Atheism is unstoppable.

[EgoDeath]

Thank you for asking. I'll try to be more detailed this time.

First, I think that "I don't know but it must be doing something" is a very good place to begin.

Why? Why is it so self-evident that religion is serving some meaningful purpose? I wonder if you're going to demonstrate this later in your post.

We could no doubt live long and happy lives without knowing what this "something" is, but if we're going to criticize other people we have a duty to know what they really think. Just asserting that their reasons are bad -- that they are brainwashed or can't think straight -- is not sufficient.

I actually have good reason to assert that their reasons are bad, or at the very least in some cases, misguided.

I'm sure that a lot of people believe out of habit, or inertia, or because it's easy socially. Not being in their social position, I can't say that's bad of them.

I would say this covers MOST Christians in the US.

Other people have more conscious, thoughtful reasons. I have spoken to some of them on line. Have you never interacted with a single religious person whom you respect?

I do not doubt that people have conscious, thoughtful reasons. However I'm arguing that those reasons are often bad or misguided, as there are much more useful things than religion to serve whatever purposes they think religion serves in their lives. And I can't really name a very religious person in my life who I respect. Even if I did, respecting a person versus respecting their silly beliefs about bronze age fairy tales are two VERY different things. I DO NOT respect certain people's beliefs about bronze age fairy tales, even if I respect them as people.

Personally, I have got enormous pleasure from religious sources -- books, paintings, etc. These are fictions which nonetheless improve our understanding of the real world. Off the top of my head, some examples: I had a sort of conceptual understanding of Kant's epistemology, but never felt it deep down, what it's like to be such an animal, until I read William Blake's strange Christian writings. He is not mainstream, but he is firmly rooted in Christian tradition, like that of Meister Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa. Spending years reading Dante has helped me to think more clearly about morality. Certain of his symbols also clarify important things in the Platonic tradition.

So because a few religiously inspired writings or paintings (pieces of art) have evoked an emotional reaction in you, religion MUST be useful. It sounds more like a reaction to, well, art, than to god. 

So when Kit was claiming earlier that non-science-type writing has no value in helping us understand the world, this went against my own experience and the opinions of many wise people. Kukai, aka Kobo Daishi, the founder of Japanese Shingon Buddhism, wrote: "...the esoteric scriptures are so abstruse that their meaning cannot be conveyed except through art." And "...the secrets of the sutras and commentaries can be depicted in art and the essential truths of the esoteric teaching are all set forth therein. Neither teachers nor students can dispense with it. Art is what reveals to us the state of perfection." I believe this based on my own experience. And I think that "art," here, includes fiction.

I think the point here is that when it truly comes to understanding the world in a factual way, no, non-scientific writing is not going to help us. Just because YOU personally had something "click" in your brain doesn't make it a useful piece of writing to help us understand the world, because these things have as many potential meanings as there are people who read them. A scientific paper on photosynthesis is what will help us understand photosynthesis, not a painting of a daffodil, even if that daffodil painting makes you "feel connected to nature."

In a less philosophical way, the more art and the more varied viewpoints we experience, the more rich the world becomes. We learn to value more things and enjoy more things. This comes to us through non-fiction as well, but since fiction tends to be more about value and enjoyment, I have found it most useful. 

While of course I have strong opinions about certain bad things, I do not feel satisfied enough with myself to rule out the wise thinkers from traditions other than my own.

Sure, subjective experience is part of what makes life beautiful. But subjective experience can be a highly inaccurate picture of the world, and it's REALLY important to keep that in mind when talking about objective fact.

So, is the answer to my question that fictional writings can sometimes evoke emotional reactions in people?