That is the right-thinking religionists who in one way or another claim.

1. that Christianity via the catholic church is the only source of truth in
the world
2. that liberal Christians are inherently mis-guided and therefore need
to come home (to the “true” church)
3. that all other faith traditions are inherently false and are therefore full
of relativistic errors
4. that all attempts at ecumenism are essentially mis-guided and
therefore should be resisted —we possess the “truth” so what is
there to talk about!

Any institution that claims to possess the one true way/faith/revelation has effectively declared war against all other faith traditions and their various cultural expressions. And what is more they will, given half the chance, inevitably use whatever means they can to “convert” everyone else to the one true way—-because they have “god’s” mandate or commission to do so.

Both Islam and Christianity (in their right wing fanatical versions) specialize in this attitude and tactic.

Sounds like we’re close to the same page with science and norms. Great discussion. I look forward to more.

I certainly agree that science itself isn’t suited to prescribing norms.

By the way, I enjoyed your article a lot. I especially liked the idea of biologizing as part of the ongoing transformation. It not only points up what is often a hidden assumption, but it also provides a fresh way of looking at the whole thing.

I sympathize with the point of not expecting atheists to be experts on theology. Personally, I’m glad Richard Dawkins hasn’t spent his life studying it—his excellent science writing shows that his study-time has been well spent. But I am sorry when he insists that nobody should bother with this stuff because it’s all total junk and that, in fact, we should blame it for our problems. I happen to pretty much agree with Dawkins on many things, but I also think that religion is something fuller and more resourceful than he allows.

In my experience, though, I suspect you’ll be disappointed by the search for “a naturalistic account of normativity in general.” It’s a tree I’ve barked up before, sometimes quite enthusiastically. And you can learn a lot about neural correlates and mechanisms and evolutionary logics, and so forth. But I think normativity, in a crucial respect, is about as anti-naturalistic as you can get. Not that I’m saying it’s supernaturalistic, or requires a scary guy in the sky or something. But (and I’m thinking of a Continental lineage here, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, all nonbelievers), the very idea of norms is a phenomenon more construed in human experience than in outwardly observable nature. This should be taken as empowering—we have the power to discuss and craft the norms that we would like to adopt. They should be informed by good science, but they can never be fully captured and should never be dictated from the laboratory.

And that’s why I’m primarily interested in a naturalistic account of normativity in general.

Also, I think it’s hard for atheists to deal with the charge (which Hart makes) that their understanding of Christian theology is simplistic or naive. Nobody wants to become an expert on something that they consider to be fundamentally hubbajubba in order to have an argument with someone about whether it’s hubbajubba. In other words, there’s a danger of at least appearing to assume what one is trying to disprove. I certainly wouldn’t want to step into this sort of argumentative position.

The trick, I guess, is to engage with theology at a philosophical level and painstakingly try to avoid dogma. This is not so hard with some Eastern religions, but with Christianity, it’s a tortuous task.

I’m with you on the value of a naturalistic account of religion, big time. That article of mine I cited, indeed, argues not that the cognitivist approach isn’t valid, but that it won’t do the work Dennett thinks it will—it won’t make religious beliefs seem implausible. Indeed, many of the leading figures doing that work are themselves religious in one way or another.

There are two points that Eagleton makes about supernatural beliefs. (1) Sophisticated theologies can have a much richer view of the supernatural than Ditchkins allows, and indeed, a much more reasonable one. Understanding this is central to grasping what religion has to offer. (2) Religion can be useful to politics even if you don’t buy the supernatural stuff.

My argument is that (1) is a very important point and, in a sense, undercuts his (2). I think you’re gonna be in trouble whenever you try to separate theology from God, which Eagleton gestures toward doing. Yet the Eagleton of point (1) has a much more subtle and interesting approach—to realize that supernatural talk need not be as absurd as the New Atheists allege, and that perhaps there are important lessons to be found in it.

Breaking the Spell obviously isn’t Dennett’s best work. I wouldn’t say that he holds the simplistic view that you attribute to him (and I don’t really sense the sort of anger in his approach that’s obvious in someone like Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens), but I see your point. Once we dispense with supernatural beliefs, the interesting (and difficult) work begins. Dennett has spoken in various places about the idea of taking responsibility for ourselves as a species and the benefits thereof, but there’s a lot of philosophical work to be done.

I’ll probably end up reading Eagleton. Some of the better pro-religion arguments I’ve seen revolve around the idea that “it’s not really about the supernatural beliefs”. It would be an odd thing if religion’s value arose from its “secondary qualities” rather than its explicit dogma, but maybe not all that odd. At any rate, I disagree with Hart’s (possible) assertion that a naturalistic account of religion has nothing to offer us.

That said, I think he’s well earned the label that’s sometimes applied to him (along with Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris), a “horseman” (of the apocalypse). He still maintains this absurdly simplistic view that if we were only to get rid of beliefs in the supernatural, most human idiocy and brutality would disappear with it. That particular “meme” he has got in his head really gets in the way because it makes him think it’s useful to spend a lot of time being really angry at religion.

The people who I think represent a better tone include the late Carl Sagan (and his widow, Ann Druyan), Phil Zuckerman (author of the recent Society without God), Slavoj ?i?ek, Iris Murdoch, and, yes, Terry Eagleton. People, that is, who reveal how atheism can be quite nice (though it isn’t always nice, of course—life remains complicated!) without also being obsessed with showing how religion is the root of all our problems.