To my knowledge, only two of the faculty members in my old grad-school philosophy department professed a belief in God, and one of those was a Catholic who said he’d gladly contribute to a fund to assassinate the Pope. One of the atheist professors once remarked, referring to a theological dispute between two forms of Christianity, “Once you’re in for one crazy metaphysics, you’re in for anything.” Are all religions equally ludicrous? I sketch a few thoughts:
Consider the following three sets of beliefs that someone might hold:
(1) Your current troubles and unhappiness are due to traumas you experienced in past lives, along with clusters of disembodied souls that have become stuck in your body after being killed millions of years ago by an evil galactic warlord.
(2) There is a single being who created everything that exists: space, time, energy, matter. This being is himself uncreated and eternal. He intervenes in the operation of the usual laws of nature from time to time, doing things like making virgins conceive without having sex and bringing the dead to life.
(3) In at least one other place in the universe, life took root on a planet not unlike our own. Creatures evolved that surpass us in intelligence. They developed technology to travel between the stars, and their spacecraft are occasionally seen making visits to Earth.
Are any of them more ludicrous that the others? We don’t have any good evidence, in the usual sense of the term, for any of them. But are any of them more unbelievable? Would we require stronger evidence before assenting to one of them just because it seems, given how we now understand things, to be significantly less likely?
I’d argue that (3) is less ludicrous than (1) or (2), because it doesn’t require us to think the universe is radically different than we now understand it. It assumes that the natural laws that science is ferreting out apply in other parts of the cosmos as well, and that organisms can achieve greater complexity through natural selection. While there’s no positive evidence for life on other worlds, and certainly no good evidence to suggest we’ve had visitors, there’s also no reason to rule out the possibility. An agnostic, wait-and-see approach is warranted.
On the other hand, (1) and (2) both posit the existence of beings and processes that are unimagined in our best theories of how things work. Not only is there no evidence for either (1) or (2), both presume things that radically contradict the contemporary scientific worldview. They’re crazier than a belief in UFOs.
But is (1) crazier than (2)? If you’re in for the crazy metaphysics of creedal Christianity, might you just as well go in for the looney-tunes metaphysics of Scientology?
I have a younger friend who is in the process of questioning the faith he was raised in, which happens to be Mormonism — the same religion I started out in. He’s very much invested in it and has all kinds of social reasons to stay with it: pressure from family and friends, a lifetime of indoctrination, an unknown path ahead of him if he leaves the close-knit community of believers.
When we talked most recently he was in the middle of puzzling out some of the many weird little inconsistencies of Mormon history — how many wives Joseph Smith had and whether he participated in polyandrous marriages; whether the Book of Abraham, an addition Smith made to the canon, was really a translation from some papyrus that was later determined to be a standard Egyptian funerary text; and so on.
He was so engrossed in these questions that he couldn’t even imagine tackling larger ones, like whether a bunch of Jews took a boat from Jerusalem to Central America in 600 B.C.E. and later wrote about their journey on gold plates, which they hid in upstate New York. Or even larger questions, like whether there is in fact an all-powerful being who watches over us and punishes us for touching ourselves. Compared to stuff like that, arguments over the provenance of some papyrus fragments seem trivial.
But my friend was raised to accept all of it, “Book of Abraham,” Central American Jews, and a personal, judgmental God. From where he started, some things are going to seem more or less likely than others, even though I might think they’re all ridiculous.
On the one hand, creedal Christianity and Scientology both involve massive violations of our best theories about how the world works, without a shred of serious evidence in their favor. On the other hand, Scientology has the problem of sounding exactly like it was invented by a third-rate science-fiction writer and having been founded by a third-rate science-fiction writer. Christianity luckily developed centuries ago; its texts are ancient and mystifying; and while it doesn’t have an exclusive claim on the “religion” brand, it does have a large share of the market.
It does make sense, then, that ordinary people tend to think Christianity is much less ridiculous than Scientology. (For some reason, the opposite holds in Hollywood.) At a remove, though, one looks only slightly more ridiculous than the other, if at all. Once you’re in for angels and demons, why not Body Thetans?
A few semesters ago, I took a class called the history of western scientific thought. Without boring you with much detail, the professor, Dr. Jacob Hamblin, would start the discussion on each metaphysical era by debunking the idea that belief in the more “primitive” scientific theories was any less founded than our belief in Einstein’s theories.
As it turns out, given the perfectly sensible belief that everything in space is connected by an invisible “ether,” the belief in magic in the 14th through 16th centuries makes more sense than much of what we believe today. They even had magnets to prove that there is an invisible force that connects us. And even crazier, they actually believed in a god they could see, and they knew had bearing on their lives, the sun.
One day when I was leaving class there was a big anti-evolution rally going on in the middle of campus, and I couldn’t help but feel sorry for these poor misguided souls. They just wanted to believe in their invisible spook so much that even in the face of massive amounts of scientific evidence in favor of natural selection, they chose to believe in a deity, for which there is no evidence (other than a feeling in their hearts and souls).
I remember thinking that given all the other metaphysical beliefs throughout time, the chances that this ONE is right is like a zillion-to-one. Yet millions of people spend their precious lives believing in it. I’m telling you people, just buy some magnets and start worshiping the sun, it really makes a lot more sense.
Thanks Dave for yet another great installment.
I find it kind of fascinating that there’s been a renewed public assault on religion lately, from the third culture folk. It’s also kind of interesting that they don’t just target religion–they also (to a much lesser degree) target the culture of philosophy and critical theory, at least to the extent that it doesn’t support a scientifically-based viewpoint (anything inspired or informed by Nietzsche, it seems, is particularly suspect). They’re a really interesting and rowdy bunch. Of course, it’s not new. The positivists made a similar push, and were cast out for their efforts. I always wonder whether religion really is in an inevitable decline, with some occasional writhing death throes, or whether religion (or at least spirituality) is just too fundamental to the human psyche to ever go away. I tend to think that its many allures will just be too much to overcome. Why wouldn’t you want to believe that death isn’t the end? Why wouldn’t you want to believe that justice will prevail, that the wrongs done to you will be righted? Why wouldn’t you want to believe that an all-powerful being (or some suitably vague version of that notion) out there somewhere is in your corner?
I appreciate this post in a million ways because I think it provokes the reader to examine their own experience and perhaps come up with something different rather than our usual “YES, YES, great post” response (although I love everyone to do this, don’t get me wrong). You push us Dave, in ways that I think define what this site is about–all aspects of human experience.
In this case I think I relate more to Robert’s comment. I think you approaching this topic from a completely intellectual standpoint. From the head, you are right, everything that cannot be measured or catagorized looks ridiculous, but I do believe (yes, believe) in other ways of knowing things that also may be true or at least relevant. Along with this, I am also facinated and cannot discount a whole human history of notions and subsequent narratives that put language around feelings that make no sense otherwise. I have been reading Phillip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials,” which stands all religious thought on its head but still posits a three part human nature–the body, the soul, and the spirit. Each offers a different sense of truth, a different way of being in the universe and sometimes the spirit and the soul are as conscious as the brain. The brain grasps at explanations, however silly–language to describe evidence without physicality.
I am left with a sense of loss. having tossed aside the liturgy of my childhood because it no longer fit my sense of community and personal values, I am left longing for a way to acknowledge my still viable spirituality. I may not believe in an old man white haired god, but what do I do with revelation and wonder and connections to people and moments that are anything but quantifiable? So I pick and choose at the Joseph Campbell banguet table and cling to what ever ludicrous story may feel the most comforting at the moment.
It may be weak and childish, but like Robert suggests, I give in because I am compelled. There is something that reaches that I recognize but struggle to name. If I were not already a ragged and wise refugee from a missionary culture, I would be a perfect candidate for conversion. Too bad I am equal parts jaded and hopeful.
Thank you for this post.
“…wouldn’t you want to believe that justice will prevail, that the wrongs done to you will be righted? Why wouldn’t you want to believe that an all-powerful being (or some suitably vague version of that notion) out there somewhere is in your corner?”
Robert, I’d love to believe these things, but I don’t think the path to finding an answer to them is through pyramid schemes…I mean religion. Once one believes in a singular god, one cannot help but view all who don’t agree, through a jaundiced eye. You can say that you respect the views of others, but how could you really do that if you are to fell that you’ve got a monopoly on the ONE TRUE path? My case in point is your mention of justice. Are you arrogant enough to truly believe that you can define justice? This is something that philosophers have been arguing about for millennia.
And I must ask you, how do “wrongs” get “righted” anyway? Is it through the satisfaction that evildoers are burning in hell? I may be an immoral (or viewed as such by a majority of the world) individual, but I wouldn’t wish eternal damnation on anyone. Purgatory maybe, but damnation’s a little extreme, I think.
“You can say that you respect the views of others, but how could you really do that if you are to fell that you’ve got a monopoly on the ONE TRUE path?”
Sorry, “fell” is a typo; it should read “believe,”
Thanks for the supportive comments on this; I had no idea whether it was complete dreck, and I still think it didn’t quite get where I wanted it to.
We’re not, individually, all that bright, and our beliefs are largely determined by our historical context. If I’d been raised centuries ago we’d probably believe in magic and monsters and astrology, and we’d have a really good excuse for believing in them.
Nowadays, though, we live in a society where a lot more has been discovered about the physical universe. To believe that God reached down his mighty finger and created all the different species of organisms that we currently know requires either (a) pitiable ignorance, like being raised in the backwoods without decent schooling or (b) willful disregard for the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection, or some combination of both.
A lot of the current resurgence of vocal atheism is a reaction against people in category (b), I think. It’s also due to a growing realization that religion is harmful in many instances. That said, the scientist-types pushing this “third culture” stuff often overreach in their claims. There’s no reason to think we should listen to scientists about things like right and wrong; they’re often just as blinkered as fundamentalists on matters outside their disciplines. What we can learn from scientists is a model of inquiry based on openness to new data and new theories, that remains a bright ideal even if it is seldom achieved.
Can humanity ever do without religion? I don’t know. Western Europe is doing pretty well without it, but maybe they’re just in the middle of a huge historical anomaly. As Pandora points out, much of our impulse toward religion is based on our history, not on irrevocable aspects of being human. I think we can get over religion as individuals and societies, but maybe our penchant for producing misery and oppression will keep creating the breeding ground for new mythologies.
Scotty — To provoke: Is damnation really too extreme for [insert name of loathsome criminal or mass-murdering despot]?
Also: Do you really have to not be committed to a singular view of truth/righteousness to be able to respect the views of others? Can you respect views but disagree completely with them?
As always Dave, in Whatsitland, you are the true voice of reason. Thanks for bringing me down from my high horse so gently.
No! Don’t get off the high horse! Stick up for yourself!
I said that #8 nonsense before you provoked me…
“Is damnation really too extreme for [insert name of loathsome criminal or mass-murdering despot]?” I see two problems with this inquiry: first, (despite the fact that I brought up hell) I’d have to believe in an afterlife to answer this question seriously.
Second, it falls along the lines of the death penalty argument: “wouldn’t you want to kill someone who raped your mother?” For the record, I think I would, but the problem (besides its hypothetical nature) is that it takes the question to the extreme case.
How many people are we talking about here…I mean the real genocidal maniacs: Stalin, Hitler, Pharaoh Ramses, Torquemada, Pol Pot, Andrew Jackson, Mao? Should there be a hell just for these extreme cases but not for the homosexuals, non-believers, and un-burqa-clad women?
However, for the sake of sport, I’ll address the question through deflection: say a murderous despot was kills millions of non-Christians, and say he was to repent for his crimes minutes before he died, and he really believed in Jesus and accepted him into his soul. According to Christian lore, would this murderous despot not be accepted into heaven and all the non-Christians that he killed be sent to hell, even the ones named Anne Frank?
“Also: Do you really have to not be committed to a singular view of truth/righteousness to be able to respect the views of others?”
To answer this, one first needs to define “respect.” If by respect you mean to live life without killing each other, sure, pluralistic societies exist all over the world. However, if you define respect as honestly viewing another as an equal, this is not possible if you “know in your heart of hearts” that you’re right about such a metaphysical Truth – the existence of god – and others are not.
Moreover, if you believe that one needs to accept Jesus in order to go the heaven, how could you view a non-believer as an equal? Wouldn’t he/she just be pitchfork fodder?
I don’t mean to solely pick on the Christians. Jews (or the “chosen” people) are equally at fault, as are Muslims. They’re all doing their part to destroy my planet.
And for the record, the “end of days” fanatics are glad the world is going down the toilet because that just means they get to have their rapture quicker.
When Robert is talking about wrongs being righted, he’s noting that justice is very rare in this life. Is there any injustice so great that the worst imaginable punishment (that’s what hell is supposed to be) is a just punishment for it? Or if you have a really crappy life despite being a good person, wouldn’t it be more just if you could be rewarded in the afterlife? I take it that these questions can be discussed regardless of one’s actual belief in an afterlife, and regardless of what exactly you mean or I mean by “wrongs,” “good,” etc.
As for the respect question, it’s trickier, I think. I was actually going to write about it soon, since I think it’s connected with this post. To reverse the positions a bit, what if we cast the atheist as the one who’s sure of himself? Can he respect the beliefs of Christians? Can he respect Christians without respecting their beliefs?
“To reverse the positions a bit, what if we cast the atheist as the one who’s sure of himself? Can he respect the beliefs of Christians? Can he respect Christians without respecting their beliefs?”
I can respect Christians because I believe that they were duped into believing what they do. This is an unfortunate circumstance, but not a reason for my disrespect. Also, this isn’t to say that my situation is any different; we’re all subject to false consciousness.
As a non-believer, moreover, I am open to the possibility that god exists. I just need a little more in the way of proof than any church is prepared to give. Back to Robert’s question, I really would love to believe all of those things.
All this talk (except PB’s comment) seems to circle around individuals who choose (or don’t) to find a mythology with which to explain the meaning of thier lives. I guess that I’m with PB when she writes:
I do believe (yes, believe) in other ways of knowing things that also may be true or at least relevant. Along with this, I am also facinated and cannot discount a whole human history of notions and subsequent narratives that put language around feelings that make no sense otherwise.
I share your fascination, PB– and am willing to not know what the “ultimate” story is behind/underneath all the notions and narratives– or whether there is one. I can only minimally articulate that I try to notice what feels like truth in my general experience. There seem to be “things” — beyond the theories supported by “serious evidence”– we feel or experience that cannot be captured in any narrative, in any language (or at least that I cannot capture).
Isn’t natural selection simply another story to explain things? Perhaps it does appeal to our logic more than something like Christianity–but it similarly serves to unite individuals around an explanation for existence. It’s another narrative (since everything boils down to the social context of rhetoric)– that might just one day be debunked.
I wish I could say I know what I’m really talking about here; I don’t. Dave, your post helps me admit this. But I do “know” that anyone “who’s sure of himself” in atheism or Christianity or any mythology, especially if it’s used to feel superior, is, as Scotty says “seeing through a jaundiced eye.” Pride cometh before a fall…?
What about hope? It seems to me that we need hope; because sometimes life REALLY SUCKS (I hope to write an article on this in the future). Even though I have my doubts at times, and religion doesn’t always make sense (nor proof), I have a hope for the future. I have a hope that I can improve as a husband, father, friend, and son. I have hope that my future will be brighter both in this life, and (hopefully) in the life to come. I want my children to have hope, and religion helps provide for some degree of hope. A very good friend of mine, who doesn’t attend church, recently said that even if religion is not “true”, it leads many people to improve their lives, and to have some hope.
What about societal morals? Can we *prove* that those who live to a “higher” standard are happier or better, than those who don’t? I doubt it. Therefore, is it a waste of time to live to a higher moral code? My son and I were talking this morning about this post, and he said that government should never dictate what another person should or should not do, if the thing does not affect another person (he gave the example of gay marriage). And I would say, that religion is like similar, in that if it works for you, great; if it doesn’t work for me, fine. Let’s leave it to the individual to decide what is best for himself/herself. I know my thoughts are scattered, but I’m short on time, and have wanted to weigh in on this all day.
Marleyfan, I’d like to read that REALLY SUCKS article. I have hope. Please forward.
I love the passion expressed in this series of comments. I believe that faith is possible outside of religion, outside of believing that you know the one true path. I believe nothing is truly knowable. To not believe would be equally ignorant as believing.
I was talking to a friend recently who defines herself as a Unitarian Universalist but not as a Christian. She explained that she does not believe any one religion is the right religion. She does identify most with Jesus but believes that is not for everyone.
I believe faith is strongly linked to hope. Faith is believing everything will work out for the best because of something more powerful than ourselves. We don’t have to know all of the answers to have faith and to believe.
PS Scotty since you brought up Einstein, check out this series about Einstein and God from public radio.
Has anyone read about the recent theories suggesting the possibility of a so-called “God gene”? Time magazine published an article a few years ago about this possibility (“Far from being an evolutionary luxury then, the need for God may be a crucial trait stamped deeper and deeper into our genome with every passing generation. Humans who developed a spiritual sense thrived and bequeathed that trait to their offspring. Those who didn’t risked dying out in chaos and killing. The evolutionary equation is a simple but powerful one.”)
I know scientists are always trying to isolate genes for just about everything–an alcoholism gene, a depression gene, an afraid-of-squirrels gene–but the idea of a gene that predisposes us toward spirituality (maybe it should be called “the lack-of-critical-thinking” gene) makes a lot of sense.
When I was a kid, forced to attend church semi-regularly, I remember questioning not so much the idea that “there is a single being who created everything that exists: space, time, energy, matter”–but that He would want people to wake up early and go to a specific buiding across town in order to worship Him. That seemed sort of strange to me, even back then. Now the idea suggests that someone up there is downright insecure–and since God is, of course, created in man’s image, that only makes sense as well. Religion, after all, seems based on the desire for security–the secure feeling that, as Robert states, “death isn’t the end… that justice will prevail, that the wrongs done to you will be righted… that an all-powerful being (or some suitably vague version of that notion) [Sam Harris refers to this being as an ‘Imaginary Friend’] out there somewhere is in your corner.”
Incidentally, Sam Harris wrote an op-ed piece for today’s LA Times. Entitled “God’s Dupes,” the article covers much the same territory as your post today, Dave. In it Harris states, “The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things.” He goes on to ask the reader to imagine “concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness,” with the hard-core fundamentalists at the center, and the more moderate religious types outside this inner sphere of “maniacs.” Ultimately, his point is that those in the outer circles protect the zealots in the inner circle by, essentially, sheltering their beliefs from criticism.
He ends the article with the following: “Every one of the world’s ‘great’ religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture. Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.”
Great post. (I’m continually impressed by how clearly you think and write about such complex issues, Dave.)
MarleyFan – I, too, have wanted to weigh in on this one all day, but haven’t been quite sure how to formulate a post that would reflect my very strong views on this issues adequately. And I I am with you 100% in this: “And I would say, that religion is like similar, in that if it works for you, great; if it doesn’t work for me, fine. Let’s leave it to the individual to decide what is best for himself/herself.” Amen.
But, I do have to confront your “hope” idea. I think that one can have hope without believing in an afterlife or adhereing to a religious code. One thing that frustrates me about religion (and I’m aware that I’m totally over-generalizing here), is the rejection that one can find hope within themselves, that perhaps if one wants to improve their relationships or create a better life for themselves or be a better person overall, they can do so on their own; I find this extremely empowering and hopeful. When life really sucks, I don’t rely on something else for answers because I dont expect answers. Of course there are moments where all I want are answers, but I wouldn’t get them if I had a religion either — an answer in religious terms is called “faith.”
Also, being raised by atheists has actually given me hope. For me, believing that there is a beginning and an end and that all (okay, most) of what happens in my life is up to me (not some omnipresent/ never-visually-present being) is quite comforting and gives me hope in myself and the people I care for. The idea of an afterlife is intimidating to me — I don’t think I have the stamina for eternal life. I’ll stick with trying to make the best of this life.
Jeremy, I’ll have to check out that op-ed. Part of what spurred me to write this post was Harris’s argument about the dangers of moderate religious believers, which he’s written about elsewhere. I feel like I could spend a year’s worth of TGW posts outlining where I agree and where I disagree with Harris; I’m very glad he and a few others are making atheism more prominent in public debate.
Lots of other good stuff to respond to, but I’m sleep-deprived and need to go to bed. I can’t resist seconding Miller’s questioning the widely assumed link between faith (in the religious sense) and hope (not hope in Jesus, but hope in the everyday sense, that things will get better, that it’ll be alright).
in response to #16: one of my favorite jokes of all time: how do you know the unitarians are trying to drive you out of town? you wake up to question marks burned in your lawn.
and #17: a favorite cartoon: panel 1 — some scientists at a press conference. “We’re proud to announce we’ve isolated the gay gene.” Panel #2: “Next up — to isolate what makes women and blacks.”
xo all. nice day of reading on TGW and at work. i’ve been buried in a sub-sub-basement in the library reading microfilm until my eyes are sore. that’s what we do on spring break!! and it feels so good!
bw
Ugh, I’m looking over my comment and catching a ton of typos. I must fix this one: One thing that frustrates me about religion (and I’m aware that I’m totally over-generalizing here), is the rejection that one can find hope within themselves, that perhaps if one wants to improve their relationships or create a better life for themselves or be a better person overall, they can do so on their own; I find this extremely empowering and hopeful.
I obviously find it empowering and hopeful to find the tools for improvement within myself, not the rejection of this principle.
Anyway, I forgot to mention that I really, really enjoyed this post, Dave. I’ve often thought about and debated some of the ideas in your post myself, though you articulate them much better than I could.
Miller,
You make a great point, to which I agree, we don’t need religion or a belief in an afterlife to have hope. And (instead of but), religion can add to the hope for some people, AND, can take away hope for others. All too often, we look to others for our security, when we should be looking inward.
PB, I thought the post sucked (how do you like them apples).
Actually, I really liked it, because I really enjoy the challenge of learning (but don’t tell Dave).
On the funny side, I met a man yesterday who told me “I lost my best friend to Mormonism” :O
marleyfan,
I am a big liar, I do not mind effusive praise and agreement and self-esteem enhancing one bit!!! I just love when we engage in real conversation like above–I agree with your very brilliant comments–it is very stimulating.
But I won’t tell Dave if you don’t.
I knew what you meant, I was just a messin’ with ya…
sheeze, do you ever sleep??
Just think, marleyfan, we have never met and yet we lurk at wee hours . . . together.
someone might talk.
And talk they might.
But we have met. I had dinner at your house in Boston, about 2 months before 9/11. I must have made a great impression.
Aw, let ’em talk…
Given my position on all things religious (which I’m sure borders on fanaticism), some may find it surprising that I find studies about “God genes” to be really creepy. To me, they smack of the same kind of disingenuous science – born out of fundamentalism – as the Discovery Institute’s research on intelligent design.
Robert, if you’re still around, is this the type of thing you meant by “third culture?”
Also, I wanted to make a link to the Discovery Institute’s website, but that function doesn’t work on Macs (yet another cult to which I belong). So anyway, the site is just discovery.org. I highly recommend checking it out.
The so called “third culture” (bridging the gap between scientists and “traditional intellectuals”, which are the first and second cultures, according to an essay written by C.P. Snow) is a group of thinkers who congregate at edge.org. It includes some people who have made a big splash with books about (against) religion recently, like Sam Harris (The End of Faith), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), and Daniel Dennet (Breaking the Spell). I have a few complaints about ideas that get promoted there, but for the most part I admire their work. It’s a very interesting group, most of them scientists in areas like evolutionary biology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, etc. Many of them are people who have been around and writing for a long time, but collectively they’ve recently made a bigger dent in the public consciousness, it seems.
I dunno. To me, the existence of a “God gene” would hurt the argument in favor of religion–after all, it would call into question ideas about faith, free will, and the like… I find that sort of intriguing… No doubt, religious-types (especially fundamentalist “maniacs,” as Harris calls them) would spin all of this in the completely opposite direction, seeing the existence of this gene as proof in the existence of God (and, perhaps, a “chosen people”).
“Nowadays, though, we live in a society where a lot more has been discovered about the physical universe. To believe that God reached down his mighty finger and created all the different species of organisms that we currently know requires either (a) pitiable ignorance, like being raised in the backwoods without decent schooling or (b) willful disregard for the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection, or some combination of both.”
Straw man, no? Why not take on, say Kierkegaard’s or Pascal’s version of Christianity, rather than some Carl Sagan or a Creationist?
[…] And I admit, I find some beliefs more ridiculous that others, and sometimes shake my head in amazement that someone holds a particularly far-fetched notion. That some people hold certain outlandish beliefs is prima facie evidence that they’re lacking education, intelligence, or sound judgment. (This sounds harsh, but admit it: You’ve thought worse of Beck since his involvement with Scientology became more widely known.) […]