i have so many thoughts about this passage

entirely contrary to james' point, this is the unpragmatic conservative political consequence of religious belief: it has the power to arbitrarily justify any amount of gruesome pointless suffering and give it cosmic purpose

but precisely for that reason it carries it's most valuable asset. like idk if you're the dog and you're powerless to stop your own vivisection, then fuck it entertain any fantasy you like if it helps you cope.

if i were a neoliberal: religion is game theoretically dire because the short term utility maximizing play is horrid in the long run and because it's treated like a private matter but has externalities

also though - i hope people don't get the wrong idea that i support "religious tolerance" or any such nonsense because of this. i'm sympathetic in the sense that i see frail humans confronted by suffering, gasping and flailing for respite, and i feel sorry for them

oh and as a final word - the real issue is that religion in any form simply isn't a "live hypothesis" for me (to use james' jargon). that is of course unless you uses religion in the broad and empty supernatural sense that only the most ardent positivist would object instead of his other definition.