Sorry if I haven't really answered some of your points here, I just read the whole thing and started typing like a madman. I can't really comment on some of your ideas such as being able to discern truth through thought and not through physical evidence, because they seem quite alien to me (not that I'm claiming to know anything about aliens
). Not that it's not interesting to learn how other people see the world, of course. If my local library has a copy of that book, I'll give it a look.
The major problem with religions, as I see it, is that they limit adherents with rules which have no basis in reality. I was taling with my sister just yesterday about therapy because it's something she's never liked the idea of, and was explaining how it isn't like a part of you is gone or you're a different person or any of the other negative things people have to say about changing yourself through therapy - The best analogy I could think of is that it's like having a car or van with a speed limiter that restricts it to 50mph. Once you realise that it is in your power to
remove that limiter, you can put your foot to the floor and go as fast as the physical limitations of the vehicle will allow. That's how I see the mind. It does have physical limitations due to the fact that we still have evolving to do (whether left to nature or grasped in our own hands), but the mental limitiations, the limitations imposed by groundless beliefs
can be lifted and it must surely be in people's benefit to do so.
Can you imagine a world where the people with the power were people of science and reason, and didn't have to pander to a populace which harboured irrational beliefs and ridiculous contradictory expectations? I can. You don't even have to use your imagination it if you don't want to, you can go and buy a DVD boxed set of
Star Trek: The Next Generation. So often the attack is made that a world without religion would be like the Soviet Union under Stalin or some other similarly unappealing godless state - Only if we free ourselves from superstition
without freeing ourselves from other, non-religious irrational thought as well. That's what Dawkins' books and foundation promote, people learning to think critically and rationally about the world. Of course it's necessariy to attack religions if you want to promote these values because they promote the exact opposite: obedience and blind faith.
There is little in spirituality or even the teachings of some religious leaders which can't instead be understood as philosophy. I'd love to see "The philosophy of Jesus/Mohammed/Swami Satchidananda" alondside the works of Sartre and Neitzche one day in the philosophy section where they belong, with the religion section a long discarded relic. They are all the thoughts and ideas of men and (as you have said yourself by way of your points about not being able to prove things which exist only in the mind) that is all they can ever be proven to be. Thomas Jefferson removed the supernatural bits from the New Testament and published it as "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". He liked Jesus' philosophy on life but didn't believe in the supernatural elements of the bible. In this day and age, that seems like a supremely sensible, rational way to view religious texts. We don't think the local vicar can actually talk to God like the witch doctors of ancient tribes any more; to discount claimed scenarios and miracles in holy texts for which there is similarly no proof (especially when there
is proof to the contrary) doesn't seem to me like an unfair step. People should be willing and able to debate the philosophies of religious figures without claiming they deserve special treatment simply because they
claim divine input. Philosopies are debated as theory by both their supporters
and detractors. Religion is debated as theory by non-believers and fact by believers, which is why non-believers need to present counter-factual arguments in order to win against them. You cannot ever hope to win an argument against a religious person with theories - You need to present proof to counter their claims that what they believe is
fact, and there is plenty of it. It's that stubbornness and irrationality in the face of clear evidence that their ideas are wrong which makes hard-line believers so infuriating.
Finally, regarding your point on how Dawkins' arguments come across: A lot of moderate people who dislike Dawkins and similar anti-theists make the argument that if religious belief brings people happiness and contentment, why should we try to take that away from them? I can think of another situation in which people do that; you upset children when you tell them Father Christmas isn't real. Does this mean you should continue the charade in perpetuity for the sake of their happiness? No. Responsible adults have to face the world, they have to face the truth and they have to accept the facts. If people can't do that then they are in many ways child-
like, and I think that's where the problem of belittling people comes in. It would be hard not to belittle a thirty year old man who believed in the Easter Bunny. You can tell me you respect his belief all you like, but I think most people would be pursing their lips and trying their best to hold back the laughter. Well, I'm sorry if that seems awful or belittling, but that is very similar to how I feel when I hear a religious person talk about their beliefs. And you know what? Once the veil of ignorance is lifted the real, scientific, physical world becomes so much
more amazing and awe inspiring, not less.
One last thing:
Is the one who sincerely believes herself to be filled with joy but feels no joy, truly joyful?
No. That sounds like someone on anti-depressants.
