![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/protherogno.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
First, about his Conclusion. He says,<\/p>\n
\nNew Atheists see all religions as the same idiocy; philosophers see them as the same truth.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No, actually, there\u2019s a common aphorism, from Edward Gibbon<\/a> in his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire<\/b> (finished 1788), that goes like this:<\/p>\n
\nThe various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I noted this earlier in my review of a Michael Shermer book here<\/a>.<\/p>\n
That is, common people suppose that all religions are more or less the same, because they all \u201cworship the same God,\u201d which is precisely the point that Prothero is trying to disabuse in this book. And philosophers? Well I suppose equally true and equally false are equivalent. But philosophy is precisely the task of looking at the ultimate questions, and not settling for any local or traditional answers. Equally true? Same truth? Nonsense.<\/p>\n
The only way they are the same truth is what they say about human nature, about humanity\u2019s need for \u201cmeaning\u201d and its need to tell stories to explain, in mundane terms, the reality they don\u2019t really understand. Prothero hasn’t gotten to the point of understanding this.<\/p>\n
\\\\<\/p>\n
Second is Prothero\u2019s take that the \u201cnew atheists,\u201d in particular \u2013 he names Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Michel Onfray \u2013 are \u201cangry\u201d. He finds titles like The End of Faith<\/b> \u201cprovocations.\u201d I think he is thin-skinned. He doesn’t think any of the multitude of Christian lectures and political statements are provocations? (To those who aren’t Christians.) In particular, has he listened to any of these authors speak?<\/p>\n
Daniel Dennett is a mild-mannered, grandfatherly-like, philosopher, who spends the first chapters of his book cautiously justifying why religion is worthy of sociological study at all. Being so cautious to even bring up the subject, because theologians, of course, don’t want their beliefs studied objectively. But angry? Nonsense. Here\u2019s a YouTube video<\/a> of him speaking on this very book.<\/p>\n
Christopher Hitchens is \u2013 was \u2013 an urban and witty journalist who patiently took all challenges from his audiences, patiently explaining his own point of view about the horrors of religious practice. He never spoke in anger, except to state that he was angry about the evils of religions. He never sounded angry, as Prothero implies.<\/p>\n
I could go on. But look at videos of any of these five. (Though I admit I haven\u2019t done so for Michael Onfray.) None of them are anywhere near as angry in their demeanor as the current batch of Republican politicians and self-proclaimed Christian prophets, who are afraid their privileged positions are being undermined.<\/p>\n
Or even as Prothero in this chapter. \u201cI wouldn\u2019t walk around the block to hear Christopher Hitchens take cheap shots at Christians.\u201d Prothero, as I concluded, is about believing in believing, never mind reality.<\/p>\n
\\\\\\<\/p>\n