Couldn’t you also say, however, that the structures (just like words, theories, institutions in general) are necessary constructs for understanding? Part of the “assumptions” that we take in order to discern meaning? For example, in one sense we can really know nothing without words (like Helen Keller before she learned the word water), but words themselves can be a constrictive mechanism if we fail to distinguish distinctions in their nuance. So, is organized religion restrictive? Yes, in one sense. In another sense, it is also a means of conveying a complex reality that would be very difficult to get at without it.

Thanks again,
JM

This is my next book — in progress! Stay tuned for more info here on my blog.

Thanks,
Ian

I am Catholic, arguably the most organized of organized religions. (Although, I would contend it’s not organized at all–we could never have pulled off the DiVincci Code When people critique “organized religion,” they are often only looking at the structure of the religion. One book that looks at the Catholic religion in a multi-faceted perspective is “Models of the Church” by Cardinal Avery Dulles. (Nephew of John Foster Dulles.) Structure alone is always a double-edged sword, but it is often a necessary construct, like a ladder or a bridge, to move people to the space in between structure.

Where I think the problems come to play in my religion and other religions is where they mistake the structure (externals) for the truth (internal reality). In this respect, it is no different from science which, as you so aptly point out, does not distinguish theory from the reality which it is trying to describe.