You are rattling off right wing talking points. You hardly describe the political situation in America.

If progressives are going to make themselves politically relevant again, they need to learn how to authentically communicate with people of faith on their own terms. Browbeating them by telling them they are infantile, stupid, deluded, or otherwise mentally deficient isn't going to get you there, and if progressives are going to insist on embracing this apporach, they'd better get used to political failure.

,

Dear Editor:

Karen Armstrong makes some good points, but ducks the central issue: all theist religions are by definition authoritarian. Being authoritarian, they allow their adherents the (practical) luxury of of referring to god's authority rather than thinking. Indeed, if pressed far enough, all theists will abandon reason and retreat to authority to justify any individual or collective action.

There are not, therefore, different "kinds" of christians or muslims or jews, only different degrees. In fact they are all of them the same "kind." They must be willing to submit to the irrational and believe in god in order to become theists. They are all fanatics at the core of being. If they aren't, they cannot really be theists and will abandon their "faith" when push comes - as it must - to shove.

Her blaming religious fundamentalism on secularism is flat out absurd. Secular thought is human - it celebrates individual liberty and reason - and therefore has been opposed by all theist organizations at all times in all places. Fundamentalism is not a response to secularism; quite the opposite.

Finally to say that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were secularists is beyond belief. Each was a religious leader who substituted himself for god. What made this possible (easy, even) was that theist religion with its inherent belief in blind faith and authority had for two thousand years prepared the ground for them.

Leaving miss Armstrong behind, I must point out that I see religion - not global warming, energy, plague, war or even greed - as the greatest danger in our world. The core of theist religion - to be able to act on the belief that "my god" is the one true god - engenders or worsens all of the aforementioned.

But then, I am just an infantile secular- humanist and and an anarchist to boot. Without god, what can I know?

PS: I do not consider Buddhism a theist religion so must my ranting does not pertain to it.

"Take Richard Dawkins, for example. He did a couple of religious programs that I was fortunate enough to miss."

Wow, that's some impressive intellectual honesty there. I hope all of her research adheres to that high standard.

Why am I supposed to respect this person's opinion?

A Dali painting is hanging in a gallery. The religious fundamentalist looks at it and says, "Follow me, and do as I do, and we will reach the magical land where clocks melt!". The antireligious fundamentalist (hardline atheist) says, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. This painting depicts a place where clocks can melt, clearly in opposition to the laws of physics. Unless someone can prove to me that this place exists beyond any doubt, this painting is irrelevant!". Both have missed the point.

Ms. Armstrong makes the classical mistake of most religious apologists: she confuses opinion with evidence. Science is a self-correcting body of informed speculation and observation, constantly trying to discover new things and largely immune for much of the past three centuries from a dogmatic faith in prior experts or knowledge. Armstrong wants to equate her own irrational faith in some unknown, unseen realm with Dawkins confidence in the scientific approach to the physical world. This is nonsense. 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. Talk about an ad hominem attack to distract one from the weakness of an argument! I only wish the interviewer had been sharper and forced her to explain herself more logically and completely. She may, in the end, be right about a transcendant realm of expereince, but Armstrong's gonna have to do a hell of a better job presenting her case before I'll accept it.

The classic criticism of atheists is that it is just as much a matter of faith to say there is no god as it is to say that there is a god.

maybe for some. but bertrand russell speaks for himself and me:

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

— Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91"

Perhaps we can let this criticism die, since it's not very accurate.

Did anyone else think that Armstrong's characterization of "the Big Bang, the black hole" as a new religious language betrayed a huge lack of understanding of these concepts?

"Like it or not, the vast majority of people in this country self-identify themselves [sic] as belonging to a faith of one description or another, usually Christian."

Therefore, the rest of us might as well fall in line and follow the majority. And if the majority says that the sun revolves around the earth, who are we to argue? As the expression goes, "a million flies can't be wrong."

But let's extend that logic a little more:

Like it or not, the vast majority of people in this country self-identify as Christians.

(Ignoring the 'like it or not' declaration...) So why haven't the minority of people converted to Christianity? Is there something wrong with them? What part of 'Thou shall have no other gods before me' don't they understand?

This logic doesn't hold. You can't have your cake and eat it too.