I've been reading up on the books from the God debate recently. All of the responses I've read to the New Atheists which I've read so far have, in my humble opinion, fallen pretty flat.
But there is one thing I'm not so sure about. Sam Harris is of course correct that a person need not see it as incumbent upon himself to accept anything on insufficient evidence in order to be a good person. But that being said, as my right-wing friends are wont to note, people who don't accept religion often turn some cause or another into religion. So I wonder if most of us all have our own woo anyways and if moderate religion just serves that role for some. Of course, there is a line. Blowing yourself up or (the much less egregious, but still evil, offense of) saying why Katrina happened, for example, obviously cross the line. But while a benevolent God may make no sense (and the smartest gedolim were smart enough to realize that they didn't have good theodicies), is believing in him while simultaneously declaring religious extremism outside the pale so bad? I will fight against those who tell their children that some gadol has it all figured out, but are Reform Jews -- for example -- so off-kilter?
Fellow skeptics, would appreciate your thoughts.
Next Post: The Pelta Appendix
[ed. Put up a new video on the bottom of the sidebar]