Do Secularists Misunderstand Religion

Some people who study religion academically are arguing that secularists and atheists are making mistakes in their criticisms of religion. These criticisms supposedly don't sufficiently take into account what we have learned about the biology about religion and thus treat religion too superficially. Is this true?

Secularists would also do well to recognise the distinction between the "popular religion" that comes easily to people's minds and the convoluted intellectual gymnastics that is theology. Attacking the latter is easy but will do little to undermine religion's grip.

This is not an apologia for god. Religious claims still wither under rational scrutiny and deserve no special place in public life. But it is a call for those who aspire to a secular society to approach it rationally -- which means making more effort to understand what they are dealing with. Religion is deeply etched in human nature and cannot be dismissed as a product of ignorance, indoctrination or stupidity. Until secularists recognise that, they are fighting a losing battle.

Source: New Scientist, 17 March 2011

There are two important points about this which I think need to be addressed. First, does anyone else notice how the critique being made is the exact opposite of a critique offered by so many religious apologists? Usually atheists are dismissed because they focus on "popular" religion instead of addressing the "deep" arguments of theologians.

Here, though, atheists are dismissed because they are attacking the "convoluted" arguments of theology instead of addressing "popular religion". Uh... what? It's hard to escape the conclusion that this author is so isolated from the real world that they haven't the foggiest idea of what atheists or theists are saying to each other.

Both complaints can't be true. In reality, atheists tend to focus on "popular" religion and the arguments offered in defense of popular religion. The "deep" and "convoluted" theology gets some attention, but not a lot because in the grand scheme of things it's not that important when the goal is to loosen the grip of religion on society. Atheists know this and are acting based on that. This means that the complaint is... well, completely false. A lie, even.

The second point is the idea that "religion" is "deeply etched in human nature." I have to take issue with that -- the studies which the author is referring to don't demonstrate that religion as we know it is "deeply etched in human nature," but rather than certain basic elements that religion depends upon appear to be deeply etched in human nature.

For example, we aren't born believing in gods, but we are born ready to find patterns around us and to attribute agency to events. This leads easily to belief in gods, but it need not. Thus I say that the author is confusing where we end up with what we start with -- it's a bit like saying that "English is deeply etched in human nature" when, in reality, it's just that language probably is.

It may indeed be that most atheists and secularists need to know more about the biological and psychological foundations of religion -- but that ignorance is common, not unique to atheists. Nevertheless, atheists aren't as ignorant as this author would like to portray us. In reality, the author appears to be the ignorant one.