Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Case for God by Karen Armstrong
I think it is very ironic that this reading touches on the topic of atheism because we discussed it a little bit in class today (well at least the 11:10 class). I found it interesting to learn that in a way atheism has almost evolved over the past centuries to become what it is today. Although in class today I believed that there was no way to classify atheism as a religion, I am more hesitant after reading this article. The fact that Christians and Muslims were both called atheists at one point or another brings forth the question of whether atheism is strictly the belief in the opposite of organized religion? As the definition of organized religion has changed over time, so has the definition of atheism concluding in the way it is portrayed now. I also believe that Christopher Hitchens and other prominent atheists today have only one extreme view of atheism, just like some other religious extremists, they do not represent the mass. But it still challenges the question of can atheism be classified as a religion? And in conjunction with our last reading, does it therefore deserve a place in the world religions course Prothero was pushing for the public schools?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really enjoyed Armstrong's perspective on religion in this reading. She starts off by explaining the complexities of religion and how people presently expect understanding God to be an easy task. Armstrong then discusses mythos and logos explaining that the Greeks felt that "both were essential and neither were considered superior to each other". I found this especially interesting because the two were able to serve as compliments, whereas today this would become problematic. We touched on this in class today when we spoke about how atheists sometimes dismiss religion because they feel that sacred texts are read too literally. In response to the other post, I can understand why many people may categorize atheism as a religion but I do not necessarily agree. Armstrong notes that new atheist's books have been extremely popular and suggests that this is because people are "angered by the God concept they have inherited". Is she correct in making this assumption? If people returned to viewing religion as a practice or a "knack acquired by constant practice" would there be less confusion and anger toward it? After reading this piece, is it optimistic to believe that myth and truth may be able to coexist? Will society ever be able to take Armstrong's suggestions into consideration or will we be faced with what Armstrong calls "unskillful" religion in the future?
ReplyDeleteAndrew Kurtz wasn't able to post this himself becuase of a technical issue, so I am putting it up for him.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I found interseting in Armstrong's article is when she talked about the hunchback trapping cicadas in the forest. She says, "A hunchback who trapped cicadas in the forest with a sticky pole never missed a single one. He had so perfected his powers of concentration that he lost himself in the task, and his hands seemed to move by themselves. He had no idea how he did it, but he knew only that he had acquired the knack after months of practice." I found this little story interesting because it says later that he became so good that he didn't even have to think about it anymore. They believed he had achieved this "self forgetfulness" or nirvana, through his religious experience of the sacred. This intrigued me because today in class we dicussed the relationship between religion and science. As an athlete in high school, my coach would always use the term "muscle memory", meaning if you practice, your baseball swing for example, over and over the same way. Eventually you won't even have to think about it anymore and your arms will just take over. This is the same idea as the hunchback, except with an explantion through scienctific research instead of religion. I found that very interesting.
I was quite surprised to find that I enjoyed reading this prologue. Armstrong made some very interesting comments on how religion and myth's used to coexist with each other. She talks about how messages or teachings may be better passed on through myth's. Although the Myth's may have altered truth's their educational value is more important than the details of the story. She continues to go on about the importance of actively practicing religion, and from what i understood i completely agree with her views. She leans toward the aspect of religion being a mode of transportation of ideas. I liked her comment about the wheel maker who basically said that when he hit the wheel to hard it didnt work, when he hit it to lightly it didnt work, but only when he hit it the way he had learned from years of experience did the wheel work. This serves as an example of different approaches to religion. It will only truly help you if you approach it over a long period of time. This was a great prologue, and her ideas about the power of myth's and how to approach religion were great.
ReplyDeleteIn our class (9:35AM) we discussed that there was a difference between being an atheist and being an agnostic. An atheist does not believe in god while an agnostic does not know or have knowledge of the existence of a god. I found it interesting that pagans viewed Christians and Muslims as atheists at one point. I would not consider atheism a religion because all the atheists of the world do not congregate and follow this belief that there is no god. Most people do not even self-identify as atheists. Teaching atheism in a world religions class would be very difficult since there is no foundation to support it. Going to the point of truth and myth, it is interesting to see that the two were once intertwined. In the article Armstrong mentions that if we fail to apply it to our situation, a myth remains abstract and incredible. As civilizations modernized, scientific reasoning took over myth and myths became discredited.
ReplyDeleteArmstrong’s introduction and the comments remind me of the book, Life of Pi. If you’ve read it, remember when Pi asks the Japanese men at the end which is the better story, since neither provides factual information that they can use. The men agree that the story with the animals was a better story. This is the reason why readers are supposed to now believe in God. When it comes down to a choice between realism and fantasy, or science and religion, which is the better story? Religious minded readers may find comfort in the notion that it is better to believe in an uplifting story over more believable, but less entertaining facts. This relates to Zohra’s comment about the distinction between atheists and agnostics. Earlier I too felt that atheism can’t be a religion—it’s like saying silence is a volume, but atheists share a faith, like those who believe in God, they too make a leap of decision—that there is no God. Therefore, atheism too deserves a place in a world religions class, because it is a faith in no Supreme Being. Agnostics, however, carry a doubt and have no absolute stance.
ReplyDeleteYou guys make great points. Like Aparna, I agree that atheism deserves a place in a world religion class, yet I find it interesting to think about how atheism would be presented in such a class. Would religious leaders find a problem with the teaching of it?
ReplyDeleteLike all of you have noted, I was also fascinated by Armstrong's description of what atheism actually was over the course of history. While I'm not entirely sure if religious leaders would have a problem teaching about atheism through a historical lens, I believe that students should have the opportunity to learn about such a "belief" and its underpinnings. My senior year of high school, my religion teacher invited the father of one the students in our class to speak to us about his atheism. Funny thing is, Randy (my friend's father), was the type of man who you would see helping everyone around school; he was an ever-present helper, and always went out of his way to assist others in need. At first, I was kind of skeptical about what he was going to speak to us about. As it turns out, however, he presented our class with many surprising truths about atheism, and, more importantly, he made us think. He gave us good insight, the type of knowledge that people usually regard as "out-of-the-norm" and that often goes without being discussed. With that being said, maybe devoting a portion of a world religions course to the study of atheism (through a historical lens) may not be such a bad idea after all. Atheism is a very interesting "belief," if that is what you want to call it, and Armstrong definitely made us think about atheism in a different way.
ReplyDeleteMy question is how does someone go about presenting atheism in a world religion class because classifying it as a world religion would offend both atheists and the leaders of world religions. I found it interesting to learn that Armstrong at a time was opposed to being affiliated with any religion. I think that she would agree that in order to address atheism, you view it more as a opposite of religion. So rather than referring to it as a world religion, it is viewed as an opposing viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteArmstrong makes another good point when she says, "Politicians quote God to justify their policies, teachers use him to keep order in the classroom, and terrorists commit atrocities in his name. We beg God to support "our" side in an election or a war, even though our opponents are, presumably, also God's children and the object of his love and care." I was wondering what everyone thought about this passage on the first page, and how you view Armstrong's way of discussing the different ways people view God. Do you agree with her interpretation?
When Armstrong brings up the relationship between mythos and logos, I was reminded of the brief, yet thought-provoking topic we brought up near the end of class on Wednesday (9:35AM). The idea of whether or not to read the Bible - in its entirety - in a literal or metaphorical way was very interesting. This idea that we ended off on in class seemed to be picked up in this reading. The way Armstrong explains how we live in “a society of scientific logos” where “myth has fallen into disrepute” made me wonder if this new society we live in can actually function in the grey zone of mythos and logos working together, or if we are bound by our biases to be linked to one or the other, leaving things black and white (5). Armstrong goes on to decide that “myth and ritual were thus inseparable” because of the way in which pre-modern people would link the two together as one. I like the way that Armstrong explains religion as a “practical discipline,” and ‘becoming good’ at that religion – so to speak – requires the focus and determination that it would take to succeed at anything else (8). I liked this explanation of religion, because it is done in a way in which I can understand more easily and agree with. I am realizing that religion is more than just an abstract idea, but also more of a lifestyle if desired. I also found it interesting how she explains the historical movement of atheism, and the idea that people are “angered by the God concept they have inherited” (10). Overall I enjoyed this piece greatly and enjoy the way in which Armstrong is able to write both openly by respectfully.
ReplyDeleteI would not classify atheism as a religion because in looking at it compared to other religion it seems to lack the depths that these other religions have. For example, in looking at Christianity and Buddhism, two very different religions, each believe in some sort of higher power, have sacred texts, rituals, and specific ideals and origins that they believe to be true. Atheism however, just does not believe that a higher power exits and therefore do not have a central belief system or common agreement as to why they believe what they do, each person will have varying reasons to believe why there is no higher power that actually exists. I think that in teaching religion classes atheism should be acknowledged, and students should be able to understand what atheism is, however, it should not be looked at as a religion because there is not really much that can be taught about atheism other then that is believing that there is no higher power that exists in our world.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this prologue, and the part I found most interesting was when she spoke about the politicians invoking the name of god to draw support for their side in a war. I can't speak for other religions but in the big three Monotheistic religions the idea that we are gods children is present through out, especially in christianity, where Christ preaches forgiveness, it is astounding to me that you would try to invoke god to justify murder. and yet it happens all the time. My question to the author would be what does she feel about atheistic religions like buddhism which do not believe in a god per-say but realize that they are not the top of the existence food chain
ReplyDeleteAtheism definitely deserves a place among world religions. Though it can not be classified as a religion itself, it continuously asks questions of religion and itself that make us reanalyze what religion is about and why it takes the shape that it does. Despite the appearance of a lack of depth to atheism, a very real depth to this belief does exist. Atheism is a lack of faith or belief in the divine and requires absolute faith in mankind and science. Atheists must look to themselves and the scientific community as a means to solve crisis. There is a lot to be offered by the study of atheism, not just what it means today and how it affects religions but how it morphed over time as a result of changes in religions and increased awareness of other religions in history. Atheism is the necessary opposite to established religion. Karen Armstrong's insights into religion and Atheism provided a lot of insight and thought provoking questions. Could Atheism exist without organized religion? What might Atheism look like in 50 years? 100 years?
ReplyDeleteI found Armstrong's introduction extremely intriguing. What I found most interesting was Armstrong's distinction between myth and reality. As she describes it, Mythos and Logos were once essential tools in interpreting the perplexing world. However, Armstrong argues that "today we live in a society of scientific logos, and myth has fallen into disrepute." Armstrong suggests that we have become too reliant on hard facts. Using our imagination and learning from our emotions, we can come to understand ourselves as human beings better than any textbook may ever provide. In other words, the co-existence of myth and fact ables us to more deeply understand the world. Emphasizing this point, Armstrong explains that "religion is a practical discipline that teaches us to discover new capacities of mind and heart". She then goes on to say that with hard work and perseverance one is able to achieve a higher level of thinking. By stepping outside the norm, we can obtain a type of intelligence within ourselves that is unparalleled to anything taught in a classroom.
ReplyDeleteAside from that, I found Armstrong's section on atheism equally as interesting. I believe that learning about atheism in a world religions class would be extremely beneficial. As Armstrong explains, this belief has the power to broadens one's perspective on other religions practiced around the world. This is imperative because as we gain objective knowledge about other faiths, we become less bias as individuals. And, in order to fully understand a particular culture, it is essential to rid ourselves of our biases thus compelling us to be more worldly, understanding people.
I enjoyed how the article discussed the evolution of atheism. The author is correct in the fact that atheism relies on the existence of theism and I would argue that atheism is in no way its own religion. Religion is traditionally defined as the belief and worship in a God or Gods that is typically practiced with a sacred text and a place of worship. Atheism has neither a place of worship nor a sacred text, and simply the fact that atheists practice a belief in no way makes it a religion. Just because you practice a belief does not mean you are practicing religion. Some people may believe in love, fate or destiny, but may consider themselves agnostic. To stretch the point, I believe that consuming caffeine allows me to focus on my studies, and I constantly practice that belief, and I myself am in no way religious. Nobody can prove (yet) that God(s) exist or doesn't exist, so Atheism and religion are similar in that they don't strongly rely on scientific evidence, but Atheism, in my opinion can in no way be defined as a religion.
ReplyDeleteCatherine, you bring up another great topic that we previously touched on in class. There seemed to be some disagreement among how the bible is supposed to be read. This definitely ties into some of Armstrong's suggestions. Another passage that I am still interpreting lies at the end of her introduction when she explains that "we may have to unlearn a great deal about religion before we can move on to a new insight." I thought this was a great piece of advice because I feel that if everyone was able to look at their own religion from an outside perspective there would be more appreciation for other people and their set of beliefs. Im curious as to how this type of goal would be achieved.
ReplyDeleteI agree that atheism would need to be included in a class about world religion, but I would present it as an opposing view point to religion, not as a religion in its own right. It would offend both atheists and religious people to classify it as such. I really liked the way Armstrong compared logos and mythos. The way she described the history of how people viewed religion was very interesting. Earlier in history, people were able to accept religion as myth. But in our modern, science based world, we have lost that ability. It is interesting that with the increasing popularity of scientific thought, the art of viewing religion as myth was lost. I also really liked the quote that Jackie just brought up, "we may have to unlearn a great deal about religion before we can move on to a new insight." I love this quote and I think it is absolutely true. People are so set in their opinions about religion that in order to view religion in a different way would require a radical change in thought and perspective.
ReplyDeleteAmong the many points made in "The Case for God," it was the way the author captured the feeling toward the transcendental parts of religion that made me think the most. As good ole Karen said, modern fundamentalists are looking to see the reality in what was once praised as simply an idea for guidance in all three primary monotheistic religions. They want "logos" to takeover all "mythos." Myths, the author tells us, are required in religion not as factual events but as a story to compare to your own experiences to which you cannot find an answer. This bewildering "logo" also turns the tables on the other end of the spectrum: atheists. With the establishment that God is a figure to aid in providing stories to answer life's questions, you can't completely say he doesn't exist... (obviously you can, I'm speaking in terms of what the author wrote... calm down). In conclusion, the point of making religion a feeling more than a fact is extremely endearing and far more spiritual. Isn't that what religion is all about?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that before this reading and when we briefly touched upon atheism in the 9:30 class, I was extremely hesitant to acknowledge atheism as a real religion because in my mind atheists didn’t believe in God so they did not believe in the good moral values and structure that people followed to please God. Why do you need some sort of community that a religion would provide for you if you do not believe in God or have a set of rules to abide by? In my mind if you were atheist you would just live your life as however you individually wanted to. Now I can see though, that not believing in God is not necessarily a bad thing; it is just different. And they still do abide by a set of rules to live their lives and they do have a purpose (atheism is also associated with evolution at times) so in essence it can be a religion. Teaching it in public schools however… I am not a proponent of this but if it did happen, there’s no doubt that the world would be in uproar.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jon that the mention of the politicians is the most intriguing part of the prologue. The way they twist the words of their religion is unbelievable. It’s absurd that they take the beliefs of the religion so out of context and purposefully skew the meaning just so they can gain support of their cause. I also think that incorporating atheism into a religion class makes complete sense. Atheism needs to be included because it provides the different perspective that should always be allowed within a class. It is a real belief and it should not be ignored simply because it isn’t always considered a religion. Even though not all atheists have the same reasoning for why they believe that there is not a god, they all have the same overall belief that challenges religion, which we discussed in class as not always a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteI think that Zohar has a very good point in saying that it would be difficult to classify Atheism as a religion due to the very fact that they do not collectivly practice anything or really follow any of the elements of religion that we discussed in class. People tend to clump "non believing" individuals into the same category of athiem, when I believe that there are several categories of it. I thought that the reading had a very interesting point in mentioning that early Christians and muslims were called atheistic. The non dominant religions of the day were obviously discriminated against, however as they themselves develop, Christianity also began discriminating against "non religion" or taboos. So in turn, Atheism may just be the religion of the unknowing??
ReplyDeleteI found Armstrong's article to be very interesting as she explained how logos and mythos have developed and played a role in religion, as logos have been more the doctrinal and scientific views. Where as mythos even though they may not be true have really established a role in peoples lives as they teach them morals, views, etc. As Armstrong explains the evolution of atheism from when christian and muslims were called atheists to today I can see where atheism can be considered a religion. Since religion to me is a set of beliefs on how the universe operates, so atheists take a much more logos approach to religion. So since fundamentalism is considered to be a side of religion the opposite which is atheism should be considered a religion as well. So with Prothero's religion class idea, atheism should definetly be included in the class if you wish to cure our religious illiteracy as fully as possible.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I find to be really interesting and ironic is that early on in Islam and Christianity followers of the faith(s) were called "atheists" by their "pagan contemporaries." To follow up on that thought, Armstrong had earlier said that, "The early Daoists saw religion as a 'knack' acquired by constant practice." So, if you consider religion a knack acquired by constant practice, Atheism is a religion. If you believe that religion should follow guidelines like Catholicism, which is very organized, then Atheism is not a religion but more of a belief. In my opinion, it is somewhere in the middle: not an organized religion, but not just solely a belief. It is a means of interpreting the mystical world we live in void of a God or leader. I would say it is the acknowledgment that you have the power to control and know your own being; it's world and meaning. This as opposed to a very devout person, who I would imagine to believe that they cannot overcome their own being, and in turn invest faith in their religion as a means of seeing their life and the world. In terms of how to teach this in public schools with Prothero's plan, I would say that the interpretation of Atheism should be left to the student’s imagination. It should be taught as it is then left to interpret.
ReplyDeleteWho knew that a passage entitled "The Case for God" would compel us to discuss atheism heavily. But I wonder what Armstrong was trying to say with her title. Is she trying to defend God, or rather as people stated in reference to a world religions class, simply showing the opposing view point. What would be your individual 'Case for God'?
ReplyDeleteArmstrong's argument is brilliant in the sense that she's able to compromise and make sense of the many ideas, traditions, and figures behind the world's religions. To me, it seems that her main point is that however different a religion's history may be, the one similarity is that the individual/follower has her own unique interpretation. Two Christians or two Buddhists may claim to follow the same general principles, but they ultimately diverge when it comes down to exercising those principles in everyday life. My view on atheism is that it should be classified as a religion because I think religion is simply a collection of one's personal beliefs. If one believes that there is no God and he or she will still exercise their personal morals, who is to say that is not a legitimate way of life? Armstrong defends "God" as a guide that is only understandable by the person practicing. Regardless of literal or metaphorical interpretations, what really determines one's religion is personal, or as Armstrong put it, a "knack".
ReplyDeleteThis article made a lot of points that were continuations of the discussion we had in the 11:10 class. The point I found the most interesting during class was how religion was something very personal and perhaps majorly individual, and thus, one would not want one’s religion to be forced upon millions of public school students. But I want to push the point that religion is not so different than a lot of other everyday emotions and ideas that we have in common. Armstrong referenced how in today’s culture that is influenced by modern science, we as people are more logical because we have the science to prove hypotheses. But no matter how mathematical we are, it is human nature to use myth to assuage grief when no empirical data is available to answer life’s toughest issues. Essentially, every human being experiences feelings of hope. Because of this, I don’t necessarily think that it is important that people read texts literally. As long as they admit to the possibility that their beliefs may not be true and do not impose these probabilities on others, I don’t see the problem with having something like faith to fall back on. I also found Armstrong’s comparison of religious people to professionals such as skaters and musicians really interesting. She describes them all as having “ekstasis”—an overwhelming passion that comes with a lack of consciousness of what they do and why they do it. In short, this reading affirmed to me that while religion is personal, it also kind of isn’t. As a national and global community, we all have bits and pieces of a common faith embedded in our primal human nature. And perhaps, by my train of thought, Atheism doesn’t truly exist. Sure, by definition atheism is the disbelief of a presence of a god, but I think that even Atheists may be quasi religious just by the fact that they must hold the basic sentiments of faith and hope. To me, these are the best and strongest components of religion.
ReplyDeleteI think the Introduction did a great job highlighting the fact that religion is everchanging. In the 11:10 class we emphasized the close relationship between religion and culture and the need for a class (or two) to encompass it all. Armstrong's introduction just confirmed that religion has to be viewed as a historical study because of how greatly it has fluctuated over time. In addition, while I can understand as to why one may view atheism as a religion, I heartily disagree. Unless the atheist practices his "religion" through some sort of worship or prayer, I find it hard to accept atheism as a religion. It seems almost contradictory to identify something as that which it lacks. Yes, it helps us as a people to categorize others into groups, however not everything can be labeled. If one asks someone to answer yes or no and they choose to refrain, the refrain is not considered an answer. It does not necessarily mean that they lack an opinion upon the matter. Instead, it suggests that before asking "What religion are you?", you ask the broader question: "Do you consider yourself religious?."
ReplyDeleteIt was helpful to see not only Armstrong's defintion of "religion", but also the daoists' and others'. When she described it as a "practical discipline" she seemed to make it more accessiblethan most people are led to believe, even by religious leaders and theologians. Similarly, seeing it as a "knack" like the Daoists is almost comforting in that it renews the idea of religion as an aspect of oneself rather than a restriction or source of confusion/ argument. Also, I think atheism should be considered a religion because there is still an element of faith involved. If one does not believe that God created the universe, for example, then that means he or she believes it was created by a "big bang" or some other phenomenon. Either way they are putting their faith in something. Everyone naturally has certain things he or she believes in so perhaps everyone has had to have had some kind of religious experience, a "knack" of their own.
ReplyDeleteI do see how atheism is a religion on an individual basis, but not as a communal basis. It would be impossible to teach as one topic because all atheists do not necessarily believe the same thing. The religion as a whole doesn't have much of any support as a religious system since it is more a belief system. Without theism there would be no possible way for atheism to exist. The vice-versa is not true. I think that Armstrong was correct when she said that it is very difficult to even begin to understand god and this might be why atheists are atheists. I think one change in religion has been how seriously/literally the sacred text is taken. Before myths and truths were intertwined. As they began to separate it is possible that it caused atheists to be unable to understand the faith that people have in sacred texts.
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated, atheism, in Armstrong's opinion, is the opposite of established religion. Today's atheist writers, as Armstrong states, are directly opposed against fundamentalists of the monotheistic faiths, which are currently the minority, due to the fact that the sacred texts are interpreted incorrectly in an entire literal manner. In fact, many religious people oppose fundamentalists, due to the latter's inability to understand the meanings behind particular writings of the sacred texts, especially in the regards in the multiple meanings of the word "myth". Therefore, the current idea of atheism cannot be considered a religion because it cannot be created unless there to is a hint of theism present. Though there are belief systems in place (everyone has to belief in SOMETHING, whether it be God, a particular lifestyle, etc.), atheism based strictly against fundamentalism cannot be classified as religion. Nietzsche, who Armstrong notes as being an atheist in the late 19th century, stated that "God is dead, and we [man] have killed him." With his, along with other authors of his particular time's, nihilistic viewpoints, this age's view on atheism can be considered religion. However, due to the fact that the current model of atheism needs a crutch to lean on, it in and of itself cannot be described as a religion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric's point about the introduction when Armstrong talks about how Logos in modern day society unquestionably preceeds Mythos. Scientific reasoning and database overload has turned Western society into one that defines "truth" based on factual validity. But the fact of the matter is that even amongst people of faith, any given religion will always be viewed as being a myth by someone of another faith. Everyone believes that their faith is the single truth, and atheists view them all as myths. So technically I do not believe atheism to be a religion because atheism is grounded in their disbelief of a deity or a higher being (and the practices that come along with that belief). It would be conducive however, for atheism to be taught in tandem with other religions in an American classroom setting because atheism is still a major symbol of the religious freedom and liberties that exist in this country. Like any other religion, atheism is something that binds certain humans together and contributes to the fabric of the nation's history, politics, and overall society.
ReplyDeleteMany people have said they believed that atheism should be considered a religion / should be taught in a religion class. I disagree. I do understand that atheists form a community together and have a concrete disbelief in God, but I wouldn't go as far as to consider it a religion (and I have a small feeling atheists wouldn't want to be called religious either). Someone brought up the question how would religious officials, leaders, teachers, go about teaching an atheism course in school. I think that is such an interesting question. I think it is important to preach all sides of the "story" (for lack of a better word) by teaching others about religions and then non-religions, however, there are probably many parents in regions in America that would have a hard time having their children learn about atheism. Religion is such a touchy subject. I respect the ideals of atheists, but I'm still debating whether atheism should be taught in a world religions class.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Greg. Though it may seem logical to teach atheism as an alternate viewpoint when compared with other organized religions, I think it would not be a good idea to teach it in schools. I find that one atheist can have views that are vastly different from those of another atheist, and it would be impossible to present all of the options that an atheist may pursue in his or her beliefs. Contrarily, the main monotheist religions are somewhat spelled out already--obviously it would take time to delve into the differences between all the kinds of sects in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but for the most part, anyone educated in Religious Studies could provide an accurate teaching of those religions. Atheism however, is a bit more elusive, and a bit less definitive.
ReplyDelete