Well, first of all, of the three examples I gave of fundamentally religious behavior, only one was specifically Catholic. Whether the participants are "mindless drones" is a matter for a completely different inquiry. (By the way, I don't think Catholicism consists of a bunch of mindless drones.) They could be mathematicians or surgeons or engineers in their professional lives, it's beside the point: I'm referring to what they do in the practice of their religion. And this consists of things like I described: ritual, symbol, mysticism, etc., all typically experienced in a social context.

Of course there are exceptions. And of course there are people in our modern society who view religion as "personal." But religion as it has been practiced by the overwhelming mass of humanity, religion as it has survived from the earliest glimpses of history down to our own day, is clearly (among other things) a social phenomenon.

An activity undertaken by a religious person does not automatically become religious activity. "Catholics who believe contraception and abortions are OK" have (I maintain) arrived at this belief by thinking, judging, weighing facts, etc.---not by means of their participation in Mass. In other words, they arrived at them by being (in a sense) philosophers, not by being Catholics.

(I hope you don't mind me capitalizing Religion, Philosophy, & Science as proper nouns in what follows, it seems to come out clearer that way.)

Also, Philosophy can be undertaken by religious people, and can be devoutly "religious" in sentiment, without constituting or somehow becoming Religion. Thomas Aquinas's work is certainly appreciated by thinking Catholics (just as it is appreciated by most philosophers, regardless of their religious belief), but still, the Summa Theologica hasn't replaced the Catechism, the Prayer Book, or the Bible. It is written by a Catholic, it fits with Catholicism, and yet it is not a work of Religion but one of Philosophy.

Even if you take the religious loner, for whom religion is a personal thing, I would imagine the activity they call "religious" is different from what they would call philosophical or scientific activity. It is marked by experience, which many describe as super-sensory but which is at least analogous to the sensory: the important thing is what the person experiences. In Philosophy, the important thing is what the person reasons out; in Science, the important thing is the hypothesis, the prediction, the experiment, the observation. A religious person may philosophise in order to arrive at religious truth, but so far he is only a philosopher: religion occurs when he does something different (prays, fasts, sacrifices a bug to Orion) as a result of his philosophising.

Proposition 2: A rock concert is much more like religion than sub-atomic research is.

A rock concert analogy to religion where one sat back and simply absorbed without really thinking or understanding would perhaps be an analogy to what I would consider "uninvolved" religion. That is not being religious. It is being a puppet that did what they were told without thought or real faith. I would personally question if such a person could truly meet any real qualifications to reach that religion's destination.

A researcher view to religion is what I would compare to an active participant in religion, which I believe would be necessary to fulfill the religion's instructions.

I don't know of any religion that promotes a passive person that follows rules without understanding, that sits at home staring at a wall all day as a 'good thing'. The religions I have studied want people to *actively* do things in promotion of the path's goals, and they actively need to learn and understand what those goals are to do that properly.

Just as you can be a passive religious person, you can just as easily be a passive philosopher or a passive scientist. You could be a "researcher" who does nothing but study a rock all day to see if it moves. It is the human mind which makes something an active or passive process. The religion / philosophy / science distinction does not do that ...

Quote originally posted by SchoolyD:

"Religion, which includes ritual, ethics, mysticism, etc., in which all human beings everwhere participate ... is NOT AT ALL the same thing as a scientific pursuit of knowledge, not even close, not even in the same ballpark."

My response:

"Don't agree with you there.
Sorry.

I think it is all about the search for truth and the meaning of life."

Exactly what I said - 'it is all about the search for truth and the meaning of life'

Yes, religion 'includes ritual, ethics, mysticism, etc'. It includes them. That doesn't mean that it is not one person's way of seeking the meaning of life. Religion has always offered answers to life's mysteries. That is also what science does. And people look to science for a better understanding of our world just as they do to religion. How they do it might be different, but that is only part of it.

I thought about this for a while, and let's take the study of brain waves. A scientist wants to know how to get the brain into an even, calm state. So they hook devices onto your brain to see how the waves are doing, and then give audio and visual feedback signals to the person to help them learn how to get the waves to take on a certain shape.

When Zen Buddhists want to calm their brain, they sit in a certain position determined over centuries of trial and error to put the least strain on muscles, and the use a mantra or koan or other linguistic device to help focus their mind. The surroundings and sounds and smells are all arranged in a way determined by trial and error. And they get their brain waves into a certain shape.

In each case there was a lot of trial and error and experimentation done to determine what brought about a calm mind.

But people don't "sit back and simply absorb" at rock concerts! They are anything but "uninvolved"! That's my whole point. They participate. They dance and shout, they go nuts. The "passive" audience can be found at the symphony hall.

As for the Zen calming techniques, that also illustrates my point. I said that "[Religion} is marked by experience, which many describe as super-sensory but which is at least analogous to the sensory: the important thing is what the person experiences ... In Science, the important thing is the hypothesis, the prediction, the experiment, the observation." The Zen monks, after all their centuries, have knowledge of how to achieve the experience of relaxation. The scientists have sheets and sheets of brainwave data, hypotheses, theories, verifications and re-verifications. The monks cannot explain the state of relaxation scientifically; the scientists cannot achieve it voluntarily. In studying the same subject, they have accomplished different goals and acquired entirely different types of knowledge.

I come to this a little late and may well be chewing old meat. If so I apologise.

I have just read the book and start my criticism from its treatment of my own country, the UK. This is not literature it is caricature and/or satire at best and at worst it is demeaning. I feel sure my french friends feel the same.

Now a few comments on "fiction based wholey (sic) in fact".

The idea that the Knights Templar and the Freemasons have any common history is laughable from a socio/historical viewpoint. They emerged from different ends of the social scale, existed for entirely different reasons and the "masons" you hear of today have no connection with the trade protectionism of the original masons whose logical successors are trades unions.

The Gnostics were more concerned about the philosophy of christianity than the outward signs and modes of worship. They questioned early catholicism because they deemed it an imposition between God and the worshipper. This same idea is still prevalent in the Society of Friends of Jesus (Quakers) who do not accept priestly intermediaries. In passing, Brown has missed out on the Albigensians who had a similar view and were also persecuted by Rome as heretics.

As for all the number and word games, I leave you with the thought that Dog is an anagram of God - now there is a coincidence awaiting exploration.

Just in case anyone hasn't heard it before (tired oldie-but-goodie):

I'm a dyslexic, agnostic insomniac. I lie awake all night wondering whether or not there is a dog.

Hi oldjagman, welcome to the forum.

Can you tell us what your evidence is for this?

I have found the theory that Freemasonry originated with the destruction of the Knights Templar quite compelling.

I asked 'Tig Dupre', a Mason, on the 'Freemasons and the Da Vinci Code' thread:

"Do you think that the Knights Templar who escaped Philip the Fair were the founders of Freemasonry?"

This is part of his reply:

"According to several books I have read, and discussions I have had with other Masons, the consensus of opinion is that the Templars who escaped became the founders of Freemasonry. There was a huge price on their head, financed in part by the monies siezed by Philip from the Templars, and their lives were in constant danger. The secret signs and symbols used by modern Masons are said by some to have evolved from the recognition signs used by fugitive Templars to indicate who could be trusted, and how much. Thus, the various levels or degrees of Masonry were instituted."

The thread is here: (http://www.wineintro.com/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000190)

I would agree with you, to a certain extent, if you were discussing Medieval Trade Guilds concerned with stone masons, but I really think that Freemasons are not the same thing.

Do you practise any religion yourself Lisa?