This is the first interesting discussion on these forums in a very long time. Thanks Brig.
Now, I lost everything I've read in a jumble, so I'm going to just assemble my thoughts here.
First of all, I don't claim that religion is the root of charity. I think Andy's claim is correct: that charity is inherent in humanity and that the church simply provides a focal point at which people can concentrate their desire to help. While I agree that modern secular institutions can do just as good a job -- if not a more efficient one -- those conduits were not available in the past; this role was fulfilled by the church first, and for better or worse, that has ensured its continuing entrenchment as a major charitable organization.
But churches do have a few marked advantages over their secular alternatives. First of all, churches are naturally occurring community centers, thus allowing for small-scale charitable activity that simply wouldn't be possible through an organization like the Red Cross. An example: the church which my mother attends has a long-standing partnership with a church in Africa; the members of the parish donate clothing, money, and supplies to the partner church, thus ensuring the most direct method of delivering charitable contributions. This is certainly more efficient than the holding centers and massive distribution processes of donating something to the Red Cross and allows for the donater to know very specifically where their contribution is going.
To shift gears: no, the universal human propensity to engage in religious activity does not prove that there is a god. But it does prove that there is a fundamental and universal human spiritual need. It's an impulse that won't go away, and one that very logically will result in the organization of religion.
My prior post was largely a frustrated response to the argument that religion has never done anything good for humanity. That statement is patently false and is one that even the most hardline atheists (with any sense) would reject.
Now to chuck: I do not see how religion is a copout. Religion does not have to interfere with daily activity in any way. I'm not sure that religion causes a decrease in productivity or represents an escape from reality. Religion trades primarily in spiritual truths, and exploring these truths in no way makes you less able to cope with or address reality.
Again, that's not to say that religion has never been guilty of these crimes. Religion can impair progress (Christianity vs. stem-cell research, gay marriage) and can force its adherents into a sort of dangerous escapism. But the dangers inherent in religion are not unique to it; people are just as likely to take partisan loyalties too seriously as they are religion, and it results in no less narrow a worldview.
My philosophy is articulated best by Joseph Campbell. He makes the argument that modern religion has gotten it all wrong in that it has attributed literal value to religious allegory. God is an image, not a berobed, white-bearded man in the sky. In this regard, the flying spaghetti monster is just as real as God; it's an image for something that is of real value to humanity.
Unfortunately, it's all too easy to get caught up in the this-worldly, literal pitfalls extensions of religion. My point, I guess, is that this is what you (chuck) are railing against -- you abhor not religion itself, but its misapplication. If I were you, I'd consider that.
