Not all Christians are supercilious, of course. Many are
content to live and let live, and some even grant that science (despite
its lack of supernatural entities) does some good. But Christianity as
an organized, evangelizing movement has been on the offensive lately.
Witness the new wave of evangelicals and their leaders such as Rick
Warren, Lee Strobel, and William Lane Craig with their aggressive
stance against scientific materialism and their bestselling books
attempting to refute science. So, assuming you're an atheist, what do
you say to the theist who asks, "You don't (chuckle) believe in a god (snicker)?"

Anybody familiar with the original article will see that the
preceding paragraph is the same paragraph as the opening to "How to
Respond to a Supercilious Atheist" by Alan Roebuck. By changing a few
words, the same attack can be launched right back at him, and the rest
of the article isn't much better. It appears to be a primer in
projection. After all, when in doubt, just accuse them of being just like you.

Roebuck advises his fellow theists to take a different approach to
defending the faith-instead of coming up with actual evidence, you
should just tell atheists how our worldview is the one that is based on
assumptions and presuppositions. He eschews using the First Cause
argument and the defense of miracles because, "No matter what evidence
you give, the supercilious atheist finds a way to dismiss it." I wonder
if he has ever considered that it may be dismissed because it is not
valid evidence.

The First Cause argument doesn't work because, at best, it can only
be used to show that something created the universe, and that something
is not necessarily Yahweh. It could be another god or a multitude of
gods. Even that is questionable, though, due to the fact that they have
yet to show that the universe itself is contingent upon some necessary
being and not the necessary "being" itself. I would also advise theists
to drop this argument from their arsenal, but not in favor of Roebuck's
plan.

Roebuck states that, "it is not the case that your evidence
for God is valid but nevertheless is cancelled out by his superior
evidence against God." Gee, Sherlock, where can I find this "evidence
against God?" How about the absolute penury of evidence for god?
Theists have not yet grasped the concept of the burden of proof,
apparently. It's really simple, so I find it astounding that it is so
easily dismissed-the one who makes the positive claim (ie-god exists)
is the one who has to prove that claim, not the person who is in the
default position of suspension of belief due to lack of evidence (ie-as
far as we know, god does not exist). As much as I hate to be the bearer
of bad news, if you believe something without sufficient evidence, you are irrational.

Roebuck claims that atheism's vulnerability lies in the "false
worldview" that we hold that only material, objectively verifiable
things exist. First of all, this is not true. Not all atheists are
scientific materialists. There are many who believe lots of different
wacky theories that don't involve a god and there are others with other
notions of how the universe operates. This argument is only applicable
to a portion of atheists who also hold a materialistic worldview.

Roebuck then claims that scientific materialists assume this and
have come to their conclusion before examining the evidence. (Is the
projection evident yet?) The only evidence that exists is physical,
material, verifiable, and falsifiable. The existence of god is none of
the above. Any religious statement can be considered factually
meaningless by virtue of the fact that it doesn't meet the
falsifiability criterion. The only assumptions being made here are that
god exists and it's up to atheists to disprove that. Obviously, Roebuck
doesn't understand that this is impossible, and that is the very reason
why we can say that no evidence for such an entity exists.

He uses an example of a blind man dismissing the existence of color
because he cannot sense it, and likens that to the atheist who can't
sense god. First of all, the blind man knows he is blind. He recognizes
this sensory deficiency and doesn't believe that everybody on earth is
also blind. Furthermore, Roebuck is demonstrating his lack of
understanding of the functioning of the brain by asserting that color
exists in some more than abstract sense. Color appears as it does to us
in the small portion of the light spectrum that we are able to
perceive. For other creatures, the world around them is entirely
different, and we can study how this process operates, what causes
disorders such as blindness or the inability to perceive color and from
where it stems.

Is Roebuck suggesting here that atheists suffer from a sensory
deficiency as well? Does he believe that theists have been endowed with
a "sixth sense" that enables them to make contact with the
supernatural? If so, I'd like him to demonstrate what part of our
anatomy is causing this problem so that it can be rectified. Blindness
stems from either the brain or the eye itself not operating properly.
Where does "spiritual blindness" originate? Seen as how all of our
senses are processed in the brain, and also have an external organ by
which the information is received, he should be able to show where our
malfunction is occurring.

Roebuck claims that the theist must challenge our "assumptions" to
properly expose the atheist as a pedant, and says that first we have to
define our criteria for making the determination that there is no valid
reason to believe in god and how we know they are correct. He must be
talking to different atheists than I, as most people that I know would
respond with the criteria being objectively verifiable evidence, and
that we know this method of validation to be the most accurate due to
hundreds of years of making advancements as a society thanks to the
scientific method.

He moves on to what kind of evidence would be needed to verify the
occurrence of an actual miracle. This would be a difficult question
because most people with a scientific mindset would not know what it
would take because even unexplained phenomena could potentially be
explained in the future. Not knowing the answer right now doesn't imply
that the answer is unknowable. Besides, an omniscient, omnipotent being
would know exactly what was necessary and could provide it if he chose.
Unless, of course, we are his "vessels of wrath" created only to go to
hell and demonstrate god's wonderful mercy.

He again misconstrues the position of atheists who allow for the
possibility of the supernatural, although I personally feel that any
knowledge of such a plane of existence is impossible to ascertain, by
positing, "How do you know that a super-naturalistic explanation,
involving a God who intervenes from time to time, cannot be the correct
explanation? Wouldn't one have to be, for all intents and purposes,
omniscient in order to know that God could not have been involved?" We
don't know for sure that it couldn't be the correct explanation, and he
is shifting the goalpost from his particular god to "a
super-naturalistic explanation." This is a common tactic in
apologetics, and it should be pointed out that he doesn't know that the
supernatural being that started it all wasn't Zeus. As far as the
omniscience goes, we can answer that we do not have to be omniscient to
say that at this time, there is no evidence for such a being and no
need to appeal to one. Making up an answer when there is none is called
argumentum ad ignorantium.

He attempts to take on the issue of the logical contradictions
inherent in the attributes that his god is given but misses most of the
salient points. He deals momentarily with omnipotence and claims that
god can do "anything that can be done." Didn't god make the rules to
begin with? Could he not have made them different than they are? What's
the point of having an omnipotent creator of the universe who was
beholden to some other rules, and from where or whom did those mandates
come?

He dedicates a measly three sentences to theodicy, and just says
that a god who allows evil for some unknown reason could exist, but
never ties it back into the real contradiction, which is how could that
god be considered omnibenevolent? Again, god either created atheists
specifically to be tortured for all eternity by no fault of their own,
having been given the gift of faith or not, or he just chooses not to
intervene for some mysterious reason. Either way, how can one argue
that this being loves me? He will send me to hell purposely, either
because it's my destiny, or because he just doesn't intervene because
we need faith, which is a gift from him that we are supposed to somehow
give ourselves. That's not circular or anything.

He moves on to what he calls "arguing presuppositionally", and
gives an inadequate explanation of an axiom, which he then changes
slightly to allow for the existence of god to be a non-axiomatic axiom.
He claims that all knowledge is based upon one foundational principle
that cannot be proven, but is intuited. He is muddying the waters here
by the use of the word "intuit", as an axiom is just something that is
self-evident. I feel he chose that word for the specific purpose of
misleading the reader and priming them for the upcoming shift in
definition.

He claims that axioms can be tested by deducing whether or not the
system is "logically, morally, and existentially consistent." He
asserts that the atheist worldview fails because the "nature of
knowledge cannot be validated empirically." People have many different
epistemological views, and the use of scientific methodology to
determine the validity of anything is necessarily going to have some
starting point and then system of experimentation. That is all we have
with which to work, and he is attempting to negate the materialist
worldview by using a point that he himself believes regarding his
own-that not everything can be empirically validated.

He claims that one cannot live a purely naturalistic life as that
implies that you define your own meaning, and that makes everybody's
meaning invalid. We couldn't "stick to it when the going gets rough." I
have no idea what kind of data he is using to determine this, but the
search for meaning is an individual endeavor-even for the religious.
People may claim that they "live for god", but in reality, nobody does.
If all they are living for is the promise of an afterlife in paradise,
then they logically would all just commit suicide to get there faster.
Instead, what we observe is christians not following the dictates of
their own belief system and living their daily lives in much the same
way that we heathens do. They also use their families, their
responsibilities, their hopes, dreams, and future endeavors as
"meaning." Being handed a blanket "meaning" for your existence only
serves to cheapen the very concept.

He claims the existence of god is axiomatic, but cannot be
"intuited" like other axioms. These are, after all, "subtle and cosmic
questions." If it is not self-evident, it is not an axiom. Period. He
says that any proposition "must be judged true or false in light of
what we already know to be true." I'm with him there, but how on earth
does that prove the existence of god as axiomatic? His writing goes
from merely ignorant to absurd at this point.

Perhaps the most amusing quote is this one: "...some people are
content to believe without having any proof of their beliefs, and you
can't argue with someone like that." You're telling me. Again, this is
an example of projection at its finest. He claims that theism excels at
"accounting for the facts of reality", but I'm not sure exactly what
type of reality to which he refers. Reality is that which can be
observed and generally agreed upon. Imaginary sky-daddys don't fall
into that category.

His final snafu is that he comes around full-circle to admit that
the foundation of religious belief is faith-that which is believed but
cannot be proven. Did he not just spend 5 pages attempting to prove
that his god belief is logically superior to a naturalistic worldview?
I feel as if I missed the middle ten pages of this argument and walked
into the conclusion of a completely different one. He claims that by
pointing out our assumptions, theists can claim victory over atheists,
but all he is really saying here is that he has the opinion that we do
the same thing that they do. If that's true, why is it acceptable for
them and not for us? It seems to be a very odd contradiction to say
that atheists are wrong because we work from our presuppositions, but
then to base your own worldview on presuppositions. How exactly can you
determine whose presuppositions are correct? If they cannot be proven,
how can anybody know? Given his own argumentation, how does he know
that our supposed presuppositions, while I don't believe that a
naturalistic worldview implies presuppositions, aren't the correct
ones? Can we not take every argument here and turn it around on
religion with no difficulty?

To put the nail in the coffin, his endnotes declare that the true
impediment to our belief is that we hate god. This laughable notion is
constantly used against us and is by far the most ridiculous assertion
in their repertoire. It is nothing short of an attack that attempts to
discredit our use of rationality by claiming that it is an emotional
issue at its core. If anybody is rationalizing their emotions, it is
the theist whose fear of death overwhelms him to the point that he
makes up fairy tales to assuage the constant anxiety that life in an
unknown, unpredictable universe can induce. This article was a pathetic
attempt to discredit atheism, or more accurately, scientific
materialism, by ascribing to it all of the properties of religion. That
alone is enough to demonstrate the intellectual vacuity of their
belief.

A question that has been pondered for thousands of years is “why are we here?”. No one really knows why life exists, or even why the universe exists for that matter. There have been plenty of explanations for the “how”, but the “why” is just a mystery.

One very popular explanation for why we are here is that there is a god who put us here. This god is so not just any god, but the one and only god. For this reason, we spell his name with a capital “G” (God).

God is omniscient (all-wise), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good). It’s safe to say that there is no being, force, or entity that is greater than God. However, if God exists, he put us here and there must be a reason… but what reason is that?

Well let’s examine what he asks of us. First, there are 10 commandments, which are rules that human beings must live by. This is a great idea, except that he didn’t give them to us at the beginning. He waited until everything got out of hand, and then decided to give them to Moses.

The first commandment states:

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

• Before mentioning anything about how people shouldn’t kill each other, or steal, he mentions that people can only have him as a god. This shows, right away, where his priorities lie. It comes off as a bit selfish and jealous. What should it matter to such a supreme being if the people he created worship him or not? It seems like an awfully petty issue for a god to be concerned with.

Since this first commandment doesn’t seem to help anyone besides God, let’s move on to the second:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

• God is a jealous god who wants everyone to love him? That doesn’t sound like a description of the greatest being in the universe, it sounds more like an insecure teenage girl. What reason would such a being have to be jealous if that being is all-knowing, and knows there is no being greater than him? Also, notice he still hasn’t mentioned anything about killing or stealing because he just keeps talking about himself.

Let’s move on to the third, and hope that there is a something useful coming up:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

• Here, God is still giving instructions regarding himself, except this time sounds more like a little kid who is getting made fun of because his name sounds funny. Would it really matter to someone who had high self-esteem if someone used their name in vain? How is this arbitrary rule more important than making sure people don’t kill each other?

The fourth commandment is as follows:

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

• Now God wants us to set one day aside each week to worship him. This sounds similar to a girlfriend or wife who complains that her boyfriend or husband doesn’t compliment her enough. If this girl ruled the universe, I’m sure she would want everyone to spend 52 days each year gathering to compliment her too.

After the fourth commandment, God finally mentions that people can’t kill each other, steal from each other, and commit adultery. These things seem to be way too low on the list, but at least they eventually make the list.

Then comes a very surprising tenth commandment:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

• Thou shalt not covet? Isn’t that the same as saying thou shalt not be jealous? It’s almost as if God thinks we might have forgotten that he just told us how jealous he is in the second commandment. There might as well be an eleventh commandment that says “Thou shalt do as I say, not as I do.”

It’s amazing how half of the commandments are there to ensure that God’s feelings are never hurt, when “Thou shalt not rape” is completely left off the list.

So if there is a God, why did he create us? According to his list of rules he’s given us, it sounds like he created us to make him feel better about himself. He’s the most powerful being imaginable, yet he created human beings in order to have them worship him.

I am nowhere near as great as God is said to be, yet still I would never need as much reassurance as he requests. If the all-mighty God exists, and his ten commandments are true, then he is absolutely the most insecure being I have ever heard of.

Because there is no proof, not one shred, that a god of any sort exists. Be honest... there is no physical evidence. If there were evidence, there wouldn't be any need for faith. There is also no evidence of heaven, hell, a devil or demons, or angels, or an afterlife.

Because there is no need, or use for, a god.  A god is not necessary to explain the origins of things, or people, or morality-- there are rational, worldly explanations that actually make sense.

Because we cannot speculate on what a god is made of, or how he came into existence. We cannot imagine how he creates things and people, knows everything, or why he did what he allegedly did. Because a god just doesn't make sense.

Because a good god would be useless if he were not powerful, and a powerful god would not deserve worship unless he is good-- but there is no all powerful, good god, otherwise there would be no imperfection or suffering in the world.

Because the bible, the most widespread "proof" of god, is unreliable as a source of accurate information.  It is internally inconsistent and contradictory, historically wrong, and filled with deep moral problems.  The bible cannot be considered or consulted in the question of whether or not there is a god. It is no evidence at all.

Because the history of god-belief is rife with ignorance, superstition, intolerance, persecution, cruelty and hatred.  Those people believed just as firmly in their faith as anyone alive today. This makes it more likely that religion was invented by people who wanted to control other people.

Because theology has fought and resisted nearly every major scientific discovery. Instead of embracing new knowledge, religion fears  it.  Religion resist liberty and reform, and freedom of information and freedom of thought.

Because god-belief was invented in the earliest days of man's ignorance. People did not know anything yet. They thought the world was flat, that disease, hurricanes, earthquakes, thunder and droughts were all caused by gods. It is unbelievable that primitive man guessed wrongly about everything else, but discovered "the truth" about the origin of life.  It is more believable that god(s) were invented by primitive people for the following reasons:

• to explain natural events that they couldn't understand
• they had an inability to cope with their fears of a death that was final and absolute
• they had a need to provide enforceable laws with divine penalties
• they had a child-like need to feel watched over and protected by a loving, powerful father-figure

Another reason for the continuation of religion is that the positions of power held by holy men depended on the beliefs of their followers.

Because everything that science has now described in detail were previously believed to be the exclusive handiwork of god-- from the origins of life, to the cause of natural phenomena (earthquakes, lightning and volcanoes, in fact all of the natural world), to the formation of stars and our own world, to the causes of mental illness and diseases...virtually everything you can think of.  Religion retreats, loses ground, whenever a new fact is discovered.  No new discovery HAS EVER supported a religious explanation of ANYTHING.

Because there is no evidence of communication with a god of any kind.  Prayers are answered no more often than by flipping a coin, despite the fact it says in the bible that you need only ask, and ye shall receive.  People report having a personal relationship with god, but they cannot demonstrate that this is not merely their imaginations and self-delusion.

I am unconvinced, and all the threats of eternal damnation cannot convince me.

I'm like Doubting Thomas... I'll believe when I put my hand in Christ's side....  until then, no. When someone can tell me the following, then it would at least be possible to accept the existence of a god:

What God is made of?

What is "spirit" made of?

Where are heaven and hell?

How did God make everything, and from what did he make it?

Where did God come from?

Why did God exist alone in an empty nothingness for an eternity before creating the universe?

How can he continue to exist without ingesting some sort of energy?

How can he exist in every point of the universe at once?

How can he know everything, past present and future?

Where are souls kept within our bodies?

Where were our 'eternal' souls before we were born, (or how can immortality begin at conception)?

When someone can provide these answers, then I could believe.  Until then, my mind will not let me believe.  I have no choice.  I cannot accept that such an entity is possible.

The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike.  When you come to realize why you do not believe in Zeus, you will understand why I do not believe in your god.

 

After watching this video I have found clear evidence that evolution is a fallacy. This is groundbreaking!

 

It's possible to keep the good parts of religion -- like the music, rituals and pageantry -- and get rid of the sex-hating dogma, the belief in god and other troublesome aspects.

November 20, 2009  |  

If religion really were just a metaphor, just a comforting and inspiring story that gives shape and meaning to people's lives... what might it look like?

One of the most common tropes among progressive religious believers is Religion As Metaphor. "Religious beliefs don't have to be literally true," the trope says. "They're just useful metaphors: stories that give shape and meaning to our lives."

I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it for one simple reason: If religion is just a story, then why does it upset people so much when atheists say it isn't true? Any more than it would upset a fan of "Alice in Wonderland" if someone told them it wasn't true?

I'm seriously not buying it. I think the "metaphor" trope is just a disingenuous way for believers to slip away from hard questions about their beliefs. But it's got me thinking: If religion really were just a story -- a story that people found comforting and inspiring, a story that people sincerely knew wasn't true but still enjoyed telling and re-telling -- what would that look like?

And would atheists have a problem with it?

I was debating the other day with a believer who was getting bent out of shape about how religion was just a story people found comforting. People didn't have to believe religion was literally true for it to make a difference in their lives, he insisted. So why was I being so intolerant and mean and trying to take it away? And it suddenly struck me:

The version of religion he's talking about?

It's Trekkies.

Think about it. Trekkies are devoted to a story that they find entertaining and inspiring, even though they know it isn't factually real. And there's great diversity in their devotions, similar to those among religious beliefs. Some Trekkies are intensely dedicated to the story, to the point where it takes up a substantial part of their lives: going to conventions, making costumes, buying memorabilia, watching the shows again and again. Others are more casual followers: watching the shows when they happen to come on, maybe taking in a convention or two. And different Trekkies follow different variants of the story. Some are more interested in the original show with Spock and Kirk; others care more about The Next Generation. Some weirdo fringe cultists even follow Voyager.

But they all have one thing in common: They know that "Star Trek" isn't real. Unless they're certifiably mentally ill, they know that the story they're devoted to was made up by people. And they act accordingly. Avid convention-goers don't treat casual fans as apostates; Original Showians don't treat Next Generationists as sinners and blasphemers; and none of them write editorials lambasting people as immoral sociopaths if they prefer documentaries to any sort of science fiction. And they -- okay, fine, we -- don't insist that "Star Trek" is just a story... and then get bent out of shape when people point out that it is a story, and hence that it's not true. Trekkies have a good time trying to fit the inaccuracies and inconsistencies into some sort of continuity (that's half the fun); but we understand that the show is a fictional story, with all the flaws that fiction is heir to, and we don't treat it as a divinely-inspired guide to reality and life.

That's what "it's just a metaphor" religion would look like.

And if religion looked like that, I would have no problem with it at all.

Now, if you're a religious believer, maybe you think this analogy is trivializing your faith. Maybe you think it's insulting to compare centuries of serious religious practice and thought to nerds wearing Spock ears at convention centers. So let's take a different example.

Let's take historical re-creation societies. Not re-enactors of real historical events like the Civil War, but re-creators of historical fiction. Let's take communities who like to act out the characters and worlds of Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, F. Scott Fitzgerald, J.R.R. Tolkien, William Shakespeare. Let's take communities who find these stories beautiful and inspiring, and who devote a significant portion of their lives to reading them, studying them, discussing them, re-imagining them, dressing up like the characters in them, and attending ritual and celebratory events dedicated to them.

You don't like that analogy, either? But those are wonderful stories! Rich, complex, highly respected stories! Stories with decades and even centuries of tradition behind them! Are you saying that historical re-enactors are giant nerds and that you resent being compared to them? How dare you insult my faith! I declare jihad!

I kid, of course. I do enjoy some occasional historical fiction re-creation events; but I'm not going to start a war, even an Internet flame war, defending them. (Although this kind of proves my point: if believers get offended at their religion being compared to other stories -- even if those stories are serious literature -- then the "religion is just a story" trope can't be very sincere.)

But I'm off on a tangent. Let's come back to the main point. And let's get a bit more serious. Let's look at a genuine, religiously- themed example of my Trekkie model of religion.

Let's look at secular Judaism.

For plenty of Jews, Judaism is much more of a cultural/ historical/ familial identity than a religious one. In fact, for many Jews, Judaism is entirely a cultural and historical and familial identity, and not a religious one at all. The phrase "atheist Jew" has a non-absurd, readily- comprehensible meaning... in a way that "atheist Baptist" doesn't. Many Jews cherrypick the Jewish rituals and stories that they like, and reject the ones they don't -- not as a slippery way of trying to shoehorn an obsolete and untenable faith into a modern worldview, but entirely openly and without shame or pretense, in an "I don't think God gives a damn about this, I don't even think God exists, this is all just mangled history at best and totally made-up at worst, so I have no qualms about picking the parts I like and ditching the rest" approach. Questioning the tenets and texts of Judaism is part of the rabbinical tradition, and many secular Jews view their selective observance, not as a rejection of the Jewish tradition, but as part of it. They treat sacred Jewish texts the way we all treat philosophers and political writers who aren't purportedly passing on the divine word of God: they read them critically, they embrace the ideas that make sense, they actively oppose the ideas that are barbaric, they ignore the ideas that seem silly.

Exactly the way "Star Trek" fans ignore and reject "Spock's Brain."

I guess I'm saying that secular Jews are the Trekkies of religion. And good on them. I'm totally serious. If I could convert to secular Judaism and not feel like an idiot, I'd seriously consider it. Secular Jews have found a way to (mostly) take what's good about religion and (mostly) leave what's bad about it. And that way is to not treat it as religion. That way is to not treat it as the divine word of God. That way is to treat it as a story: a fascinating story, a story with a powerful tradition behind it, a story worth telling and caring about and getting involved in... but a story. A story with parts that are inspiring and useful, and parts that are gruesome and ugly, and parts that are just plain batshit.

Now, there is, of course, an important difference between secular Judaism and Trekkies. And that's the deep, intense connection many secular Jews have with family and history. It's not just about being invested in the story, and the rituals connected with it. It's about the fact that the story and the rituals are ones that their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and so on were invested in.

And of course, much of that investment has to do with how Jews and Judaism have historically been treated by the rest of the world. As a friend pointed out when I ran this piece by her: Plenty of Jews in Germany were very secular, didn't even particularly think of themselves as Jewish... but that didn't change how the Nazis saw them. Practicing the rituals of Judaism is a way of acknowledging this reality. And it's a way of defying it, a way of saying "Fuck you" to it: to Nazis, to pogroms, to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to ghettos, to forced conversions, to being barred from all professions except money-lending and then being vilified as money-grubbing usurers, to expulsions and massacres, to the blood libel, to the Spanish Inquisition. Secular Judaism isn't just about the fact that your great-grandmother practiced these rituals. It's about the fact that she was put in a concentration camp because of them.

So that's an important difference from Trekkies. But my basic premise still remains. Which is that secular Judaism is a way of preserving religious tradition, without needing to believe in God or the supernatural. Secular Judaism shows that you can take religious observances seriously, as a connection to family and history... without believing that you're doing it for God.

Judaism may not be alone in this, either. I'm beginning to hear of secular Catholics, too: Catholics who are following the "we think these rituals and images are beautiful, and they're an important part of our family history handed down through generations, but it's not like we actually believe it" pattern laid out by secular Judaism.

And, of course, there's one of the most classic forms of secularized religion: Christmas. Christmas is ostensibly a celebration of the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; but for many people, it's simply a celebration of the fact that the days are dark and cold, and we need to feast and light lights and give presents and generally schmooze with the people we care about. It's becoming a secular holiday for many, and hard-line atheists from PZ Myers to Richard Dawkins have spoken cheerfully in favor of it.

And you know what?

I love this.

I would love to see more of this. I would love to see a secular Catholicism that preserves the soothing ritual and rich pageantry, without the sex-hating dogma and the authoritarian hierarchy. I would love to see a secular Baptism that preserves the wild oratory and soaring music, without the hateful obsession with hellfire and judgment. I would love to see a secular Hinduism that preserves the magnificent imagery and generous diversity, without the rationalization for the caste system. I would love to see a secular Wicca that preserves the passionate love of nature, without the dismissive contempt for science that is so contradictory to that love. I would love to see a secular Methodism that preserves the Jello salad. (Actually, I could do fine without that... but if other people want to preserve the grand tradition of Methodist Jello salads, more power to them.)

I probably wouldn't practice any of this myself. My own familial religious tradition is "boring Middle-American Protestantism" from my grandparents (hence the Jello salads), agnosticism and atheism from my parents. The former isn't interesting enough for me to preserve (except for Christmas), and the latter I'm already running with. So no secular religion for me.

But I could totally see it. I could see it as a way for humanity to preserve the cool stuff about religion -- the ritual and the tradition, the narrative and the imagery, the community and the connection with family and history -- without the active disregard for reality that causes so much trouble.

And as an atheist, I could be totally happy with it.

So what's the difference?

What's the difference between this secular Trekkie Judaism that I respect, the secular Trekkie Catholicism that I'm encouraging... and the "Religion is a useful metaphor" trope that I've argued against so hotly?

The difference is this:

Progressive religion says, "This is simply a story"... but it isn't sincere. You can tell that it isn't sincere by how bent out of shape it gets when people point out that it's just a story, and therefore isn't really true. Progressive religion uses the "metaphor" trope as a slippery way of avoiding hard questions when engaged with skeptics... and as soon as the skeptics turn their backs, it slips right back into actual, non-metaphorical, "belief in immaterial entities or forces that it has no evidence for" religion. Progressive religion is ultimately just as willing to ignore evidence that contradicts its comforting story as hard-line conservative religion.

Truly secular "religion," on the other hand, says, "This is simply a story" -- and means it.

The difference is this:

If you say to a "Religion is a useful metaphor" believer, "Your religion is a story, it isn't factually true, a lot of the history is mangled and some of it's flatly wrong, and all the God stuff is totally made up"... chances are they're going to get seriously defensive. They'll tell you how intolerant you are, how you're just as dogmatic and proselytizing as religious fundamentalists, how disrespectful you are to point out the flaws in religion and try to persuade people that it's mistaken, how close-minded you are to reject ideas just because they're not supported by dumb old evidence.

If you say to a secular Jew -- a genuinely secular, non-believing, atheist Jew -- "Your religion is a story, it isn't factually true, a lot of the history is mangled and some of it's flatly wrong, and all the God stuff is totally made up"... they'll say, "Yeah, I know. So what? So are you coming to Passover or not?"