NY TImes interview -- "soft atheism" and Philip Kitcher

Religion and Secularism
1

In this weekends NYTimes–only saw it online
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/the-case-for-soft-atheism/
Philip Kitcher of Columbia University tries to hit some middle ground that religious doctrines are baloney but “religious experience” is not…
Kind of an ongoing thread that has turned up in other places here…

2

I don’t remember which of my old instructors said it a half century ago, but it still holds. “It doesn’t matter how thin you slice it, it’s still baloney.” (although I think he spelled it balogna. :lol: )
It seems to me that “religious experience” is still tied to religious doctrines because without them one might have a strange experience, but it wouldn’t be tagged as religious.
Occam

3
I don't remember which of my old instructors said it a half century ago, but it still holds. "It doesn't matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney." (although I think he spelled it balogna. :lol: ) It seems to me that "religious experience" is still tied to religious doctrines because without them one might have a strange experience, but it wouldn't be tagged as religious. Occam
I'd say no matter how you slice it, it's still atheism. Why do people insist on making it something it is not? Lois
4

Maybe religious doctrines are baloney and religious experience is bologna.