So...you're agreeing with me? I'm not sure if you're meaning to add anything, or depart in any way, from what I said above -- if you did, please clarify, because I missed it
Essentially agreeing with you. I thought it might be helpful to give a slightly different example, from someone who didn't just have that sort of experience once, but still continues to have it.
I'm willing to break off into a discussion of the word "discriminate," but not willing to defend it strongly, as I think my initial post already specified all the hesitancy I had around it. Can you suggest a better word?
I'm not sure. I guess, part of the issue is that this is the parts where I'm more inclined to disagree with you. The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we're talking to an outside entity when we aren't isn't something that should be protected. If it turned out that some people had a brain form that forced them to engage in some cognitive errors, I'd feel sorry for them, but getting the rest of the population to understand that those are cognitive errors would still be a good thing. If PZ or Dawkins had an opportunity to press a button and remove all religion in the world, they would probably do it, and if I had to tell them what to do, I'd probably advocate for pressing the button, even though that means I'm no longer going to be able to get my semi-regular hit of religion.
The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we're talking to an outside entity when we aren't isn't something that should be protected.
Mm, okay, I think I see your point. No, it shouldn't be protected at the expense of true understanding.
But my point is that I think the feeling of spiritual unity (which is an intensely desirable feeling) can be preserved, even while a frame of realistic cognitive understanding is added. I mean, it sounds like that's what you're already doing--exploiting the "hit" of religion while recognizing that it comes entirely from "material aspects of [your] own brain." Right?
In the comments of a recent thread, another poster pointed out that religious individuals tend to report higher levels of happiness than nonreligious individuals. I suggested that the social network of churches, rather than the direct effects of theistic belief, might be responsible for this difference, and after doing a bit of searching around to see if the available studies support such an explanation, found a study that indicates that this is indeed the case.
Religious churches may be far from optimal in the services they provide to communities, but they have a great positive impact on the lives of many individuals. And not just as friendly social gatherings and occasional providers of community service; I've known priests who were superb community organizers and motivational speakers, who played an important role for their congregations to which I know of no existing secular analogue.
It seems probable that a secular organization could effectively play the same role in a community, but would anyone be likely to take it seriously? Since people who're already religious may be inclined to reject the value of a secular authority filling the role of a church, and atheistic individuals may not be inclined to attend, either due to reversing the stupidity of religion, or due to asocial and anticooperative values, it's uncertain whether a secular organization that adequately filled the role of a church would get off the ground in the first place in the present social climate.
So, what are your feelings on the prospect of secular church analogues? Do you think that they're appropriate or practical? Do you expect them ever to become common in real life?