This is another case, pointed to here over and over and over again, of the confusion of religion in general and, it seems, monotheism, viz. Xtianity, in particular. Confusing the particular and the general nullifies almost everything the New Atheists attempt to say. It is never clear what ‘religion’ is in the minds of these critics, and it is hard to see how critiquing Xtianity can apply to, say, Buddhism.
The result here has been garbage in/garbage out for the whole slew of ‘New Atheist’ tracts.
What are the arguments for and against religion and religious belief–all of them–right across the range of reasons and motives that people have for being religious, and do they stand up to scrutiny? Can there be a clear, full statement of these arguments that once and for all will show what is at stake in this debate?
Equally important: what is the alternative to religion as a view of the world and a foundation for morality? Is there a worldview and a code of life for thoughtful people–those who wish to live with intellectual integrity, based on reason, evidence, and a desire to do and be good–that does not interfere with people’s right to their own beliefs and freedom of expression?
In The Case Against Religion, Anthony Grayling offers a definitive examination of these questions, and an in-depth exploration of the humanist outlook that recommends itself as the ethics of the genuinely reflective person.