niftydrifty

part 1 of 4
In my OP I explained what I think religion is. Does it sound like anything Harris, Hitchens, or Dawkins have written or spoken about? I’ve spent the last couple of weeks re-reading stuff by these authors, and I’m sorry, but I’m still not finding anything that exactly debunks or refutes what I’ve written.

I purposely used the term “spirituality” in the title of the thread. To me, spirituality is religion. It might be true that religion isn’t always spirituality. But spirituality is a religious experience, and, as such, I present my explanation of spirituality as a rebuttal of the work of the New Atheists. I have seen no evidence that the NAs actually understand it, as practiced by “moderate” Christians or other religious people. As I explained earlier, anyone that seeks to empirically test spirituality, or claim that spirituality can be empirically tested, doesn’t understand spirituality.

I’ve noticed that whenever any of these authors makes a statement about religion in general, you can always reply (and I do mean to say that absolutely) by pointing out that it is true, some of the time, but not always. This is evidence of a misunderstanding of religion. Here are some examples:
Religion gets used, or rather, abused, that way, I agree with Hitchens. But, 100% of the time? Not true. False teachings often attempt to control others. And this may even be the predominant pattern. But was Jesus’s actual ministry about control? Hitchens’ book neglects to provide any evidence for that. I would go so far as to say that Hitchens has never considered the true implications of Jesus’ ministry. If he had, he would have included his thoughts on it in his book. Instead he seems to have missed the point, hence, his conclusions. He has only railed against the Natural Theology of his former school teacher and various misguided souls throughout history. Actual religious people have done the very same thing as Hitchens. His book is no more an argument against religion than this one: The Faith Healers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his chapter on the New Testament in God is Not Great, Hitchens basically writes that the “evil” of the New Testament is that it can’t be literally true. Compare what I’ve written in the OP, with this statement:
Does that sound like an argument against “moderate” Christianity? He never makes one. He doesn’t think there can be one, or he never would have written that. Hitchens only briefly mentions “moderate” religion in his book, and spends nearly all of his time dealing with fundamentalism.

… only if we exclude the actual teachings of Jesus. The movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. Gandhi. The lives of Monks and renunciants everywhere for thousands of years. The Dalai Lama. As well as the actions of most people that are religious. Harris doesn’t differentiate (here) between an introspective spirituality and a fundamentalist radical version of “religion.” It’s an important distinction, and one that the NAs often forget to make.

Any one who claims that religion is a source, or the source of human violence does not know very much about human nature. The evidence for this, is that violence is often carried out for reasons other than religion. Human beings are intensely tribal creatures. It’s an innate part of our nature to protect members of the tribe like us, and to want to harm those not like us. Religion gets used to incite others to carry this out. There are various symbols of social authority. Religion is merely one of these. And then, there are always those whom lash out for not being part of a tribe themselves. (example: Seung-Hui Cho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The NAs neglect to say much about localized tribal worldviews, and their role in inspiring violence. Radical Islamism is part of a worldview that is both political and “religious.” It is more accurate to say that it is a bastardization or a hijacking of religion. Even Harris is confused about Islamism. Not all Muslims share the Islamist worldview. Likewise, some “Christians” would like nothing better than to blow Muslims away, “in the name of the Lord.” I call them “Christianists.” They possess a worldview not shared by all Christians. Some may even claim that “atheism” can lead to violence, and cite the example of the movement in Russia that sought to eradicate religion, early in the 20th century, as evidence. This too is mistaken. It wasn’t “atheism,” or “secularism” that did that. It was a localized tribal worldview which caught on at the time. These movements can be religious, or not. This essential concept seems lost on the NAs. Or, was it expressed somewhere, and did I miss it? Not meaning to sound facetious. I ask sincerely.

Do all believers claim to know…”everything?” Hitchens seems to believe that all believers are adherents to natural theology, the same mistake Dawkins makes.

On p. 166 of The God Delusion, Dawkins writes:
But is there a universal definition of religion? Is religion universal? Is it the same, or even similar, everywhere you go? Dawkins wasn’t considering Buddhism, or the similarities between it, and how I explained my take on Christianity, when he wrote this.

Does Dawkins ever define “religion,” differentiating it from a “belief in God?” Does Dawkins ever define religion in a way that isn’t easily refuted or contradicted?

Harris appears to have never heard of St. Augustine, aka Augustine of Hippo:
I believe it is fair of me to focus on the occasions when “religion” is spoken about as if it were a homogenous, monolithic, simple thing. In light of the above anecdotes, aren’t these, then, examples of a misunderstanding of spirituality and/or religion? There are many, many more quotes that only address a fundamentalist literal “Natural Theology” version of religion, and not the way that I and many prominent theologians understand it.

I could go on all day about them, because such misunderstandings thoroughly permeate these poorly written books, and even the talk given by Harris that you linked to.

If they do, I ask you to show these arguments to me. I’ve not found any valid ones. The New Atheists may have “arguments” against those claims, but so have nonfundamentalist religious people, for hundreds of years.