Responding to criticism and arguing coherently are the hallmarks of reasonable, mature debate.  Browsing the articles on Alternet my attention was drawn to the article that shares the same moniker as this post, minus the question mark.  I was hoping for some meaty, thought-provoking arguments by Scofield.  I was disappointed.   The 5 points seem to be weak caricatures of common atheist arguments, and if they can rebutted by the relative small fry of the atheist community like me, they most certainly do not hold much weight.

5. Liberal and Moderate Religion Justifies Religious Extremism

“Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “religious tolerance–born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God–is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” Christopher Hitchens has called liberation theology “sinister nonsense” and compared the liberal Unitarian tradition to rats and vermin.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it leads to some unwanted logical conclusions when applied equally to other ideas. It is hypocritical to selectively apply the principle where it suits one’s needs but not elsewhere.”

“We can ask whether or not all liberal and moderate expressions of something are responsible for their most extreme forms. Are the people who casually smoke marijuana in any way responsible for the death of someone involved in a violent heroin drug trade? Is a social drinker of alcohol creating the environment that leads to alcoholism?” Is a pediatrician responsible for Nazi medical experiments simply because he or she participates in the field of medicine? How about politics? Is a liberal democracy responsible for forms of government such as totalitarianism or fascism? […]

“[…] the more rational and tolerant uses of science, religion, medicine or government cannot be blamed for the destructive and harmful uses of them.”

Sam Harris speaks about this idea of the moderately religious supporting the radical religious in a very case.  It is not a generalization that makes sense to apply to other situations.  The idea that religious moderates facilitate the radical wings of their religion is different than the examples Scofield uses.  The difference begins with the idea that there is an equivalency based in religion that does not exist in the other examples listed.  The equivalency is this: Religious moderates and radicals use the same play-book to express their beliefs.

This leads to Islam claiming to be the religion of “peace” while claiming to do God’s work in suicide bombings, or the christian faith in both justifying and arguing against slavery using passages from the bible.  It is this salient point that makes Harris’s argument work while exposing the false equivalence of what Scofield is attempting to do.

Does social drinking set the environment for the abuse of alcohol, it certainly can, but it does not claim to justify destructive actions caused by people who take drinking to the extreme.  Social drinkers do not tacitly condone the irresponsible actions of others; it is rather the opposite, if responsible people are around, overindulgence is generally frowned upon.   I have never once seen a “please consume responsibly” warning on a religious text or commercial.

I’d go further with examples, but there really is no point because the analogies Scofield draws are incongruous with reality.  Science, when still performed as science adheres closely with rationality whether you are a moderate believer in science or a radical one, that aim remains the same, the search for testable, falsifiable, truths about the physical universe we inhabit.

4. Religion Requires a Belief in a Supernatural God

“I understand why anti-religious atheists are so reluctant to accept the fact that being religious doesn’t mean belief in the supernatural. The simplistic and convenient myth they’ve constructed would be shattered.”

Well, there are exceptions to the rule.  That is unsurprising.   The problem is that the religious that are currently infecting North American currently *do* require a belief in the supernatural, or at the very least magic.  Scofield’s fourth point is a a red herring of sorts.

3. Religion Causes Bad Behavior

“A common way for atheists to denounce religion is to simply list all of the horrors that have been done in the name of religion and then say, “Look how awful religion is!” Religion becomes synonymous with all of the bad things done by religious people. But is religion the cause of bad behavior or simply a mitigating factor? Christopher Hitchens provides some surprising insight: “What’s innate in our species isn’t the fault of religion. But the bad things that are innate in our species are strengthened by religion and sanctified by it… So religion is a very powerful re-enforcer of our backward, clannish, tribal element. But you can’t say it’s the cause of it. To the contrary, it’s the product of it.” Amen! Hitchens says that religion is not the cause of bad behavior! Many of us religious progressives have been making this point for a long time.”

Okay, your beliefs in magic and myth amplifies the destruction and evil you perpetrate in the world.  Still worth getting rid of.

2. Atheists are Anti-Religious

“This false belief stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism and religion are. Atheism is not in any way shape or form related to an opinion about religion. It is simply the assertion that god does not exist, nothing more and nothing less. Religion is a broad category that encompasses traditions which include supernatural belief and those that do not. And, as I’ve already stated there are many atheists who are already religious practitioners.

Despite atheism being quite a straightforward concept, many continually misrepresent what it means. A prominent example comes from the atheist writer Greta Christina. She recently stated, “Atheists, by definition, don’t think any religion has any reasonable likelihood of being true.” Wrong. Atheists by definition assert that god does not exist. Besides, what does it mean for a religion to be true or not true when a religion doesn’t require any supernatural belief? Again, being an atheist has nothing to do with ones position on religion.”

A semantic quibble as your penultimate point?  Fantastic.

1. All Religions are the Same and are “Equally Crazy”

“Many atheists often claim that they are wrongly accused of not understanding the differences between religions. “Of course we do!” I’ve heard them say. But yet this is meaningless unless they are willing to treat these differences differently. Case and point is the latest article from Greta Christina where she asks, “Are All Religions Equally Crazy?” and answers a resounding, Yes. She describes a number of strange Mormon beliefs and practices, but then realizes that other religions aren’t any better. If her point was to illustrate that some religions have strange beliefs, she succeeded. She concludes,

But all religions are out of touch with reality. All religions are implausible, based on cognitive biases, and unsupported by any good evidence whatsoever. All of them ultimately rely on faith — i.e., an irrational attachment to a pre-existing idea regardless of any evidence that contradicts it — as the core foundation of their belief. All of them contort, ignore, or deny reality in order to maintain their attachment to their faith.

This conclusion is simply false.”

Saying something is false unfortunately for Scofield, does not make it false.

“Her reasoning sweeps up all religious expressions including those which aren’t reliant upon any supernatural beliefs, miracles or magical claims.”

So, which religions claim not to make claims that are not irrational? (quotes from wikipedia)

Jainism? –  Jainism (play /ˈdʒeɪnɪzəm/) is an Indian religion that prescribes pacifism and a path of non-violence towards all living beings. Its philosophy and practice emphasize the necessity of self-effort to move the soul towards divine consciousness and liberation.

Taoism? – Cane asserts Tao can be roughly stated to be the flow of the universe, or the force behind the natural order, equating it with the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered.[18] Martinson says that Tao is associated with nature, due to a belief that nature demonstrates the Tao.[19] The flow of qi, as the essential energy of action and existence, is often compared to the universal order of Tao.

Bhuddism? –  He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end suffering (or dukkha), achieve nirvana, and escape what is seen as a cycle of suffering and rebirth.

The force is strong, even with the author’s best examples of non-magical religions.  Consider, that many of what he names as religions could be more accurately classified as philosophies, which leaves us with the magic and myths that we troubled atheists strive to overcome.  Scofield tries a little to hard with his five points.  The first point about Harris’s religious moderates and radicals probably has the most going for it, the others either mischaracterize or misrepresent the issues at hand.