers and the sticking points with each can be boiled down to one word -
certainty. My personal intuition is that time is more complex and strange than our senses and existential situation allow us to perceive.
Humans vary in many ways and it's not logical to imagine that we are all equally sensitive to various aspects of reality. The emergent complexity of the human brain already greatly enhances our capacity to perceive time as compared with other species, where the remembered past and perceived possible futures are far more palpable and affecting for us than for other species. It may be that there are states allowing for a variant apprehension of time and genuine insights, although due to our inherent limitations and the formative nature of these mental capacities, our interpretations will surely be vague and probably somewhat off-beam.
I as as cussed as you. I'm not keen on people who insisting on certainty claims when they are not in a position to do so, which comes from all sides, as mentioned. Still, obviously enough believers by definition are more inclined towards rigid beliefs - because beliefs IMO are generally not supposed to be statement of brute fact, rather a conduit for desired behaviours and mental/emotional states. Believers, when push comes to shove in debates, are less inclined to debate the ontology but rather turn the conversation into one about theism's efficacy.
No doubt, religion has been good for many people. Some grow in confidence when they don't feel they are doing things themselves but are an instrument of God. There, God is a release from the inhibitions of tension, allowing for ready flow. Then there is the main aspect - the existential. It's a hopeful and pleasant position to imagine that one can control our fates and work our way towards eternal life and happiness. This belief also allows for courage and less fear of death; the advantage for armies in the past and present in belief has been significant. I would also suggest that the extra support of old theists is the reason why religious politicians hold an unrepresentative amount of power and they tend to have longer political careers. The less supported secular types often burn out earlier and place greater priority on family than public service. Then there is the plain old matter of support - fellowship. The congregation provides an unusual opportunity for socialising, networking and romancing, plus emotional and financial support in times of trouble (unless the trouble is finding out they are gay or tending towards rationalism).
With all of these benefits, it's little wonder that the religious have conquered the world for so long. However, this is all just the stuff you spoke about - the things people believe and the efficacy.
The raw ontological reality of being is much harder to address and seemingly of interest to most of us here.
I tried to simplify it for you! No need to thank me! 
It goes back to the first thing you said: "Depends on the theist." I'm not alone in being slimy and dishonest, by the way. There some are well known theologians in the same boat.
