Christians Tired of Turning the Other Cheek to the New Atheists

In a recent article on the Christian Post website, Christians are being urged to "not turn the other cheek" with regard to atheists who are entering the public square with books like The God Delusion.

The author reviews What's So Great About Christianity by author Dinesh D'Souza, in which he calls for Christian apologists to "come to center stage" in defense of Christianity against the "new atheists."

D'Souza's book and the article reviewing it are indicative of the effect that atheism is beginning to have on Christians. Authors like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are starting to make them sweat, apparently:

The atheistic arguments – that Christianity goes against reason and science and is based on blind faith – are resonating with people, D'Souza noticed, and hitting bestseller lists.

"I do think that we are seeing a more self-confident and perhaps even militant atheism," he noted. "Atheists are kind of on the war path, out to attack religion, demean it, drive it out of the public square, and remove all religious symbolism from American society. So something odd is going on here."

What's odd is that it's amazing that wide-spread delusion and superstition has to date received a free pass from criticism. And now that critics are emerging, the deluded and the superstitious don't like having their beliefs questioned or criticized.

But D'Souza's call to arms will backfire if Christians take him up on it. The reason is that religion doesn't stand a chance against logic and reason. When faced with sound and cogent arguments, religious believers can only respond with fallacy. As I wrote earlier, circular reasoning, false cause, straw man arguments, arguments from ignorance, and weak analogies (among others) are the best most who argue for religious belief can muster.

If Christians start firing back at skeptics and critics, no reasoned mind will accept their arguments as valid. Unless, of course, they've already been affected by the spell of belief to the point that they're able to hold contradictory beliefs in their heads at the same time. Take Zion Oil & Gas for instance. The entire board is made up of educated and smart people -engineers, mathematicians. The companies stock is up. They're drilling for petroleum and employee geologists and geophysicists using the latest geoprospecting tools like seismics, gravimetrics, and magnetics to locate petroleum reserves that were originally deposited millions of years ago. But they're also deluded by Judeo-Christian dogma and claim to use the Bible to locate oil. Ask anyone of these people, and I'm sure they'll concede that oil is made of deposits million of years old. Ask anyone of these people, particularly CEO John Brown, and I'm sure they'll agree that the Bible is inerrant and the world was created less than 10,000 years ago.

Further evidence that Christians will be shooting themselves in the foot by taking critics and skeptics on in the "public square" is the fallacious bit of D'Souza's book that the articles author revealed in the form of so-called "myths" about the atheist position:

Myth #1: Atheism is growing and more people are choosing it over church

Pews might be empty in some urban parts of America, but the world is witnessing a huge explosion of Christianity, says D'Souza who notes Christianity as the fastest-growing religion in the world and that the number of unbelievers is actually shrinking.

I'd almost be willing to bet that if one were to look in the endnotes of the chapter that includes this "myth," the source of info is a religious one and subject to confirmation bias. The Barna Group has found that adult evangelicals in 1994 was 7%. In 2004, that number was still 7%. The US population grew but the number of evangelicals did not. They also found that the Protestant population with drop below 50% of the national population if the trend toward a decline in Christianity continues.

An ARIS (2001) study determined that the number of Christians in the US declined from 85% 1990 to 77% in 2001.

Of course, if we look at data from church sources, the numbers are higher. Such data is skewed because of a host of factors -poor controls for cross-memberships, people who attend church for social reasons rather than religious, etc.

Also, according to ARIS, the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001.

Myth #2: Religion has caused history's wars, murders, and violence

The number of people killed in religious wars such as the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition is infinitesimal compared to those killed during modern atheist regimes, the author notes. "We have to keep a sense of proportion," he says.

This is a fallacy of False Cause. D'Souza is implying the same tired argument used by those deluded with religious dogma that Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler et al committed their atrocities because they were atheists. The truth is that these people were dogmatic and it was dogma that informed their decisions to kill, go to war, commit genocide, etc. There's also an ad hominem tucked away in D'Souza's argument here, implying that atheism equates to immorality, when this simply isn't true. Indeed, there is absolutely no reason to believe that morality is informed by religion and not the other way around. Religious believers have the distinct ability to exclude morals that conflict with their dogma, humanists who live secular lives do not. If they choose to be immoral, they do so because they're greedy, inconsiderate, lack compassion, ignorant, lazy, etc. In other words, because they're human.

Myth #3: There is no such thing as a human soul

Atheists use science to argue that there is no soul, as there is no physical evidence of one. "If the atheist universe were true, there would be no free will in it," says D'Souza.

This is a straw man fallacy since it miss-characterizes the general opinion of most atheists. At least those who rely on science to inform their position on the alleged human soul. The more appropriate argument that scientific naturalists who, perhaps, are atheists use with regard to a soul is that there is no reason to believe souls exist -particularly those of the Judeo-Christian description. Moreover, I find the "free-will" argument ironic since there is less chance of "free-will" existing in a universe created and maintained by an all-powerful, all-knowing god who "has a plan" than in a universe where "souls" do not exist. Indeed, one might say that there is second fallacy here, which is the slippery slope since D'Souza's conclusion that "free-will" can't exist if atheism is correct is quite the leap.

The final "myth" revealed from D'Souza's book by the article's author is also a gem:

Myth #4: Where is God when bad things happen?

D'Souza turns this question around and asks where is atheism when bad things happen? At the tragic event of the Virginia Tech shooting in April, there were nonstop memorial services and everyone began to speak a very religious language of healing and spirituality, he noted. "Atheism has absolutely nothing to offer us at moments of life that matter the most – birth, marriage, death, suffering."

Not only is this argument fallacious, but it is patently false. D'Souza is implying that only the religiously deluded offered assistance at Virginia Tech and other human tragedies. While its easy to concede that religious groups did offer help and comfort to their fellow persons and to each other, it is a false cause to assume that they did so because they were religious. We know this because of public displays of piety -the religious are very quick to speak of their delusions at times of crisis -indeed, some like to blame crises on the victims based on religious delusion (i.e. Pat Robertson). But there is no reason that we should know that the people caught on camera handing out water bottles, food, blankets, hugging victims, etc are atheists or non-religious. Whatever they are, whether they are secular or religious, at that moment they're humanists.

In the last part of that quote, D'Souza said, "[a]theism has absolutely nothing to offer us at moments of life that matter the most – birth, marriage, death, suffering." I agree with that statement, but not for the same reason as D'Souza. Atheism doesn't inform morality. Atheism isn't a dogma. Atheism isn't an institution that is organized to provide humanitarian aid, deliver babies, marry couples, or bury the dead. Atheism is a lack of delusion in the gods of humanity.

Being atheist doesn't automatically imply rationalism, humanism, morality, common sense, good judgment, intelligence, or an ability to accomplish world peace. It simply means that you don't subscribe to religious superstition.

However, there are plenty of atheists that have given birth and have been fantastic parents. There are plenty of atheists that have successfully delivered babies. There are plenty of atheists who have joined couples in marriage and atheists who have long and healthy marriages to each other. There are atheists who have died well and without fear; helped their loved ones through the grieving process; and participated in very touching and moving but secular memorial services. And there are a multitude of atheists that are doing their very best to ease the suffering of their fellow humans as policemen, firemen, EMTs, doctors, soldiers, Peace Corps volunteers, etc.

If these "myths" are an example of what we can expect when Christians begin to meet atheists in the "public square," I say, bring it on! They'll be their own worst enemies.


Related Links and Sources

Christians Urged to Meet Atheists in the Public Square [Christian Post]

American Religious Identification Survey [.pdf] (ARIS 2001)

See also: Barna Group (2005) Annual Barna Group Survey Describes Changes in America’s Religious Beliefs and Practices. Found online at: http://www.barna.org

The Dumbest Argument Against Atheists

This comes by way of John M. Lynch at Stranger Fruit, who sums up the argument found in this article on Answers in Genesis.

1. Reasoning involves using the laws of logic.
2. Laws of logic are God's standard for thinking.
3. The atheist's view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

And if you think John was oversimplifying the Answers in Genesis argument, go read it for yourself. Found in this extra-special gem of delusion is this:

he atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.”

No different? Their god, for which no evidence exists, compared to air, for which an abundance of evidence exists, is a very, very weak analogy. A stronger analogy would be to compare belief in the Christian god with belief in garden gnomes. With this analogy the quote would read more like:

he atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” This is no different than the critic of garden gnomes saying, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in garden gnomes.”

Such an analogy works just fine. Which is the reason why those deluded by religious beliefs refuse to actually use sound and cogent arguments. Weak analogies, circular reasoning, and false cause arguments are their stock and trade. Reason simply doesn't work when trying to justify delusion of any kind -including the religious.

Militant Atheist? Is this a real label?

Or is it just a pejorative label invented by some theists who wish to depict their atheist critics as just as irrational and non-critical as they are? Indeed, there are also atheists who use the term, also pejoratively, for much the same thing. "Neville Chamberlain atheists" like Chris at Mixing Memory love to get their digs in on atheists like Richard Dawkins or Samuel Harris since they seem to resent those that dare rock the boat. To them, pointing out that the emperor is in the buff doesn't help them coexist with theists; instead, atheism is a matter of "framing" so as to convince theists that the chill they feel isn't a lack of clothing but rather a result of high quality fabric with good ventilation.

Some theists, however, seem to toss about the "militant atheist" term whenever an atheist has the gall to question their beliefs, suggest that they might be wrong, demand separation of church and state, or advocate that religion shouldn't have anything to say about things like gay marriage, sex education, stem cell research, etc. There is no hesitation to utter the pejorative label "militant atheist" with theists who are upset at rationalism being used to put their superstitions in check whenever an atheist questions the constitutionality of "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance or the public display of the 10 Commandments in government buildings.

The counter argument I can already hear by these theists is "well, you call religion a delusion!" True. I do refer to religion as a delusion. I was making this comment about religion before Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. Most Christian and Islamic apologists seem to think that Dawkins was the first to recognize that religion is a delusion, but this has been argued countless times before –at least on the internet.

A delusion is an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary. With regard to Christianity, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that the popular notion that the doctrine followed is completely fabricated by man. I won't go into it here, since an entire book could be written on the subject (and they have!), and nor would I expect any devout believer that might read my words to accept them even if I did elaborate. After all, it isn't called a delusion because it's an idea easy to change. Delusions are often impervious to evidence, self-inoculated with escape clauses in the core doctrine, justifications, and the inevitable "god works in mysterious ways" argument.

A militant, on the other hand, is someone that uses a military strategy or military method of achieving one's goal. I'm not sure it can be successfully argued that there are many atheists who are militant because of their atheism. I do, however, know many atheists who are militant, but this is because, contrary to the popular theist myth, they are atheists in foxholes. In fact, I was once an atheist and a member of the U.S. Army. But my militant demeanor and position wasn't due to my atheism.

Dawkins, Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have spoken out against religion. Indeed, their comments have, at times, been very blunt. However, I've yet to notice any military-like strategy used. They have used only truth and rationalism as far as I've seen, and if being truthful is a qualifier for applying the "militant" label then we should hope to soon have "militant teachers," "militant therapists," "militant congressmen," and so on.

But these people would never have such labels applied with the expectation that they are being truthful, forthright, and honest –no matter how brutally. The "militant" adjective is intended to demean and diminish the honesty of the target and to impugn it rather than glorify it. In fact, when we here the term "militant theist" used on the 6:00 pm news, it's usually about a religious extremist who has just killed one or more people. Today's headlines included, Pakistan 'prostitutes' beheaded, and following the link to that story will take you to the very next paragraph which reads:

Suspected Islamic militants in north-western Pakistan have beheaded two women they accused of being prostitutes, police say.

I also might expect to see someone who is described as "militant" to be wearing military attire, even if they aren't killing someone. I've never seen Richard Dawkins in a set of combat fatigues, but I have noticed that many church organizations have taken on the "Christian soldier" theme (perhaps from the popular hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers") with organizations like the Koinonia Worship Center.

Militant atheism? Militant atheists? When atheists start wearing fatigues and marching the streets in formation or when we start the first atheist militia perhaps. But until then, the term "militant atheist" is a pejorative term used by those that seek to use ad hominem responses where reason and rationalism are insufficient to counter superstition and delusion. While I'm sure there are those that would see my use of "superstition" and "delusion" as ad hominem as well, I can at least justify their definitions in application to those described.

A Cool Parody of Dateline NBC: To Catch an Atheist

I'm not the only new blogger to the atheist blogosphere. That Atheist Guy's Blog has several interesting posts, beginning with June of 2007. The Friendly Atheist picked up on his parody of Dateline and that's how I found him.

It makes me wonder if the recent success of atheist books like The God Delusion and God is Not Great among others is helping inspire new bloggers on the topic of atheism, freethought, and religious skepticism. If so, this is a good thing since the more people who share their atheism and the more Christians who recognize that there are atheists among them in their families, places of business, schools, and even their circles of friends, the better.

Atheists are manipulating the young through their minds?

Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins, authors of the Left Behind series of Christian fiction, gave a recent interview on Belief.net in which they re-state their claim that the mythical Jesus is destined to return. During the interview, however, they had some things to say about the recent notoriety of atheistic works (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al). The accusation they made was that the atheists are taking advantage of the absence of god in public schools to reach the minds of impressionable young children.

One other reason I think the atheistic books are very prevalent in America is because, for 50 years, we've expelled God from the public school. We've expelled Him from many of our places. The ACLU and other anti-God agencies have tried to eliminate God from our public square. And so people are interested in reading from people like that to support their beliefs.

The non sequitur above, which implies that the ACLU is “anti-god,” is not the only logical fallacy these two make, and it is utterly fascinating to watch these two spell-casters create false dichotomy after false dichotomy as they try to paint reason and intellect as tools of the devil, while supporting childhood indoctrination of mythology –what Dawkins refers to as amounting to child abuse. Never mind that the ACLU’s primary mission is the preservation of civil liberties. One of those being religious freedom, which means that no single cult or superstition gets to codify their doctrine as the right one or the state sponsored one. The limited thinking of Christians usually follows with comments about how they “removed prayer” from public schools, but this is, of course, complete bollocks. Prayer exists in probably every public school in the United States. Teachers just aren’t allowed to lead it, since this would be the establishment of a state religion. Prayers that adhere to a Christian superstition would exclude Muslim or Hindu cults and their superstitions, not to mention the Wiccans and their silliness.

Another passage by Lahaye, one that precedes the above quote by one paragraph is perhaps the most revealing of either Lahaye’s limited education or his willingness to deceive. A third option, of course, would be his complete and utter delusion into the fantasy he has fleshed out in his fan-fic series with Jenkins (the Left Behind series):

Did man just originate spontaneously through evolution? It's always interesting to me that atheists who can't believe in God can believe in anything else. They believe in evolution, and evolution is the biggest fairy tale in our past two centuries. And yet, there are millions of intelligent, well-educated people who believe it because they just don't want to believe that there is a God.What they don't realize is they don't want to have to give accountability to God.

Which do you suppose Lahaye really meant, “spontaneously” or “evolution?” Does he really think that evolution is spontaneous? Or is he using an intentional hyperbole to deceive those of limited intelligence who might be inclined to read his fan-fic series of Christian fantasy with credulous abandon? It’s no secret that religious fundamentalists, particularly those that get the spotlight, frequently say nonsense like the comment above which calls evolution a “fairy tale.” They bank on the fact that our nation is one with great challenges in the field of science education and that people have a limited education regarding biological sciences, chemistry, physics, archaeology, and geology. All of which have produced overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact that can only be denied by the ignorant, the utterly deluded, or those bent on deceiving the first two. These “millions of well-educated people” have come to the realization that there is a grand deception – a spell, to quote Dennett – with regard to religious belief in the United States and that there is no longer a reason to adhere to the superstitions of Christian mythology. Why should one be accountable to a god that isn’t there?

The Left Behind series, which I have loosely referred to above as a fan-fic, is fiction. The authors make no bones about it. Bookstores shelve it in the section ironically labeled “Christian Fiction.” Indeed, the interviewers of Lahaye and Jenkins prefaced their interview with a comparison of authors to other authors of the supernatural such as Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, and Dan Brown. But readers of these authors, with the possible exception of Brown, don’t accept that the supernatural as they depict it is real or that the story they tell will really occur. Harry Potter is fun to read and the imagination can truly take a vacation at Hogwart’s, but no Potter fan is expecting to attend the next Quiddich match. Lahay fans, however, truly believe that their messiah will return and that there will be a battle on earth during their lifetimes! For all intents and purposes, Left Behind is an instruction manual for the deluded!

End times theology is a widely held belief in Christian mythology and that so many people believe that “the End,” or the “rapture” will occur in their lifetimes is a serious threat to reason and society. What reason, would one have to conserve the environment or leave a sustainable future for one’s descendants if the End is near? Why shouldn’t political decisions also reflect the delusion that Israel is a holy land and that the people of Israel are the chosen people of God? Believers in End Times (or those that are willing to cater to them) would be biased against any Middle East solution that would fail to consider this.

In their latest book of the series, Kingdom Come, Lahaye and Jenkins attack reason and the intellectual as tools of Satan. Clearly a message to their deluded followers that they should avoid reason and intellect –avoid thinking for themselves – since these are tricks of Satan. As religious dogmas go, Christianity is one that you have to admire when it comes to its self-inoculating ability. Christians are frequently quoting scriptures like, “the fool hath said in his hear there is no God” (Psa. 14:1) and “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). The reward offered through Christian mythology is, likewise, an inoculation against doubt since it provides “eternal life” (Rom. 6:23) for believing in “one God” (Jam. 2:19).

When asked if reason is dangerous, Lahaye responds:

Yes, reason without God. You show me two people with brilliant minds. If one believes in God and has a respect for almighty God, he can be like a Louis Pasteur or a Sir Isaac Newton or one of the many Christians who were scientists and contributed greatly to the well being of the world. Or, they can be like
Karl Marx or Sigmund Freud or many of the others who hated God or were ambivalent about God, just had no time for Him or His word, and they went their own way.We're living in a society where you have the wisdom of men on one hand and the wisdom of God on the other. Bible-free reasoning is going to lead you to one decision, [and] a Satan-filled [mind] or an empty vacuum is going to be contrary to that.

Christians often cite early scientists for their religious beliefs, in spite of the fact that few had any sort of choice. We may never know what scientists like Pasteur may have really thought about religion. We know he was a Roman Catholic and that he commented that religion and science were compatible, as did many of his scientific contemporaries. But how much of this is his attempts to justify his scientific pursuits with the Church that controlled so much of society? We know that Newton was religious and wrote much on the topic, but we also know that this brilliant mind had an obsession with alchemy and with finding “hidden messages” in the Bible.

What’s interesting in Lahaye’s comments above, however, is the false dichotomy and non sequitur he creates with his association of atheism with Satanism. The intent is clear: to associate atheists and their intellectual arguments with the work of the Christian deity of evil (Satan). “Bible-free reasoning” is likened with a “Satan-filled mind” and thus, the Christian should avoid thinking any thoughts that might question the spell cast by Biblical doctrine. The less educated the believer is, the easier it is to keep them inoculated.

Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime

In reading some of the recent back and forth in the atheist blogosphere, criticizing and defending Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, several themes jump on the critical side. One of these is the premise that authors like Dawkins (and Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) are “hurting the cause of the atheist movement.”

On Evolutionblog [scienceblogs.com], Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars [scienceblogs.com] comments in the Jason’s post, “Brayton Says I’m Wrong. What Nerve!”:

When the other side demonizes us and uses outrageous rhetoric, calling us "Stalinists" or "jackbooted thugs", we reprint those words on every blog because we know it makes them look unhinged and loony. When those on our side talk about breaking out the brass knuckles and wanting to obliterate religion and accuse them of abusing their children by teaching them the tenets of their faith, they do exactly the same thing to make us look bad and to help insulate their followers from the influence of "them."

At his own blog, Brayton had this to say in his post, “Atheism and Civil Rights”:

I do believe that such rhetoric, calling all religious believers either stupid or deluded, is false and that it undermines our ability to work with reasonable Christians on a range of issues. [...] The real nuts will hate atheists without such rhetoric. They hate and fear all non-Christians as a matter of presumption and there is likely nothing that could persuade them otherwise. But for a more moderate, reasonable Christian who just doesn't understand why anyone would be an atheist, likely because they've never known any, seeing militant pronouncements like that is certainly going to reinforce their fears of atheists rather than help reduce them.

I agree with Brayton that calling religious believers “stupid” is not only counterproductive but also immature. However, I think that this represents a distinct minority of atheists engaged in the battle between religious superstition and reason. Certainly I’ve seen this type of atheist, usually in internet chat forums and blogs, but the atheists in question here are those so-called “public” atheists: Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris. I’ve yet to read Hitchens’ new book, but I’ve quickly scanned through my copies of the other authors’ works and I failed to arrive at the page where either of them referred to religious believers as “stupid.” I’m assuming that Brayton is, therefore, creating hyperbole and that his real discontent is with the term “deluded.”

Someone is deluded when they accept an erroneous belief or set of beliefs held in spite of evidence to the contrary. What authors like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, and Stenger have argued successfully is that evidence does exist to the contrary of religious superstition. But I don’t think Brayton, Nisbet, et al are denying that delusion, the operative word in Dawkins’ book title, is absent with regard to fundamentalist or even moderate religious believers, specifically Christians. What they object to is that Dawkins and co., as first pointed out by PZ Myers, aren’t afraid to mention that the Emperor is without attire. The Emperor in this case is religion. Dawkins mentions PZ’s version of the Courtier’s Reply in the preface of the paperback edition of TGD and also addresses many of the fallacious criticisms that have been leveled at him from both theists and atheists alike. Dawkins refers to the latter as those that precede their criticisms with “I’m an atheist, but...”

For those critics on the side of reason who describe Dawkins as an “in your face” or “militant” atheist and claim that Dawkins et al are “hurting the cause,” where is the quantifiable evidence? The Amazon and New York Times Best Seller’s lists are quantifiable evidence against their claims. And while they are only anecdotes, the Converts’ Corner of RichardDawkins.net offers quantifiable evidence as well. Daniel Dennett put it well in Breaking the Spell (the inspiration for this blog’s title) when he pointed out that a taboo exists with regard to inquiring, examining and questioning religious belief by non-believers in society: “[t]he first spell –the taboo- and the second spell – religion itself – are bound together in a curious embrace. Part of the strength of the second may be – may be – the protection it receives from the first.” Dennett, too, goes on in that paragraph to invoke the Courtier’s Reply.

Which brings us, finally, to the question of blasphemy. Are we atheists willing to pussy-foot about, afraid to offend the superstitious –the people we privately agree suffer a delusion that they are willing to spread evangelistically through society like a virus, infecting children and those looking for hope, answers, or something to give them purpose? Do we give in to the taboo and “frame” our positions by hiding our logic and reason? Is there any way to adequately “frame” atheism that logically addresses religious superstition and delusion?

The biggest beef that pussy-footing atheists seem to have with Dawkins’ book is the title. Most believers critical of the book have probably never read it and they, too, are hung up on the title. The word “delusion” is blasphemy and taken to be an insult. That’s a fact I was conscious of when I purchased a copy at a major bookstore and as I carried it around in public. But there exists a delusion all the same and it needs to be discussed. In public. By intellectuals. And that discussion is happening: in the blogosphere; on television; on the radio; in podcasts; in the editorial columns of newspapers; in major magazines; and on college campuses. These aren’t “militant pronouncements” as Brayton puts it, but reasoned discussions and reasoned responses.

I’m not shouting to believers, “ha, ha! Look at the Emperor’s bare ass!” But nor am I commenting on his smart fashion sense. And where the discussion emerges, be it at work, school, or home, I’m willing to risk the perceived blasphemy and point out that I see religion as a delusion and why.