Most of the things that you dismiss as ʻstupidʻ are, in fact, stupid … evidence, as if we needed any, that human beings typically use their capacity to reason to rarionalize instead … to justify beliefs to which they are emotionally attached—beliefs that serve a purpose for them, but cannot be defended objectively. Well and good.

But I have to part company when you make the global assertion, without qualification, that “religion is stupid.” Isnʻt the ʻstupidity of religion contingent upon the definition of religion? There is no universally accepted definition and many people who consider themselves religious are also skeptical of the supernatural; they accept that scientific methodology is our most reliable vehicle for exploring our universe.

They may believe in an inherent, natural law that persons ought to follow for the sake of humanity as a whole. For them, religion is not a prescientific attempt to soothe their fears while “explaining” the material world. Rather, religion refers to the individualʻs attempts to enter into a relationship with the whole or the all that gives his or her life meaning. I am thinking here of liberal Jews, Unitarians, those who follow ʻnastikaʻ philosophies in Hinduism, as well as many Buddhists, Jains, and humanists who consider hūmanism to be a form of religion. These people may describe themselves as ʻreligious,ʻ but they are hardly ʻstupid.’

I would go one step further and say that our ancestors, the ancient thinkers who compiled the scriptures, the sutras and the scrolls, etc., werenʻt stupid either. Their worldview was limited in many ways but they gave serious thought to many of the same issues that contemporary philosophers wrestle with … and if we read their writings metaphorically, with that in mind, we can still find a great deal of insight there.

So yes, a lot of stupid things have been done in the name of religion (and in the name of patrīotism, or race or even economic theories), but we donʻt advance understanding by sweeping witn too broad of a broom.