That's another good analogy. The goal is to ride the bicycle of spirituality on our own, unencumbered by the rituals of the past.

You forgot contributions to the collection plate...

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

...

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

Don't be too rash. It was religion that made formal education necessary.

It seems to me that that 'formal education' became necessary only to read the language (Latin) in which the religion was written.

... and that formal education wasn't available to the 'common' (real) people, but only to the select few .... i.e. those who could afford it.

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

Formal education began in ancient Egypt and Sumeria to train the new priests in the rituals of their religion.

"to train the new priests" -- yes, undoubtably so, but would the slaves and commoners have recieved a formal education?

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

Only much later. Formal education was developed for purely religious purposes.

But that doesn't make religion "necessary".

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

No, it doesn't.

Aside from which, I'd surmise that "formal" education was around -- probably without classrooms -- long before big religions needed to teach priests, teaching new generations about how to make flint tools, hunt, plant, tan hides and a lot of other things necessary to survival.

In all likelihood, the first "priests," or tribe shamans, were taught their craft the same way -- by their elders as they went about their business.

But the question remains: "Is religion necessary?"

The answer, I think, is two-fold:

1. Religion is not necessary for faith. Faith can be had all on its own, as it is for any number of people who have long since given up any semblance of formal religious observance, yet retain their faith in God.
2. Associations of the like-minded do, on the other hand, appear to be a necessity for many people. We get together in clubs of every kind, to pray, to play bridge, to knit and make quilts, to enjoy nature, to read. So I think that religions are just one more example of that need we humans seem to have to support one another more than just informally.

So the short answer is: religion is necessary for people, but not for faith.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.