Religion
In reply to the discussion: Feisty entry into contentious field of atheist manifestos [View all]struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)Martin Cohen asks what is the point of using logic to dismantle religious belief?
21 March 2013
The promise that A.C. Grayling makes to us is to thoroughly examine all the arguments offered in support of religious belief and to do so not acerbically but calmly. Strange, then, that he starts by thanking various fellows in the cause, such as (guess who) Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and cheeky Peter Cave. The word cause is revealing of the mindset, even if the next line strikes an unconvincing note of inclusivity, offering, like a poorly structured sermon, that every generation must travel its own road, but with the hope of arriving at a destination further along than its predecessors. Perhaps a wiser thought and a better metaphor would have been: every publisher must produce its own book explaining the same points about religion, but with the hope that each sells more than its predecessors.
This book, however, is supposed to be different - a philosophical examination of the arguments. That is perhaps why it is called The God Argument. Or perhaps the publisher came up with the name after Grayling submitted it. Although it is full of arguments in one sense: what philosophers call ad hominem ones directed at religious apologists. Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz and no doubt the local vicar would all fit into this group - but not, it seems, Buddhists or followers of Confucius, as these are philosophies. Which means that they are all right.
Religion, as presented here, has negligible philosophical content. Rather it seems to consist of hanging homosexuals, beheading or stoning to death adulterous women and subordinating women and children in Bible Belt America. Throughout history, the religion-inspired suppression of women has robbed humanity of at least half of its potential creativity and genius. Were only on page two, by the way, of this exemplification of calm rationality, as a review from the Church Times promises on the back cover ...
The problem with this reasoning is that there could be another explanation for the bad things - like maybe inbred sexism, or aggressive pursuit of economic self-interest. But that, I suppose, is sociology. Here we only do logic. Mind you, some claims do look rather sociological, such as: Whereas the consolations of religion are mainly personal, the burdens are social and political as well as personal. It is likely that Grayling has no time for the Protestant work ethic that made being rich virtuous and justified the entire capitalist system - generally seen as an important factor in social development - or perhaps he would rather we returned to a kind of philosophical Year Zero, before religion ...
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/the-god-argument-the-case-against-religion-and-for-humanism-by-ac-grayling/2002605.article