There’s a provocative (and quite lengthy) debate here on whether we (collectively) would be better off without religion. I will post my own thoughts on this debate and the topic in general soon, though a couple of things immediately came to mind: if, as AC Grayling alleges in the debate (and as the available evidence suggests), people are good despite their religious ideas, could we not also say that, at a similar general level of abstraction, people are evil despite their religions as well?
I should also like to know how the “con” side would answer Dawkins’ challenge that they are being patronising by apparently asserting both that there really is no God and also that belief in God is a key means of promoting moral action. Another great problem for the “cons” is this: if there is no God, then surely, as the truth is that there is no God, then we would of course be better off without religion, as it presents a lie (whether a lie to believe in or just to follow as per one’s religious traditions).
