b. Faith in God is harmful, since “throughout history terrible things have been done in the name of religion” (p. 39).
Another favorite of the skeptic. Here Collins drops the ball in my opinion. I will critique two aspects of his work: i. his understanding of Islam, and ii. His understanding of comparative crimes.
i. Collins is getting out of his genre a bit. If I met him I would probably hand him two books by Robert Spencer. Quickly, before I quote Spencer. Muhammad personally ordered (and partook in) the slitting of 900 throats of men, women, and children. Jesus, when Peter cut off the Roman soldiers ear, told Peter to put the sword away and healed the soldiers ear.
Not to mention that just saying the Crusades were wrong is almost juvenile. Robert Spencer talks a bit about the lead up to Christendom finally responding -- rightly at first, woefully latter.
The almost Political Correct myth is that the crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world. I can see with quoting Tillich and Bonhoeffer, although worthy men to quote, they are typically favorites of the religious left. Robert Schuller and Desmond Tutu on the back of the cover of Collins first edition are also dead give a ways. So PC thought is entrenched in Collins general outlook on religion and life. Continuing:
One person (my pastor) said to paint a picture of the crusaders in a single year in history is like showing photos and video of Hitler hugging children and receiving flowers from them and then showing photos and video of the Allies attacking the German army. It completely forgets what Hitler and Germany had done prior.
Compiled from myself and online sources and is from a debate I had with a Muslim:
The Quran is Prescriptive in its announcements, the Bible is Descriptive.
ii. While somewhat good on this topic, I have learned to respond to this in a more effective way. One should ask, “If religion is being rejected for the crimes it has committed, then non-faith (atheism), should be rejected all the more:
Dinesh D’Souza goes a long to point this disparity out when he debates Christopher Hitchens. After Hitchens made a his patented argument about evils Christianity had done (who Moral Law he was using seems odd... he expects everyone in the audience to agree with him that there can be moral atrocities without a God), D’souza said this:
- That’s why the atheist regimes killed more people in one week than the inquisition could kill in three centuries.
If religion is rejected, why not non-religion?