> That's far from the only way to get that framework. By analogy, you can pray without attending church.

Institutional religion lets dedicated people practice full-time. It's why in Asia there's the culture of donating food and money to monks--the whole community supports those who dedicate their life to preserving, developing, and practicing these methods.

Religion in America is more free market religion--much more dependent on big donors and the small subset of very dedicated lay practitioners. There's no appreciation for the wider benefit provided by religious to the community. In theory even atheists could appreciate the benefit. There are arguments for why this is a better system on-the-whole, but there's a loss nonetheless. Religion is literally the only area where community systematically supports people who have zero profit interest or motive in practices like mindfulness, charity, etc. For all the corruption and self-serving one sees in institutional religion, whether Buddhist, Christian, etc, it's even greater in the "non-profit" secular charity space. (I'm in SF where the city shells out hundreds of millions to organizations that do social work, and where we blew past the point reasonably diminishing returns hundreds of millions ago.) Secular charity just doesn't scale without having to pay salaries and wages; compare Buddhist or Christian religious, who usually take vows of poverty.

It's like the debate about public funding of open source. It's very difficult to do systematically without inviting alot of corruption and freeloading. The interesting thing about religious charity is that the primary motives of the religious are separate from the social/charitable benefit. Institutional religious communities, especially those with vows of poverty, self-select in ways secular institutions haven't figured out how to do, yet. Communists and anarchists never figured it out; if they had capitalism probably wouldn't be as dominate as it is today. And it's why people like Richard Stallman standout--though an atheist, he's committed to Free Software in the same way monks are committed to their religious dogma, and while Stallman is hardly infallible, it lends tremendous credibility to his arguments, and he serves as a personal model regarding his commitment to the cause.

I think separation of religion and state is a good thing and benefits all parties, but Western culture went beyond that into denigration of religion. Oddly we do provide public support to artists, whom are often similarly dedicated and self-selected, though we justify this by exaggerating the social benefit of pure art.

I get that, and I’m not trying to convert you through a comment thread. You’re right that many people question the evidence and honestly, I did too for many decades. I didn’t grow up with unshakable faith. I grew into it by using my intellect. Testing it, doubting it, and finding the evidence of prophecy and resurrection more consistent than I expected.

I’m not here to “win” you over. I’m sharing what I’ve found because the same Jesus who changed history also changed my life. If it sounds like proselytizing, it’s only because truth isn’t meant to be hoarded. But I appreciate your honesty. At least you’re still asking questions. Most people stop there.

PS. It’s funny a lot of people try to “catch” believers in logic traps that don’t actually use logic or examples. It ends up being its own kind of proselytizing, just dressed in cynicism.

I’m all for honest discussion, but if someone’s going to dismiss faith as irrational, they should be able to back their own worldview with the same level of evidence they demand from others. Otherwise, it’s not skepticism it’s just pride wearing a lab coat.

What do you mean?