"She wants to personalize the debate by attributing Dawkins' anger at religion and the credulous state of mind it induces to his hate, not his reason; as if there were no reasons to hate what religion does and has become in this world."

But what Armstrong actually said was: "this is not what the Buddha would call skillful. If you're consumed by hatred -- Freud was rather the same -- then this is souring your personality and clouding your vision. What you need to do is to look appraisingly and calmly on other traditions. Because when you hate religion, it's also very easy to hate the people who practice it."

I don't think that an expression such as "reasons to hate" has any role in her vocabulary.

How did it enter yours?

for the existence of god is the countless millions of people over the centuries who have sought and found god through prayer, meditation, etc. Impressive too is the remarkable similarity in their experiences of god which exist across cultures, geography and time. It's admittedly not absolute proof, but it's certainly evidence. And it's evidence I've never heard an atheist address.

What is also interesting is how few atheists pray. To me, if you do not engage in some form of disciplined prayer or meditation, you cannot call yourself an atheist. We have many sources from many cultures and traditions which tell us that the way to god (or whatever your culture or discipline calls it) is through prayer or meditation. And yet people who call themselves atheists routinely refuse to do the one thing that can bring them the experience of god. That they then call themselves scientists is a feat of intellectual dexterity far beyond my poor powers. One thing scientists do not do is purposely shield themselves from data.

Few people disdain organized religion more than I do, but the depredations of religions have little or nothing to do with the existence of god or of our human ability to seek and find transcendence.

...that Armstrong won't fly on small planes. O ye of little faith, indeed.

The title of the piece had me ready to hate it, but I found Karen Armstrong to be dead on in most of what she says.

One thing I found bizarre was the notion that secularism was the cause of fundamentalism. For the most part, from what I've seen, secularism leaves religion alone, and only when the insanity of religion reaches a dangerous pitch do people start turning against it, and it's fundamentalism that brings that about. So here she's putting the cart before the horse.

I agree that the idea of the afterlife as punishment and reward is not the least bit accurate. This is an image created to manipulate the masses with fear, and has worked remarkably well. But that does not exclude any afterlife, for which there is evidence via numerous mystical accounts throughout history and today.

I find her reverence for these books to be a bit strange as well, though less so considering her history as a nun. She seems more ready to try to justify everything in these books than to just say "well, that's clearly wrong" which I think would be the correct thing to do in many cases. These books are not sacred, handed down by the divine on a cloud, but written by the hands of men with their own misunderstandings, mistranslations, changes and adjustments.

I would gander that more than 97% of you come from a Christian upbringing, in part, probably attended church, a little bit and were reared by parents who were as well, maybe moreso. So all this keening about religion seems to ring a little hollow. It seems to reflect on your personal feelings about it and your personal alienation from it more than anything else. There isn't anything inherently suspicious or worrisome about Ms. Armstrong's big tent. Just read John Shelby Spong; he's an ex Bishop and he says things which are more alarming to the Church than anything Ms. Armstrong says.

You said:

[Science is] largely immune for much of the past three centuries from a dogmatic faith in prior experts or knowledge.

You must forget that science is perpetually dogged by folks blindly believing what they have been told, and rejecting new ideas outright. Were it not for dogmatic faith in proteins, DNA would have been acknowledged as the cell's genetic material long before Watson, Crick and Franklin figured out its shape. Scientific trends pass in waves just as religious trends do. The majority of scientists currently and in the past have been miserable at questioning the contemporary belief system in their field, and only a handful of radicals have been able to turn opinion in their direction, even with overwhelming evidence already present to support their theories. Science is as much a religion as Christianity to many who adhere to it, it's part of human nature to cling to a belief structure. It is not immune to being treated as dogmatic faith.

For what it's worth, I'm not a Christian, and I am a scientist. It's also worth noting that, despite what a lot of these letter writers say, Buddhism (which is a religion) and Judaism both actively encourage their followers to question what they're taught, and find their own truth in those teachings. They accept and embrace that everyone is fallible, and we all benefit when fallacies are revealed. Dogmatic faith is not exclusive to religion, and religion is not exclusively dogmatic.

First, although Ms. Armstrong may be a wonderful person who never hates, I think that hate is a perfectly good response to many situations. Jews hate Hitler--why not! Most New Yorkers (like myself) hate Osama bin Laden and the men who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers. I personally hate Dick Cheney, because he is a vile man who uses his power to profit himself and bring misery to millions. I hate religious fanatics like Falwell and the President of Iran. I don't advocate killing Cheney, or Falwell, or the President of Iran. But all of them have advocated killing people. And all three self-identify as religious fellows. The idea that Dawkins hates religion in the same way that Falwell hates gays or President Hugo Chavez is ridiculous and based on nothing more than a need to discredit someone against whom you have no case. Which leads me to Mr. Franklin's point about prayer. Yes, prayer feels good. I've done it many times when I was a religious person and it does soothe and improve ones mood. So does masturbating. It doesn't say a damn thing about God or any spirit-realm, any more than taking peyote or playing with yourself does. It effects your brain chemistry in a positive way. If it floats your boat, by all means indulge. But don't tell me it provides scientific evidence for a omnipotent superbeing. People across places and times have found solace in prayer for the same reason that they have found solace in believing in withces or scapegoating minorities--it feels good, gives them a sense of being part of something greater than themselves, and lets them off the hook for taking responsibility for their own lives.