A typical banter between atheism and theism, at least in Western countries, is not a debate between atheism and theism per se, but a debate between one of the Abrahamic religions and atheism. The fact of the matter is that religion is not inherently theistic. Definitionally speaking, atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, but this does not entail irreligion. Definitionally then, Japan may be the largest atheist nation on Earth because the majority of her people do not claim to have a belief in a god, yet at the same time the same people will ascribe to some sort of religion. This would be atheistic religion. On the other hand, there are a growing number of people who believe in a deity of some kind but do not ascribe to any particular religion. This would be theism without religion, such as “god” in philosophy or the nondescript "god" used in governmental proceedings in America. I bring this up because I think we have to be crystal clear when with what we are talking about, as it is a false dichotomy to pitch theism and religion against atheism and irreligion. Attacks on intellectual ground have to do with the rationality of belief in a god, and this is not my contention. Rather, I fear that the ravings on both sides have produced a growing pseudo-intellectual banter of which both sides have fallen victim to not because the rationality of one's beliefs, but the workings of common beliefs and the genetic fallacies associated with them.

The recent plethora of New York Times bestsellers, dubbed the "atheist's gospels" among other titles, have made it clear that atheism has come from what was once considered a mental illness to a majority position among the intellectual elite. Often times, atheists will tout the discrepancy between the number of atheists and agnostics among academics compared to the relatively low percentages in the general population. Sam Harris claims that 93% of scientists in a poll conducted by the National Academy of Science (USA) are atheists or agnostic, but I'm not really sure where this statistic came from, as I was unable to find the poll online or even on the NAS's website. Other statistics cropped up all over the web, only to confirm one thing: there are no clear statistics on who believes what about what. I think the trend, though, favors Harris' touted statistics. In general, there are more academics who are agnostics or atheists than the general population in America.

Despite this rise from the depths, the bickering on both sides of the fence at times more resembles the back-seat fight in a car between siblings than it does a real intellectual debate, and this is really what I want to address, as it seems no one is immune. After reading the The God Delusion I was extremely disappointed from an intellectual standpoint. The book presumably presents a case leveled at theism in general, but Dawkins paints broad strokes. The read was difficult as I spent the bulk of my time trying to figure out whether he was addressing belief in God, a particular religious practice, Abrahamic religions, or all the above, or none of the above. In short, it was sloppy. If this is the best atheists can do, then atheists are in trouble, but fortunately it is not. Harris' books A Letter to A Christian Nation and The End of Faith seemed to have more meat to them, but still lacked the poise and rigor of Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell, whom I find to be the best of the quote, "Four Horsemen".

Media outlets latched onto Dawkins' book and began to caricature Dawkins as "fundamentalist" atheist because his book seemed more like a rant than it did a well thought out treatise against a god. The animated series South Park picked up on this, and basically did a reductio ad absurdum on Dawkins thesis that religion somehow breeds violence. The two part South Park story composed of episodes "Go God Go" and "Go God Go XII" trace the story of the chubby kid Cartman that only wants to play a Nintendo Wii. He cannot wait  for it  so he freezes himself in a glacier. He is thawed out 500 years in the future at a time where the world is inhabited completely by atheists. The atheists, however, are divided into factions. The leader of one faction says of another, "We cannot tolerate the otters! Their Science is flawed! Their answer to the Great Question is different from ours." The point of the parody was that the whole banter seems rather ridiculous as there are "fundamentalists" on both sides. The caricature of an anti-intellectual dogma-spitting fundamentalist in the western world is often associated with fundamentalist preachers screaming into a microphone banging his hand on a pulpit or a man with a megaphone waving a Bible in the air on a street corner shouting, "turn or burn! I'm not saying that atheists are fundamentalists in the same manner of speaking as religious fundamentalists.  The label "fundamentalist" implies that there is some sort of fundamental doctrine to ascribe to and atheists do not have such doctrines, but the impression that some atheists are giving is hardly any different than that of the dogma-spitting fundamentalist.

One would be foolish to deny that religion has produced numerous fundamentalist who enact violence on anyone who does not believe like they do and are responsible for some of the world’s worst atrocities. No religion is immune to extremism as religious fundamentalism exists in practically every world religion: Hinduism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Chinese traditional religions, and Judaism. Sam Harris tries to lay the guilt of the quote "moderates" in these respective religions, saying that moderation breeds extremism. There are at least two problems with this sort of thinking. First, it is not only the irreligious that decry these atrocities, but also those who are adherents to the religion do as well. Second, the critique is non-unique to religion, because ideologies of any sort can be taken to extremes and used to justify violence. One need only point to atrocities such as the Cultural Revolution in China and the extreme applications of eugenics carried out by Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany to justify extermination of Chinese and Jews by the millions. Blaming the whole of something for the actions of a few would be a genetic fallacy, as I fear this is what atheists are doing with religion. If atheists want to claim the rational high ground, I think need atheists to stop using genetic fallacies by blaming religion for the problems of the world.

On the flip side of the coin, and a point I think Sam Harris is right about, is that dogmatic sectarianism breeds violence. I think religions need to stop being intolerant--by that I mean executing violence on those who do not believe the same way. One religious thinker who I find quite refreshing is Brennan Manning who said on the topic of religious tolerance:

If we maintain the open-mindedness of children, we challenge fixed ideas and established structures, including our own. We listen to people in other denominations and religions. We don't find demons in those with whom we disagree. We don't cozy up to people who mouth our jargon. If we are open, we rarely resort to either-or: either creation or evolution, liberty or law, sacred or secular, Beethoven or Madonna. We focus on both-and, fully aware that God's truth cannot be imprisoned in a small definition.

This of course is a theistic quote, but it speaks volumes about the sorts of attitude that believers of one religion take against believers of other religions or even different sects within their own religion and atheists. My critique is not against the rationality of either theism of atheism, but against the muckraking that is prevalent on both sides, which really needs to stop. If one can get passed this, then one can have a true discussion about the rationality of atheism and theism.