No, but now I'm interested. — Gus Lamarch

I recommend it highly. He seems to have done a great deal of research, and wrote well. Of course, it's also a fascinating subject.

I don't know if you agree, but for me, this period of religious diversification that was in its full swing in the 3rd century is identical to our current period. — Gus Lamarch

I live in the U.S., and am largely ignorant of religion in other countries. I see no diversification here for the most part; mostly dull forms of Protestantism (when not fundamentalist, in which case it's incredible and somewhat disturbing) and an uninspired form of Catholicism.

I recommend it highly. He seems to have done a great deal of research, and wrote well. Of course, it's also a fascinating subject. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm going to take a look soon. :smile:

I live in the U.S., and am largely ignorant of religion in other countries. I see no diversification here for the most part; mostly dull forms of Protestantism (when not fundamentalist, in which case it's incredible and somewhat disturbing) and an uninspired form of Catholicism. — Ciceronianus the White

Yeah, here in Brazil is the other way around...

@Mackensie : Bertrand Russell's Conclusion

From your post:

1. If a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable in believing in it.
2. The Soviet Union had widespread beliefs.
3. These beliefs resulted in many atrocities against other human beings.
4. When a belief causes widespread harm to other people, it is not reasonable.
5. Therefore, even if a belief is widespread, it is not always reasonable.

A regimented summary of my argument is as follows.
1. When a belief is widespread, it is not inherently unreasonable.
2. It is a widespread belief to stop, drop and roll if your clothing catches on fire.
3. It is reasonable to not want your clothing to be on fire.
4. Not all widespread belief is inherently unreasonable.

Some reasons why theism, a widespread belief, is not unreasonable.
The Soviet Union as a generalization of an unreasonable, widespread belief is not a proper analogy to theism."

My objection to your argument:
My question is, regarding your conclusion and Russell's conclusion, do they not claim the same thing? Russell claims that just because a belief is widespread does not necessarily mean it is reasonable; your claim is that just because a belief is widespread does not necessarily mean it is not reasonable. You are both claiming that the popularity of a belief does not automatically mean it is either reasonable or unreasonable, you both just approached the same claim from different directions. I think you took Russell's claim to be much more binary than it is, at least in how you transitioned from his conclusion to yours. Your counter-argument would work if Russell claimed that all widespread beliefs are not reasonable, but his claim of them not necessarily being reasonable is more conservative.
However, I do agree with your objection about how using the Soviet Union as an example cannot be a proper analogy. Russell claims that when a belief causes widespread harm to others, it is not reasonable. The disanalogy here, though, is the bridge between belief and practice/actions, which you sort of implied in your reasoning but is not entirely obvious. The people of the Soviet Union holding their beliefs of equality is not inherently harmful; it is the way that these beliefs were the basis upon which misguided regulations and laws were carried out that caused this harm to others. The ill-thought-out actions were the cause of harm, not the holding of a belief in itself (unless, of course, that belief implies the need to harm others, which is a different case, as you demonstrate). Anyways, as far as you laid out Russell's argument and your counter-argument and other objections, I think that your numerically-laid-out argument, in the end, is moot since I do not think it really serves as a counter-argument, but pointing out the false analogy serves to undermine his argument, at least as you laid it out here, in the end.