Tao, you should not be surprised to learn why I'm running out of ways to say the same thing. It's because you keep repeating the same thesis even though I've pointed out several times over that it's logically unsound.
Here's an example in the context of something you said recently. In post #186, I suggested that the study of "cultural inheritance and habitualised behaviour" has no bearing on the central thesis of faith perspective -- i.e., the validity of a G-d concept. Your response, which appears in Post #192, completely ignores what I've been saying about levels of analysis and standards of evidence:
My reaction is simply this: the above has nothing to do with the validity of a G-d concept. You are describing imperfect religious establishments and casting aspersions on religious authorities in what appears to be an attempt to call the existence of G-d into question. Indeed, that has been the thrust of your posts since you started this thread. I have no problem with it because it makes for interesting conversation. But to suggest that metaverbal issues relating to faith can be settled at the very literal level of observations about human culture strikes me as misguided. I'm not totally sure it is deliberately misguided.
At any rate, I'm perfectly willing to address the matter in the way you have proposed in the hope that the problems will be clarified in due course. At this point I would point out again that you have not shown the evolution of religious establishments to be relevant to the issue of G-d identity, as reflected in a G-d concept. In fact, you have provided very little detail at all about evolution of religious establishments.
Regarding the logical disconnect problem, I'll try top clarify it again. As I said, by definition G-d is ultimately transcendent, which means He transcends church history and all world kingdoms as well as individuals. The way humans conduct themselves reflects on their imperfect understanding of right intention and right action. It seems to me that rather than see it in these terms, you have you have tried to bring the existence of G-d down to a credibility problem that presumably has been created for G-d by those who presume to represent Him. Hence your focus on alleged scheister shamans, the (allegedly) power-mongering warlord Muhammad, etc. I'd say if it's not a smear campaign against religion, then it's flawed reasoning. The connection you are attempting to make is for the most part out of touch with traditional - and I dare say a well neigh universal understanding of G-d as a Transcendent Being. If you want to challenge the concept of a transcendental G-d, you are of course free to make your case.
My response is the same as before: Why does it matter? How do their practices validate a G-d concept? Secondarily, where is the anthropologic evidence of this from societies that actually treated them as privileged persons rather than as humble servants? Your argument includes a tacit assumption about a connection you have never developed. Moreover, you cite no evidence. You are substituting philosophy when you need facts. In this context, I note another statement you made that I found puzzling:
You probably don't mean the religionists who became renunciates because they liked the idea of leading the supremely privileged lifestyle of a beggar. So who do you mean? Do you have any names? Biographies?
To get back to your more recent post, which also raises an issue of fact:
Where is the evidence for this?
Not for me. I'm interested in the anthropology of religion and hope to learn something here.
You contend that the religious deceptions were already going long before Buddha and Jesus. OK, so let's go back in history and see how the purveyors of Chinese folk religions established themselves as a priviledged elite who were possessed of great wealth and status. Looking forward to something on that.
I just though we'd keep it interesting by actually introducing some facts from the anthropological research you say supports your point of view.
