![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/7d6a910bbe08845c0836a517a70936d5.png){kind=small}
Henry Imler June 25th, 2008
It should be a basic principle of intelligent analysis that a serious attempt is made to understand the most intellectually sophisticated concepts of religious belief. Some philosophers, like Anthony Kenny… do this and still disagree with many religious ideas. But they treat religious beliefs in their best intellectual forms with care and respect and careful analysis, and with due consideration for the many different interpretations that exist. This is what a truly scientific and rational approach to religion requires.
- Keith Ward, “is religion dangerous?” page 26-27
People from Richard Dawkins to Sean Hannity to Pat Robertson to certain unnamed undergrads to Christopher Hitchens would do well to keep the above in mind.
- Religion , X of the Day
- Comments(2)
Good point. But what percentage of Christians hold to the most intellectually sophisticated forms of the faith? People responding to religion can and should give attention to responding to the most widespread and influential forms of the religion.
I think Danny has a good point, but it makes me no less frustrated when I get implicitly accused of hating gays or immigrants or Iraqis because of my faith. I wonder if the atheist apologists like Dawkins can actually be a help to the general Christian to get his/her act together and look more deeply into what s/he believes.
Or perhaps it will just result in “Jesus is the Reason for the Season” pins.