Religion
In reply to the discussion: Feisty entry into contentious field of atheist manifestos [View all]struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)Julian Baggini
The Observer, Saturday 16 March 2013
... But the most vocal atheists and the believers who take their bait appear ever more like a long-married couple who prefer the familiarity of their dysfunctional relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond an amicable divorce. They trade the same old niggles and complaints with no hope or expectation of mutual understanding ...
Grayling's case is most powerful against those who believe, literally, that holy texts convey the word of God, who is a real, personal being who cares for, rewards and punishes us. For a sensible philosopher like Grayling, this is all-too obviously ridiculous, and by the second chapter, he is already unable to resist making the inevitable comparisons with tooth fairies and Father Christmas ...
Nonetheless, there is much more to faith than a stone-age metaphysics of divine beings and miracles. Grayling, however, dismisses all the rest as the mere residue of an outdated worldview or the obfuscation of confused minds. For him, the matter is simple: all religion is built on supernatural beliefs and "when one rejects the premise of a set of views, it is a waste of one's time to address what is built on those premises". As a result, he simply refuses to engage with the most interesting aspect of the God debate: what, if anything, remains of truth and value in religion if you accept its stories as myths? ...
The God Argument sums up the mainstream humanist position well, but I can't see it taking the debate forward. Perhaps that would be a foolish hope. The public debate Dawkins started seems to have done as much to make the participants feel validated as it has to change their opinions. The God argument remains unwinnable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/17/god-argument-ac-grayling-review