"Everybody is Wrong about God"

-by james a. lindsay
2015
Is a great book defined by whether it changes the reader? By that standard, this one joins a fairly short list in my life. A minor change to be sure, for the book presents few perspectives that are unfamiliar to anyone who takes seriously the threat that religion proposes to the uplift of humanity (and indeed, the author himself is quick to point out the recent books on which his work resolutely stands). But linsday assembles these perspectives into a compelling argument that the debate between faith and reason is already over, and the worst thing nonbelievers can do is add any fuel to the theist/atheist debate. He calls atheism self-defeating, as it legitimizes its opposite and it's inherently confused, because believers and non-believers aren't arguing about the same thing. Most believers aren't earnestly defending ancient mythology - if you were to concoct a well-concealed fiction about an invisible creature who impregnates a teenager, who then gives birth to a wizard who makes people immortal, most believers would realize that it belongs on a bookshelf next to harry potter. When a believer invokes "god", all they're giving is a reflection of their social/psychological needs. So believers perceive atheism as an attack on their values, not their dogma. James says that the rationalist perspective has already defeated belief - a quick glance at any street will reveal that most believers have complete faith in the fruits of science, and when it comes to their wallets and their sex lives (which, when it comes to marriage, are one and the same), believers almost unilaterally reject the more idealistic outbursts of their bibles. To make a point james might have made but didn't - who do you think has more resonance today, santa and the easter bunny or jesus and gabriel? Studies show that people tend to embrace naturalist explanations, up to the point where science cannot address their needs for meaning, control, and esteem. Studies show that the more one understands the wonders of science, the less one embraces supernatural explanations. Studies show that as a society grows in comfort and security, their religiosity shrinks - and the opposite too (so in these global warming, terroristic times it's only to be expected that religion will have a revival).
If you find the middle chapters dry or redundant, skip to the last three, which give prescriptions for ways to hasten the coming post-theistic world. Lindsay offers methods to foster secularism, and ways of asking questions that won't put a believer on the defensive. He suggests making classes on comparative religious studies and secularism a regular part of public education, something that can be easily done without compromising the first amendment. He talks about how to fill in the gaps, in terms of the social needs currently met by religion.
How did the book change me? It's softened my anti-religious zeal. I've taken a couple contentious readings out of the list of those i perform publicly. Mind you, i already had one foot down that road...one of my own quotes is "when two people engage in religious debate, there is always one guaranteed loser - the human race". In defense of my occasional hell-raising intolerance, these are times when involuntary human planetary destruction seems almost a given, so it can be hard to be patient with irrationalist views. But james' points are both salient and well-made.