Religion?

So, I often browse The Invisible Library because I have a thing for librarians. And today there's a post about a book review and I've been mulling it over. There are two assumptions in the post that are particularly troubling. The first is that "religion is the only area of human knowledge in which it is still acceptable to hold beliefs dating from antiquity and a modern society should subject those beliefs to the same principles that govern scientific, medical or geographical inquiry." Is religion "the only area of human knowledge in which it is still acceptable to hold beliefs dating from antiquity"? Just on its surface this seems wrong to me. Don't some philosophers still follow Plato or Socrates? And what constitutes antiquity? Aesthetic debates about art and literature that started in the 16th century are still up for discussion. But more troubling is the assertion that "a modern society should subject those beliefs to the same principles that govern scientific, medical or geographical inquiry." What the fuck? Does Sam Harris, the writer at The Guardian, and/or Keith at The Invisible Library really believe that science, medicine, and geography are without bias? That they represent some untroubled mode of inquiry? Or is that only the very recent versions of science, medicine, and geography? Apparently, we cannot ignore the problems rendered by religion over the course of 2,000 years, but we can overlook the eugenics movement, the Tuskegee experiments, and the arbitrary lines drawn through African and the Middle East (all in the 20th century). It's ridiculous. If this is what we're going to replace religion with, we're just moving from one deeply flawed system to another. The second assumption is that "moderate and open minded Theists, [...] have been dodging a big shiny bullet for centuries: by refusing to confront the fundamentalists in their own ranks, they've made us do the dirty work, facing off with 31 flavors of regressive wackos while they pick lilies in the field, while still playing True Believer on Sunday Mornings." For centuries moderate Christians have been refusing to confront problems within Christianity? Hmm. This will come as a great surprise to everyone who endured the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, the split of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, or even the tendency of American Protestants to form a new church every time two or more are gathered in His name. Where is the monolithic Christianity? The problem isn't that moderate Christians haven't done anything. The problem is that moderate Christians think they've already done their part: splitting off from the morons, whoever the morons might be. Moderate Christians assume everyone knows the difference between the United Church of Christ and the Church of Christ, and that, if they've joined up with one and renounced the other, all's as well as can be expected. Anyway, I bring this up because this post so clearly illustrates the most fascinating part of the culture war between Christianity and Secularism (that's not quite the right word, but who knows what the right word is?): both sides are right in their accusations against the other side. Secularists do want to swap out Christianity for some more "objective" worldview that isn't, when you look very closely, any more objective. And Christians do want to continue to live in a country that supports their beliefs. Here's a funny anecdote: I decided to go to grad school where I did in part because of a chance viewing of Lifestyles of the Rich and the Famous featuring Maya Angelou, in which she said, most people don't want change, they want exchange. They don't want to dismantle the apparatuses of racism, sexism, ageism, whatever. They want to be on top. It's hard, when confronted with the obstinate power-grab that is Evangelical Protestantism, to refrain from thinking that, if there's going to be a power-grab, it's best if we--right-minded folks--end up being the ones in power. It's hard to argue with that logic. But if all we're doing is swapping our bullshit with theirs. . . well, let's not forget that both things are bullshit and that we're as capable of evil stupidity as they are.