The Dawkins book is a little more aggressive but an easier read. The Dennett book is a bit of a slog and you can get the essence from the first chapter.

But if we aren’t allowed to object to religious viewpoints, then I’ll never know that my position can be proved wrong.

It would be great if our society could somehow get past ‘fine. i respect that’ (i.e. no argument presented) and get to “I have a different opinion. Here it is in a respectful way.”

I am unfamiliar with the term “New Atheist”. (Sorry for being so out of the loop.) But I do believe that what might be the other side (call them the Old Fundamentalist) needs to discover a way to assert their position (even the position that theirs is the only true way) in a manner that recognizes and respects the existence of other points of view.

I do appreciate the book recommendation. I have a far better chance of getting through a single book that was recommended than starting in on a list of books.

Thanks.

If you state your position on economics, the environment, where to put the curly braces or the best way to cure a hangover you can expect someone else to have a different opinion and - this is crucial - to explain the error of your ways. Except on matter of religion. It’s almost as though religious ideas are somehow sacred.

If one group says that you must cut pieces from baby boys or that it’s forbidden to cut your hair or for women to show their faces the rest of us must say ‘fine. i respect that’.

What the New Atheists are saying is, why are religious ideas so special that we are not allowed to question them the way we question gravity and color theory and the rules of soccer?

For a wonderful - and respectful - treatment of these ideas, I highly recommend “Breaking the Spell” by Daniel Dennett.

Religious differences are not easily reconciled. Discoveries at archeological digs are debated, as are the latest studies on the healing power of prayer, as are reports of various “miracles”. And all sides of the debate would rather question the data’s validity, or the testing process, or the study’s repeatablitiy, or even the applicability of the Scientific Method rather than change what they believe about God.

When it comes to using science to prove or disprove God, the science (and the application thereof) is more on trial that is a person’s perception of God.

Combine this with the fact that concepts like Hell are involved, (and where the other person is going if they don’t agree with you) and you have the potential for ending up with few changed minds and a lot of broken relationships. So, oftentimes, it’s better to just not go there.

It is regrettable how so many theologies preach the importance of relationships, but so many relationships are strained and broken in questionable attempts to convince others of the truth to that religious viewpoint.

You wouldn’t need to look far for good examples to support your position. In fact, you’d even have the Bible on you side on this one.

In the Garden of Eden, whether you believe it fact or fiction, the story goes that God said to Adam and Eve that they could eat the fruit from any tree accept one. According to the writer of Genesis, Eve soon turned “Do not eat” into “Do not touch” then broke both rules.

God hadn’t mentioned anything about touching the fruit. That part was added by humans.

Other examples are easy to find. I think the light switch example was a reference to the 4th commandment – to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. The commandment goes on to say you should do no “work” on that day. For some, that would prohibit the moving of a light switch.

Regardless of how literally you choose to keep the 4th commandment, if at all, it seems, sadly, that making up rules in the name of God has been part of human nature since the world began … whenever you believe that was.

Blog on, Captain!