Listeners' Reflections

This is your place to publicly comment on the topics and issues addressed in Speaking of Faith programs. React in a personal way, and put into words what this program meant to you.

Submit Your Reflection about "Beyond the Atheism-Religion Divide."

My Response to Your E-mails (October 25, 2007)
I've read all of your e-mails and thought a great deal about them in these past few days. I did not mean to dismiss atheists or non-belief in my interview with Harvey Cox, categorizing and judging entire swaths of people. I am sorry if people were hurt or offended. I formed the idea for this program in the late 1990s, when a few strident Christian voices — Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson — became a poisonous force in our public life, defining themselves largely in terms of what they judged and condemned in others.

They came to dominate our cultural and journalistic imagination about who all religious people are, what they sound like and advocate. Similarly, a few voices, leading with condemnatory phrases like the "God delusion" and "religion poisons everything," now dominate the public imagination about who atheists are, what they sound like and advocate. I don't think this is good for our already polarized common life.

Here is what I have written, and stated publicly, and stand by:

"Speaking of faith in the 21st century is not about religion but about life. Many of my conversations venture beyond the bounds of traditional or theistic faith or devotion. I've come to understand the words "atheist" and "agnostic" as boxes in our culture as well. Spiritual questions don't go away, nor does a sense of wonder and mystery cease, in the absence of a belief in God. Nonreligious people are some of the most fervent thinkers, seekers and social activists of our age, energetically crafting lives of meaning."

My interview with Harvey Cox was part of an ongoing conversation. We can and will do more to draw out atheists, agnostics, non-believers, and doubters on the core questions that, in my mind, lie behind the human religious impulse and transcend it: What does it mean to be human? How to live a worthy life in this world?

Many of our programs deal with these questions as they play themselves out in work and life and less directly in terms of "faith," per se. None of my guests below, for example, define themselves as religious:

» Jennifer Michael Hecht on "A History of Doubt"
» Sherwin Nuland on "The Biology of the Spirit"
» Freeman Dyson on "Einstein's God"
» S. James Gates, Jr. on "Einstein's Ethics"
» Matthew Sanford on "The Body's Grace"
» Majora Carter on "Discovering Where we Live"
» Pankaj Mishra on "The Buddha in the World"
» Studs Terkel on "Life, Death, and Faith"
» Paul Collins on "Being Autistic and Being Human"

One final word. A few of you suggested that in seeking to avoid debate, I'm avoiding the real issues at hand. It is true that Speaking of Faith is not a forum for resolving the question of whether faith is valid, for example, or whether there is a God. We start with the reality that religion is of huge importance and influence in human life and in the world. We seek to understand that from the inside, across cultures and across time. In that spirit, we often draw out the voices of religious people who are critiquing excesses and violence in the name of their faith and are working pragmatically for change from within their tradition.

It is also true, as one of you pointed out, that criticism of "supernaturalism and authoritarianism" does not lead — as some religious authoritarianism does — to calls for violence. But massing people together, dismissing the differences and varied potentials among them, leads to seeing whole categories of human beings as abstract and inferior. And that is the beginning of bigotry and separation and violence in religion as in atheism.

My understanding of the human spirit, of the meaning of religion, and of the definition of "faith" expands with every interview I do. I've learned from this week's program and the reactions to it. I have not closed my mind to the idea that I might one day interview Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. But I'd welcome your suggestions of other non-religious thinkers and activists who will speak first and foremost about the substance of their life and philosophy — and who might strengthen Speaking of Faith as a forum that can expand the public imagination about atheism that is currently defined by a very few voices.

Krista Tippett, host and producer
St. Paul, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Kindness and Compassion (January 5, 2008)
I was excited to hear the program, as an atheist who is quite interested in matters of religion and theism, and have not been entirely disappointed. However, I hoped to hear more about the possibility of faith outside of a theistic worldview. I see a rich conversation exploring what a person embodies who lives in a world without a god. I have heard many conversations that present themselves as being outside of the theism/atheism dichotomy that all end up in a theistic agnosticism. There is more to atheism than agnosticism!

Indeed, atheists are not all militant like Dawkins (a writer that has alienated and divided and has not been helpful in my view). It seems to me that the social message of Jesus was contrary to the dominant religious views at the time and certainly he would be critical of most religious structures today. Can't humanism provide a healthy, moral perspective on religion today? Faith in people is still faith! When I trust another person to treat me fairly, when I trust myself to do the right thing even when it is difficult, that is faith! And perhaps a more vibrant faith than one motivated by a transcendent presence. Human kindness and compassion, without promise of reward or threat of punishment, is a most astounding and beautiful, and as such, does it not require a most beautiful and astounding faith?

Kevin Lally
Minneapolis, MN (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Divide Will Always Conquer (November 30, 2007)
My thoughts are not really the issue but the "beliefs" of Christians and Atheists. Both sides oppose each other on the basic levels of belief. One believes that God Created and the other Time. While science in its purest form cannot determine which is right, both have natural views that point to their view. I am only addressing Christian and Athiest viewpoints simply because after studing the other "world" religions I have found that they neither have science or religious truth to back them accordingly. While you can actually see possibilites of a global flood and macro evolution, the divide will always be there and a few brave souls will explore the other and great things are begotten from such adventure, but at their cores they oppose. You will find Christans that believe in millions of years, and Atheists that turn Gnostic, but it will always come down to the ones with the loudest voice are the ones that are heard. To summarize all this babble, Atheists will always be and so will the others. Divide will always conquer this world.

Landon Miller
Caney, OK (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Questions Came to Mind (November 1, 2007)
I consider myself (age 64) a recovering believer, having been raised in pre-Vatican days as a Roman Catholic. I am willing to listen to anyone who can explain how religion can make a difference any more — not spirituality, mind you, but religion, which to me is synonymous with institutionalized religion. Questions occurred to me while listening to Ms. Tippett and Harvey Cox: Does spirituality require/depend on religion? Are there any insights into values, conduct, meaning, etc., made by "religion" that can't be made by any thoughtful person outside of religion? Does spirituality imply or require a personal God? Does a discussion of religion include the existence of a personal God? Didn't Karl Rahner help close the divide for non-believers by explaining that God can be thought of as the horizon in our existence, always there beyond comprehension, but calling us forward to greater possibilities through contemplation, self-reflection, moral behavior?

Richard Dehlinger
St. Paul, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Speaking, Thinking, Acting Beyond the Divides (October 27, 2007)
I must say, I found your brief, measured comments on Hitchens and Dawkins not off the mark. One thing I have particularly appreciated about your program is that you have chosen guests who are in some way or other working across the various divides fragmenting our culture. Hitchens and Dawkins may be very credible scientists but their pronouncements on religion are — in my view — to a disturbing degree self-righteous and close-minded. I find, ironically, that they themselves are in their way fundamentalists. Their ignorance of the serious discussions taking place in areas about which they make their all too certain pronouncements I find quite unsettling. I think they increase the divides. I suggest Professor Charles Taylor as a person who has discussed the issues with the depth and breadth of knowledge, with the intellectual rigor and seriousness they deserve. I quote in part from a commentary explaining the reasons for the award of the Templeton Prize to Tayor: "For more than 45 years, Taylor, 75, has argued that wholly depending on secularized viewpoints only leads to fragmented, faulty results. He has described such an approach as crippling, preventing crucial insights that might help a global community increasingly exposed to clashes of culture, morality, nationalities, and religions. Key to Taylor’s investigations of the secular and the spiritual is a determination to show that one without the other only leads to peril, a point he outlined in his news conference remarks. 'The divorce of natural science and religion has been damaging to both,' he said, 'but it is equally true that the culture of the humanities and social sciences has often been surprisingly blind and deaf to the spiritual.'

'We urgently need new insight into the human propensity for violence,' including, he added, 'a full account of the human striving for meaning and spiritual direction, of which the appeals to violence are a perversion. But we don’t even begin to see where we have to look as long as we accept the complacent myth that people like us — enlightened secularists or believers — are not part of the problem. We will pay a high price if we allow this kind of muddled thinking [emphasis mine] thinking to prevail.'"

Robert Bellah has said of Taylor's most recent book, A Secular Age (Harvard University Press): "This is one of the most important books written in my lifetime." Keep up the very good work. You have responded to an extremely serious need — bringing into public conversation a great variety of people trying to speak,think, and act beyond the "divides."

James Poag
St. Louis, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

Relaxing at 75 (October 26, 2007)
Driving back from Minneapolis to Duluth took an especially short time last Sunday when I happened on your radio interview with Harvey Cox. I found it especially meaningful as it brought to mind the National Endowment for the Humanities seminar that Harvey led at Harvard during the summer of 1978, which I was fortunate to be chosen to attend as a forty-something homemaker and registered nurse who had returned to school.

During the six weeks of the seminar our group (representing a wide range of professions, beliefs, life experiences and locations of the U.S.) studied, attended, and participated in a variety of faith-based activities: Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, Muslim, atheist/agnostic, Christian, and more. The experiences of the seminar have stayed with me through the years, giving me a much more relaxed perspective on religious views as I've encountered them, at least within my "midwest" environs. I found it especially enlightening and mind-changing to speak person-to-person with the interesting people we met. As we visited I became aware that many inherited their particular religious stance, while others joined with a group because of disappointment with their previous (or lack of) families or groups.

This recollection serves as a lead-up to my observation that people tend to share the common denominator of wanting to be part of a group that, at the least, claims to care about them even if it means accepting and adopting, and even enjoying, often unusual creeds and activities that are a requirement for being included in the group. Just a thought: I wonder if something similar happens within scholarly fields of study, which, in part, accounts for the strong feelings expressed in heatedly defending particular points of view about science and religion.

Winnie Gustafson
Esko, MN (WSCN, 100.5 FM)

More Moral Without God (October 26, 2007)
Regarding whether atheists can be moral. As a devout atheist and one who cares deeply about the ills of the world, I wonder if atheism can actually make one more, not less moral. With no god to call on to solve our problems, we are forced to think more profoundly and search more intensely for human-driven remedies. Maybe that's why the non-believers I see tend to be such caring human beings.

Adeline Medalia
Ann Arbor, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)

Faith Cannot Be Reached Through Intellect Alone (October 26, 2007)
I wholeheartedly agree with listener Barbara Knott who responded on October 25. She wrote what I feel. Keep up the good work, Krista, and keep listening to your intuition. As someone who lost faith at one point and then committed myself to open my mind to it again through a 12 Step program, I am more and more convinced that the "faith" part will never be reached through the intellect. The roads may run parallel, but simply do not cross. Immense positive changes have come about in my life in the last 12 months. Changes that I could not "think" myself into no matter how hard I tried. Thanks for your work!

Cindy Webb
Tulsa, OK (KRMG, 89.5 FM)

Tell Me How to Bridge the Divide, Then Help Me Do It (October 26, 2007)
I listened with great interest to the episode featuring Krista's conversation with Harvey Cox. In particular I am encouraged by the optimism that was expressed about the new sorts of conversations sprouting up. This year I immersed myself in a search for open conversation about atheism and religion. My search was unsuccessful (though I may have looked in the wrong places), and so I created a web forum devoted to open and respectful conversation on the topics which seem to so often polarize us. I have, however, not escaped accusations of proselytizing my own life stance in terms of the way I operate the site.

I tell my story here: www.differhonestly.com/why. I am eager for reflection and advice from Krista and the SoF community on whether my goal of truly open, balanced, and reasonable theological conversation can be achieved, and whether I am approaching it from the right angle.

Will Irace
Portland, OR (KOPB, 91.5 FM)

Listen, and Stand Firm (October 25, 2007)
I hope you don't back down from your position against giving a forum to people who think they have all the answers (as in atheists or religionists who tend to polarize and argue for a one-faceted point of view). You have been successful in populating your programs with thoughtful people who usually seem interested in more abundant life rather than in reductive single views. James Hillman makes the point that the imagination doesn't argue; it simply plays a different tune. It has been a pleasure to listen to you and your guests playing conversational tunes, often in harmony because your goal is to expand the possibilities rather than to shut them down. I am glad you have listened to the outcries of the disenchanted, but I hope you will stand firm in your intuition about what makes your program work.

Barbara Knott
Atlanta, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

Teaching Religion as a Course (October 24, 2007)
Hearing Professor Cox talk about the idea of teaching religion as an intellectual course reminded me of one the best courses in my education. It was a high school freshman course entitled, "Foundations of American Culture," which I took in 1958-59. It had the usual survey of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman material. Then, however, it had a section on the major religions of the world — Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Hinduism. The last one studied was Christianity, and that led to the next section on medieval history up to the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, through the lens of Christian doctrine. I can still remember learning about the Arian heresy, the Council of Nice, the Albigensians, and the differences between the belief in good works and grace.

I probably learned more about Christian theology and Christian heresies than most practicing Christians. For a Jewish guy, I still stun Christian friends with my knowledge, especially my Catholic son-in-law. The course was not an attempt to convert anyone. It was the opportunity to learn about the tenets of other faiths. We need more of that today. It would give us all a better understanding of what others believe and how that relates to our own beliefs.

Michael Levy
Ardmore, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

The See-Saw Nature of Secularism and Religiosity (October 24, 2007)
From the most recent newsletter: "Tell me what you think, and if you see a new conversation unfolding, in your own life or in the world around you." Not a new conversation in my life. It is the same old conversation that happened when I realized I could no longer be a part of the Catholic faith that I was raised in. Realized that there had to be something more meaningful than the atheism that I professed. Realized that my LDS (Mormon) friends were great people, belonged to a wonderful organization and believed things that did not conform to my view of reality. Stared death in the eye, and death blinked. Had a heart-to-heart with my oldest sister recently about the meaning of life and the possibility that not everything I was taught as a kid was nonsense. I am a black and white kinda guy, but I find more interesting shades of gray every time I hear Speaking of Faith. It is refreshing and delightful to hear really smart people with strongly held beliefs discuss these beliefs in a rational and respectful tone. With respect to the most recent topic, namely the see-saw nature of secularism and religiosity in society, that is the way things naturally happen in a free society. It happens all the time in my life and I hope it never stops. Here is my vision of the end of civilization as we know it: It will happen when smart people suddenly agree. Thanks for the show, Keep up the good work.

Rich Matecki
Mequon, WI (WUWM, 89.7 FM)

Belief and Non-Belief (October 23, 2007)
Your remarks on the program with Harvey Cox about belief and non-belief co-residing in each of us brought to mind a wonderful definition and image of modern man put forth by the early 20th-century German Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig. In his article about Luther's translation of the Bible he writes: "Modern man is both a Believer and a Non-Believer ... Therefore is in Nothing, but he is Alive." He goes on (sorry for not quoting exactly but I sit in the Hong Kong airport after missing a flight): Belief is like a spotlight, sometimes illuminating Here leaving certain areas in darkness and exposing other ... and sometimes There. No two times are exactly the same ... Belief/Faith is the Readiness for this illumination. As a man of Reason he may have known, or accepted the hypotheses that the Bible was composed of multiple historical source put together by R-the Redactor ... but as a living person and Jew he believed that R is Rabenu, Hebrew for "Our teacher Moses." Thanks for your wonderful programs.

Myron Joshua
Kubbutz Kfar Etzion, Israel (Listens to SOF Podcast)

Points Sidestepped (October 23, 2007)
While I enjoyed the discussion, Harvey Cox was able to discuss several issues and was not challenged by Tippett. Here are just a few:

1) Science and Religion cover different ground. As Hitchens has mentioned, Science has surpassed Religion in providing answers about nature and reality. As science continues to advance, religion is left with that which science does not answer. Just because science does not have answers to existential questions does not mean we have to turn to religion for an answer.

2) Cox included religion when he was discussing ethics, morality and philosophy as fields that have something to contribute when addressing the great questions of existence. Religions have been useful for thousands of years, perhaps because they give people a pre-digested take on existence and meaning, but what needs to be seriously considered is that their utility might be (should be) at an end. Because religious narratives and beliefs have given some people/cultures comfort for thousands of years, does not mean that we currently need religion for ethical and moral reasons. We can study religion in historical and cultural contexts, but it is time for atheists to drive home the point that religion is unnecessary in living a good ethical life.

3) Cox associates faith with religious faith. A common trope when defending religion. Faith does not have to be associated with religion. One can have faith in people, or the laws of nature, for example. Incidentally, this does not make others into deities, or science or physics into religions.

4)How does a progressive religious person reconcile the fanatics among them? Moderate and progressive people like Cox who take an open minded and ecumenical stance still have to contend that amongst their own are fundamental and literalist thinkers who believe many the same things that they believe. Yes there are moderate Muslims but there are also fanatical Muslims who see themselves as true believers. For every progressive Christian who is now concerned with poverty and the environment there is a Christian who doesn't believe in a gay rights, stem cell research or a women's right to choose.

Chris Bander
New York, NY (Listens to SOF Podcast)

Faith's Place in University (October 22, 2007)
My ears pricked up when I heard your guest, Harvey Cox, respond to concerns about proselytizing in the classroom. He noted that, at least at Harvard, there’s a rising tide of interest among the faculty and student body toward introducing religious and moral components into curricula outside the confines of the religion department. The familiarity of this notion caught my attention, for my alma mater was doing precisely that when I was there more than 20 years ago, and presumably still is. A small, evangelical liberal arts institution in Indiana, Taylor University made it a point to encourage its faculty to integrate considerations of faith’s relevance to their disciplines into classroom discussion. In none of this was there any attempt to win converts, because it was assumed all participants embraced the core tenets of Christianity.

But that didn’t rule out the value of such an exercise. Hence, instructors, along with students, explored the potential ramifications of faith on knowledge, scholarship, and action within their particular academic discipline — all areas of consideration equally valid irrespective of the content of any one individual’s faith. This type of scholarly reflection had no greater influence upon me than in my introductory environmental science course, and it was surely this professor who spent more time than any other entertaining questions of the significance of faith in shaping not only ecological stewardship, but interjecting humility into the limits of scientific knowledge about the natural world, and the restraints such humility imposes on reasoned conclusions. For me, the result has been a life-long reverence for the created order, a heightened respect for the gift that is our position as caretakers of this planet, and an acute wariness of the human propensity for selfishness, greed, and shortsighted behavior.

It therefore should come as no surprise that I have persistent concerns about the conspicuous overlap between academia and the economic interests responsible, in large part, for funding its scholarship. Long gone are the idealistic days when knowledge was pursued and appreciated for its own sake. Now, the impetus for and goal of much academic research is ultimately its profitability in the marketplace, because that is the interest of its backers. Nowhere is this more true than in the scientific and technical disciplines. Whole wings and campus buildings bear the marks of market influence now with corporate names, where institutions were once free and content merely to honor individuals. These purely secular forces of commerce see no intrinsic value in knowledge, and that’s why higher education is in such desperate need of transcendent influences to guide and shape its communities.

Religion and faith play an indispensable role in the dialogue, although they are, by no means, the saviors of higher education; they are a catalyst for reflective temperance, but hardly the solution in themselves. The curious irony behind my faith-driven passion for ecology is that I wasn’t even a science major; my undergraduate degree was in religious studies. But strangely enough, in Taylor’s environment of open, fearless yet critical inquiry, even my theology was informed and transformed by an ongoing process so potent that those theological positions are now worlds apart from what they were back then, almost unrecognizable, even. No longer do I believe my Creator is universally benevolent — and yes, I exclude myself from the circle of Its "favored." And yet still, remarkably, I can’t shrug off the values of benevolence, self-denial, or humility my vanquished faith once gave me, even when my theology brings me to the conclusion my Creator is flawed, ambivalent, or perhaps even inherently unjust Itself. So I am fully persuaded there is substantive good gained when faith is integrated into academia, and most especially so when it’s accompanied by voices of doubt and skepticism that inspire it to traverse a narrow, unpopular path.

Andrew Sleeth
Raleigh, NC (Listens to SOF Podcast)

Debates Between Religion and Atheism (October 22, 2007)
Your current pages gives top billing to the three amigos: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and the like; however we are having a very hard time understanding your recent statement: "The archives of Speaking of Faith — with religious as well as non-religious voices, with scientists as well as theologians, doctors as well as spiritual teachers — are one record of this unfolding conversation. I realize now that this is the answer I might have been giving all along as people have asked me when I would interview Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. I simply refuse to extend or deepen the "debates" that will happen in other places. I'm committed to the conversation taking place between the poles of seemingly irreconcilable difference."

Please explain yourself. Why are discussions elsewhere "debates" but discussions of "the poles of seemingly irreconcilable difference" on your show "conversation"? Sounds like George Carlin's comparison of football and baseball.

John Ditzler
Plymouth, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Synonyms (October 22, 2007)
It is a category error to turn "faith" into an isomorphic synonym for things religious. Same applies to "spirituality". The latter leads to the almost revelatory idea that atheists can have a rich spiritual life. Technically, Buddhism is an atheistic religion (see for example Kauffman's Critique of Religion and Philosophy). In reality there is no "divide" between atheism and religion. A "divide" implies they exist in the same universe. Except for anti-theists, for most atheists, religion is simply another choice and for the atheist the so called divide is moot. People can believe that if they wish "so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."

Chas Ardinger
Black Mountain, NC (WCQS, 88.1 FM)

Beauty in Science and Spirit (October 22, 2007)
Thank you for your insightful program with Harvard theologian Harvey Cox. He mentioned his scientist colleague, the late Stephen Jay Gould's position on religion and science as being separate "magesteria." My book Beauty in Science and Spirit builds on this. I believe science and religion have complementary beauty. The complementary beauty of spirit's "why" and science's "how" is needed to prevent terrorism and materialism. Spirituality without scientific validation can lead to religious extremism. Science without spirit can result in the exploitation of nature's intrinsic beauty and our environmental crisis.

Paul Carr
Bedford, NH (WEVO, 89.1 FM)

Utter Failure (October 22, 2007)
I was hopeful the content would live up to the title. It did not in so many ways. I will focus on only a couple. Others have raised some of my other concerns. You did the discussion a great disservice by tarring Dawkins and Hitchens with one brush and then associating them with Falwell. They are engaged in an important dialog, which was dismissed by the host and Cox since it was not their dialog. This not bridge the divide. If you are serious consider some of the following hypotheses:

1. People would believe in a deity even if there were none.
2. Belief in religion and moral behavior are loosely related at best and the relationship is not understood.
3. Religious explanations for physical events, from creation and evolution to what holds up the moon, and maybe consciousness are driven by emotional needs, not rational thought.
4. That some things are scientifically unknowable is not evidence of a deity.

These hypotheses, as challenging as they may be, are worthy of study and testing. That is what I believe Dawkins and others are doing. Dismissing these questions will only widen the divide.

Murray Cantor
Westwood, MA (WBUR, 90.9 FM)

In Defense of Thinking, Especially when Speaking of Faith (October 22, 2007)
I am encouraged by the comments of many listeners who, like me, were somewhat shocked and bewildered by Krista's comments on Dawkins and Hitchens and why she has hesitated to have them on the program. I agree with the comments and disappointment of those who do not find Harvey Cox a qualified spokesman for the non-believer's — or questioner's — point of view, yet I have another reason for urging you to invite someone like Hitchens on your program.

I live in the heart of the Bible Belt. Have you any idea, at all, how difficult it is even to ask an innocent question in such an environment? I have never, ever felt comfortable or safe daring to question out loud what is so widely accepted that it is never questioned. I had never read a book by an atheist and recently went to our public library for another way to look at things and asked for an interlibrary loan of the only available copy of Christopher Hitchens book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, which I heard about by accident on CSPAN. It took weeks for this book to arrive. When it did, I noticed it belonged to our very own library and appeared not to have been read before. Maybe it was never intended for the open shelves, I don't know.

The point I'd like to make is this: I was annoyed with myself for being frightened to ask for this book, and annoyed with the library for the delay in making it available to me. Unless a program such as yours enables listeners who are genuinely struggling with these issues to ask questions and listen to very different points of view, there won't be this important national conversation — which Sunday's program failed to provide. I guess that will be all right if the purpose of your show is only to preach to the choir.

Medini Longwell
Murphysboro, IL (WSIU, 91.9 FM)

Intellectual Rigor (October 22, 2007)
It is incumbent upon academics to know whereof they speak. Cox does not know whereof Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris speak, as Nina Lee and many other of your respondents correctly note. Dawkins in particular can only be considered an extremist in the same sense that he is an extremist with regard to a Flat Earth: he has seen the evidence and arguments, and drawn a definite conclusion. There is nothing fundamentalist about that.

Cox also accuses the New Atheists of missing what is going on in contemporary Christianity. They do not miss it — it is not their topic. Hitchens has said this, quite specifically, on the air, live, many times, as has Harris. The New Atheists critique a form of religion that theologians report to be unfamiliar in their neck of the woods: I have no doubt of that! But they should get out more. The New Atheists take Christian fundamentalists (and Muslim fundamentalists) at their word. Please do not doubt that the ludicrous positions attacked by atheists are held by millions of Christians: that the world really is 6000 years old, that evolution is a lie.

Jerald Hughes
McAllen, TX (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Convivencia (October 22, 2007)
I was especially impressed to hear that Harvard University is not only teaching religion, but integrating religious viewpoints into various courses. I attended a conference a few years ago entitled "Religion and Higher Education." Some professors there couldn't fathom religion as a legitimate factor in their classroom conversations. I, for one, have often found myself in classrooms struggling to see the value of lessons that neglect or even scoff at things I know to be be true. A person of integrity does not check their beliefs at the door. Hooray for those educators who value their students' integrity. As a member of the Unification Church who is active in interreligious work, I can vouch for the trend toward acceptance. At the very least, more and more people seem to want to know what other people are all about and to live in peace with one another.

Karyn Halmstad
Brookfield, WI (WUWM, 89.7 FM)

Shame in Intellectual Cowardice (October 22, 2007)
I've lost a great deal of respect for Harvard University, since they would honor an "intellectual" like Harvey Cox with a professorship. I've lost just as much respect for Speaking of Faith since Tippett would honor Cox's nonsensical position that there is no conflict between religious faith and non-faith, but a "fascinating interplay" to be learned from. The fact that both Tippett and Cox dismissed a rationalist like Dawkins as "an extremist" is disgusting. If you were really searching for truth and ethics, you would at least read his books before denouncing his views. (And if you had read The God Delusion, you would have known that Dawkins does not ignore Hitler and Stalin as you claim, but writes a lengthy and excellent chapter about these despots and their movements.)

The point that Tippett and Cox so elegantly miss is that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and all secular humanists are not shrieking for the eradication of faith and every last vestige of religion in some sort of atheist jihad. This new atheist movement is a plea for the rational — begging the world to stop subverting reason to the mystical. Reason is the engine through which man has prospered, not mysticism, and it's time to stop spitting in reason's face because "there are things Reason cannot explain..." Religion is a limitless fount of mystical unreason, and that's why Dawkins and the others go to such pains to unveil is for what it is. But since this position forces people to examine their beliefs, it makes people uncomfortable. So for the sake of everyone's comfort, Tippett and Cox adopt the line "Hey everybody! Lets all just get along!", and by doing so they are either ignoring all the contradictions that come up or calling the contradictions "fascinating interplay." This is intellectual cowardice, and an otherwise fine program like Speaking of Faith should be ashamed for promoting it.

Joanna Davidovich
Atlanta, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

"Extremism" and "Religion" (October 21, 2007)
Cox says Dawkins and Harris don't not address "atheistic" authoritarian regimes like under Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. For the record, they have addressed such regimes, and Hitler opposed atheism. Cox called Harris and Dawkins "extremists." I wonder if Cox and Tippett have even read the writings and/or listened to speeches of Dawkins or Harris. Just because Tippett agrees with Cox's views and doesn't agree with Dawkins or Harris' views doesn't mean Cox is moderate and Dawkins or Harris are extremist. Dawkins and Harris do not claim to have all the answers, as Tippett accuses them of doing. A minority of people have views similar to Dawkins and Harris, but unlike extremists who value ideology over people's well-being, Dawkins and Harris do not call on people to harm other people. Atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and myself criticize supernaturalism and authoritarianism, but we would not promote violence or tyranny as extremists would. (Indeed, we want to decrease suffering. One of the main reasons we oppose supernaturalism and authoritarianism is because we think they cause unnecessary suffering.) Criticism of supernaturalism and authoritarianism in religions is not extremism — unless you think supernaturalism or authoritarianism is necessary for morality.

Cox says religion is necessary for answering questions about ethics/morality. What is his definition of "religion"? He seems to conflate religion with philosophy in general. Religions are institutions based on philosophies requiring supernaturalism (beliefs about the natural world that are contrary to scientific evidence). With this definition, things like Scientology and the Abrahamic religions can be called religions. An atheist, like a secular Jew, can participate in the traditions of a religion, but we wouldn't call that person "religious." Philosophies like libertarianism, egalitarianism, utilitarianism, capitalism, communism, and Confucianism are not religious since they don't require supernaturalism. Cox again conflates religion with philosophy when he calls capitalism a religion.

Our concepts of morality shouldn't be limited to religion. Many atheists, including Harris and Dawkins, have tried to show that morality transcends religion and that religious/political dogma can detract from morality. We have also tried to show that people can use science to make informed decisions on moral issues. We promote science because not enough people use it and some people even attack it, even though people need science to better deal with societal problems and every-day life in a natural world.

Nina Lee
Medford, MA (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Talk to Us, Not About Us (October 21, 2007)
I listen to your program nearly every week because I find the discussions very interesting and thought-provoking. I am an Humanist (many people equate Humanism with atheism), and am very disappointed that you have decided not to interview prominent atheists or religious leaders because you believe they "have all the answers." I would say that the fact that you refuse to interview these people and make the effort to get to know what they really think, you have determined that you have "all the answers" that you care to have. If you would take the time to get to know us, you might find that, as your guest said "they aren't stridently anti-religious." I do not "believe" in a god, does not necessarily mean I am against believing in a god. Listening to your discussion with your guest about those of us who do not believe is like listening to foreigners talk about you when they think you don't understand their language. Please, talk to us, not about us. We are not dangerous or threatening or stupid. And you may find that most of us are intelligent, moral, and yes, even "spiritual." Thank you.

Naida Lavon
Portland, OR (KOPB, 91.5 FM)

Answers from All Sides (October 21, 2007)
As usual, I really appreciate the fact that SOF brings real opinions and beliefs to light — right from the mouths of those who are so passionate about them. However, I see a conspicuous bias in the way the interviews are carried out that makes me question the integrity of the program. The bias I'm speaking of is this: any discussion that is tolerant of all other beliefs and wants to "come together" is considered good and acceptable. Any discussion leaning toward an exclusive truth which may be intolerant of accepting something else as truth is narrow-minded and seldom heard.

I heard a comment today by Krista to her guest Harvey Cox that reflects this bias. Harvey claims to be agnostic (essentially believing a person cannot know the answers to religious endeavors). Krista seemed to agree that was a good position and claimed she never invited the Rev. Jerry Falwell onto the show because he thought he had all the answers. There's a huge irony here. Is the purpose of this show to help people find answers to their religious questions, or is it just to generate discussion of a type preferred by the staff? If the latter, it's no help to humanity. If the former, SOF is clearly pushing aside any "answers" which appear to come from a confident albeit seemingly arrogant messenger.

Does knowing you have the answer preclude you from being right? What will the real answers look like? What will the real messenger look like? How "narrow-minded" is it to assume there is no answer to a question that resides in the being of every human? Is it possible those who are moderating these discussions have already come across the answer, yet pushed it aside because it wasn't attractive or packaged properly? Do we want truth or something else? Truth by definition is exclusive to anything in disagreement with it. Are we afraid of this possibility? This listener wants to hear from those who believe they have exclusive answers as well.

Randy Kovaluk
Lake Saint Louis, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

An Old Idea (October 21, 2007)
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber, early 20th century.

Robert Lex
Los Angeles, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)

Is Atheism Inherently Amoral? (October 21, 2007)
I find this program to be generally insightful and objective when dealing with the religious issues of our day. Today's interplay between Krista Tippett and Harvey Cox, however, crossed the line. As a modern atheist in North Carolina, I have gotten used to coming under fire for my beliefs, but to have the host ask whether or not Mr. Cox foresaw a greater integration of religion in the form of "moral reasoning" in politics, medicine, law etc. really was too much. I submit that there can be no real integration of these groups as long as those who have faith consider those without to have no morals! I believe that as an atheist I am judged every day by myself and my peers, and any transgressions are dealt with immediately. I think Mr. Cox is now out of touch and his belief structure has been watered down with age and comfort, and I hope to hear greater objectivity from our host in future programs. Thank you.

Chris Clayton
Wilmington, NC (WHQR, 91.3 FM)

A Disappointed Atheist (October 21, 2007)
As a recently born-again atheist, I have been unable to decide whether or not to be irritated by the presence of your program on public radio. I was, therefore, very encouraged to hear that atheism would be — for the first time, I believe — the subject of this week's show. I was then very disappointed when I tuned in to hear the real topic, which seemed to be refuting true atheism altogether. I find your reasons for not engaging real atheists to be rather tired. The old stand-by accusation that atheism is merely another form of fundamentalism is all too easily refuted. If you have read the works of the authors you mentioned (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) I believe you would see that.

I would like to join the voices encouraging you to invite someone like Sam Harris on your program. (You may have a point about the "closed-mindedness" of atheists like Richard Dawkins; although I disagree, he is probably not suited to this program. I believe he has likened the study of religious nuances to an in-depth discussion of the embroidery on the proverbial emperor's new clothes. While I agree with him, this might not make for a very lengthy "speaking of faith.") Please consider Sam Harris as a guest, if for no other reason than to prove that you are really speaking of faith from all perspectives, not just blindly endorsing faith.

Kathleen May
St. Paul, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Let the Atheists Speak! (October 21, 2007)
As one of those folks who sent you an e-mail asking that you consider interviewing one of the "new atheists" (where exactly did this phrase come from anyway? Skepticism has a long and proud tradition), I do want to say that I appreciate having any discussion on atheism versus faith. I still would have preferred hearing your questions of Dawkins, Harris, etc. asked of one of them directly and not filtered through the thoughts of Dr. Cox who is clearly of the science-and-faith-can-learn-to-love-one-another school of thought. However, I do appreciate any and all dialogue in this area as our media is sadly bereft of anything related to this discussion.

I still suspect that there are very complex reasons for how any of us view the world, be it the one around us or the one each of us has inside ourselves. And one way of beginning a discussion of these complex reasons would be to consider how it is that human beings came to the construct of spirituality in the first place. My preference would be to have a conversation with someone — maybe a psycho-archaeologist or anthropologist, etc. — who could talk with authority about possible reasons for how humans came to believe in forces unseen to explain why we are here at all, why we die, what happens to us when we die, etc.

It is my belief that these questions and finding the answer to these questions has very much to do with whether a person believes or not. And in addition to this, I still think it would be interesting to find out how one of these "hard core" atheists answer those questions without the traditional constructs of God or an afterlife to fall back onto. But we will never know because I guess us audience members can only handle the PG version given to us by speakers like Dr. Cox.

Scott Cullen-Benson
Oakdale, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Nonoverlapping Magisteria? If Only! (October 21, 2007)
Harvey Cox dismissed Dawkins and Hitchens as superficial, but embraced Stephen Jay Gould's equally simplistic idea that religion is a moral project and science is a factual project. If that were true then of course they wouldn't collide, but it isn't. Most of the major religions aren't just a collection of "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not" rules. On the contrary, their real attraction is that they claim to offer factual as well as transcendent truths about the origins of humankind, planet earth, and the universe, which in many cases are in direct conflict with the results of empirical investigation. Christianity, for example, depends on a set of detailed historical claims about the life of Jesus, in particular his death and resurrection.

Mark Alford
St. Louis, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

Segue to Another Show (October 21, 2007)
Reading your review of Harvey Cox's comments made me think of a summer I spent in Switzerland where I met Cox and David Miller, both on the faculty of a seminar I was attending. Miller is retired from Syracuse University where he was a theologian. He has written several books, among them The New Polytheism and Christs (a look at the three faces of Jesus). His work is provocative and edgy and his lectures are eminently warm and understandable. There is a review of his career and a festschrift book on him at The Grapevine Art & Soul Salon. There are a number of subjects you could pursue with him, including ideas about soul developed by him and depth psychologist James Hillman. I and several friends enjoy your program and Web site very much.

Barbara Knott
Atlanta, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

Respect, Skepticism, and Balance (October 21, 2007)
Getting "beyond" the split between the secular and religious impulses is well worth undertaking and incredibly difficult — both for the same reason: To go there, we have to get beyond our reflexive responses when our vested interests seem threatened. To me, "They thought God was dead and they were wrong" seems about as useful as "They thought their gods were real and they were wrong" — at best, a thorny (and unlikely) starting point for a true dialogue; at worst (as is too often the case), a smug last word followed by a loud silence.

As an undergraduate at a Lutheran college in the late '60s, I had a couple of courses like the ones Dr. Cox describes; they incorporated then-current theological concepts such as process theology, texts on Christian doctrine, and ethical discussion. I emerged with a useful mix of respect for the deeper human mission of the religious impulse and skepticism toward its usual ideological trappings. Both have served me ever since, especially in recent years, in my gradual journey toward a balanced understanding of reason and spirituality.

As what I call a "devout agnostic" for 40 years, I truly appreciate your acknowledgment that atheists and agnostics have concerns that can legitimately be called spiritual. I would not be surprised (given the demonization of those labels) if that's a little hard for some folks to imagine. One of my own persistent spiritual concerns has been keeping a certain balance; the constant temptation, on any spiritual journey — regardless of whether it embraces a theistic worldview — is to fall back into simplistic name-calling and barricade-building and forget the human suffering that always follows in the wake of such polarization. There is common ground if we can all grow up enough to live there, but that's a lifelong project.

Barry Childs-Helton
Indianapolis, IN (WFYI, 90.1 FM)

Spirituality Unites Us (October 21, 2007)
Krista and Harvey Cox's sharing gave me tremendous hope for the secular/religious dialog. I'm on staff at a Catholic retreat center in the woods of Alabama. For 42 years, over 93,000 people have come here seeking the holy, the sacred in their own lives. They have come from Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox traditions. The desire for God, for the sacred, runs deeply in our times. In the Catholic Church, spiritual direction has been part of our tradition for centuries. What is amazing is how many from other traditions come for spiritual direction today. Thanks, Krista, for your sharing.

Christine Wiltrakis
Fort Mitchell, AL (WJSP, 88.1 FM)

A Post-Modernist Construct Applied to a Modernist Mindset (October 21, 2007)
Very interesting conversation with Harvey Cox. But allow me to offer a different perspective on the atheist/religion divide. In one very import way, atheists such as Kitchens and Dawkins, have more in common with fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell than they do with theologians like Harvey Cox, and that's in the area of epistemology. Harvey Cox is a televangelist for a type of epistemology which insists that we cannot know anything for certain. Jacques Derrida and others promoted this philosophy and it's sometimes called post-modernism or deconstructionism. You and Dr. Cox view this philosophy as a form of humility and wisdom, and so you value conversation rather than debate because you believe that no one can no "Truth" but can only offer opinions in a conversation. We can't search for "Truth", but have more or less fruitful conversations, fruitfulness being determined by progress toward consensus. As a result, you value agnosticism and consider certainty to be arrogance.

Of course, such a philosophy in the natural sciences would be ridiculous; scientists are very certain of most of their findings; they must be in order to make any progress. So post-modernism has not made much progress in the sciences. That's why Dawkins and Hitchens can speak so confidently that they know the truth; they're still stuck in the old "modernist" way of think in which we can know the truth. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and me, still hold to the same old modernist philosophy that Kitchens and Dawkins hold to. That's why we can actually debate religious questions and understand each other.

Personally, I find Dr. Cox's epistemology more threatening than that of Dawkins/Hitchens. I can discuss facts with Dawkins/Kitchens. Dr. Cox has written the rules of the debate in such a way that only he and his philosophy can win; he excludes the others by definition. As F.A. Hayek once wrote, it's easy to define the terms of the debate in such a way that one's side automatically wins and that's what I think Dr. Cox has done by adopting post-modernist philosophy.

On the subject of market economics, Dr. Cox didn't have much to say other than that promotion of free markets is a kind of faith and promises things it can't deliver. I have often complained to economists and scientists that they don't have enough respect for religion to actually learn something about it and as a result they make a lot of elementary mistakes when discussing theology. Now I have to make the same criticism of Dr. Cox. The study of markets is over 200 years old; economics is a science, far more so than theology. The historical and numerical evidence that free markets increase the total wealth of nations is virtually incontrovertible. But Dr. Cox makes two mistakes with regard to economics:

1. He assumes that agnosticism is the appropriate philosophical position in economics. But just as the natural sciences reject post-modern epistemology, so does economics. We can know some things that are true and can be certain about those truths, even though we may not know everything.
2. He makes claims for free markets that no economist has ever made. No one has ever written or even thought that free markets would produce a perfect society. Everyone has a different idea of what a perfect society would look like. Based just on his comments, I would guest that Dr. Cox leans toward a socialist view of society in which wealth is more evenly distributed and powerful corporations don't exist. But free market economics never promised those things and cannot deliver them. What free market economists have demonstrated (it's not faith, but science) is that the attempt to impose socialist goals upon a society will have unforeseen consequences, the greatest of which will be the wide-spread destruction of wealth, so that most people become poor, instead of a small percentage.

Not even the most ardent free market economist believes that markets are omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. But neither have most of them believed that we could create a perfect society, especially not Smith, Hayek or Friedman. However, they have demonstrated with a great deal of certainty that free markets create societies in which the poor are wealthier and fewer social ills exist, than in those socialist societies that have attempted to achieve those goals through government coercion.

The basic message of Smith and Hayek (especially in "The Fatal Conceit") is that politicians lack the wisdom and knowledge to direct society better than a free society will spontaneously direct itself.

Roger McKinney
Broken Arrow, OK (KWGS, 88.1 FM)

The Contributions of an Atheist Would Have Been Nice (October 21, 2007)
Your show is about religion, so naturally you almost always have believers on your show. Fine. But when you are addressing atheism and religion together, it is ridiculous that you don't include the perspective of an atheist. I can guarantee that Dr. Cox did not provide that perspective, no matter how fair his gentle words seem.

You so blithely dismiss Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest of the vocal atheists but their fundamental point never gets addressed. There is no evidence for the existence of god or the supernatural and tons of evidence countering most every testable religious claim. The comparison of Hitchens and fundamentalist frauds like Jerry Falwell is particularly slanderous. Hitchens pulls no punches, true, and he is not especially polite in rejecting the fundamental precepts of the Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as fundamentally immoral and illogical. But his points are well-supported by fact, unlike Falwell, Pat Robertson, and (for that matter) every local preacher who just pulls stuff out of the air.

I also have a difficult time believing that Harvard needs Religion and Divinity professors around to discuss ethics and morality. What, was the entire Western Canon banished? Where did the Philosophy department go? I do not need to consult the writings of bronze-age mystics and warlords to answer questions of right and wrong, and I suspect that is true of the Harvard student body as well. The current crop of atheist writers lend a valuable perspective to any discussion on religion. Dr. Cox needed someone to challenge his straw man arguments about non-belief. Having no voice of atheism on your show made it much less interesting and complete than it could have been.

Gavin Wilkinson
Stillwater, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Obviously, Cox Has Not Read the New Atheists (October 21, 2007)
When Krista Tippett visited St. Louis earlier this year and was interviewed on our local NPR affiliate, I was not surprised that the majority of those who called in with comments and questions identified themselves as non-believers or atheists. In my experience, atheists tend to be the most intellectually curious about the subject of religion and I suspect they are a large portion of this shows audience.

Speaking as someone who has actually read the books of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, I would like to express my outrage at something Harvey Cox said and Krista tacitly accepted: "We've lived through a century in which the cruelest and most destructive ideologies have been anti-religious … and that, somehow, doesn't get dealt with in these books." Pathetic! All these newly vocal atheist writers have addressed this at length. It is one of the most often repeated myths, and it is more than adequately refuted in chapter 17 of Hitchens' God Is Not Great titled "An Objection Anticipated: The Last-Ditch 'Case' Against Secularism." Please read this and please reconsider your statement that these "new atheists" presume to have all the answers. No, that is what the religious presume!

Andrew Gieselman
Glencoe, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

Reconsider Your Statement (October 21, 2007)
I was surprised and disappointed to hear you say that the reason you have not interviewed Richard Dawkins is that he (paraphrasing ) "has all the answers and is closed-minded." Your statement shows a lot of ignorance on what Dr. Dawkins has said and written about religion and god. And it leads me to believe you have never read any of his books (or understood them if you have). In the spirit of open-mindedness portrayed on your show, I suggest you reevaluate your understanding of Richard Dawkins' works and message. I think you could learn a lot, and your listeners would benefit from an interview with him. I'm not going to (re)explain everything he has said/written. But you are very wrong with your conclusion and understanding of his message if you think he is a frothy-mouthed anti-religious zealot, his positions include plenty of room for God and spirituality. These positions are spelled out repeatedly and clearly in his book, The God Delusion. Your closed-mindedness and prejudgment does not help the discourse between science and religion. Thanks.

Kenneth McCabe
Bluffdale, UT (KUER, 90.1 FM)

Look to Tillich (October 21, 2007)
Very good show with Mr. Cox. Since you're doing a show on R. Niebuhr you should probably do a show on Paul Tillich. I truly enjoyed your reasoning in regards to why you don't interview folks like C. Hitchens and or J. Falwell — you don't interview people who have all the answers. Tillich has much to say about this.

Dave Metzger
Chicago, IL (WBEZ, 91.7 FM)

But Can Religions Adapt? (October 21, 2007)
I was horrified that you would suggest that the existence of Muslim states would allow Islam to challenge our notion of separation of church and state. I view this as an example of intolerance. I do not think the Jewish state is any better than this. Aristotle states that the state exists for the good of its people. But in his day there were no religious institutions. The fact is that religious institutions have frozen beliefs of the past for their own interest.

We need separation of church and state because our representatives need an open discussion on the nature of the good for the state. If a number of religions are represented, this is more likely to happen. So Islam can make a contribution to our government. But those religions, such as certain sects of Islam, who feel they are the only truth, cannot accept the discussion or its results. For many years in the U.S. we have had to deal with the Religious Right in the same way. Thank God we have years of experience doing this. And also thank God that the founders of our country established freedom of religion. And I hope to God we never go the other way.

Aristotle was a very rational thinker and was not really in tune with the irrational aspects of religion. And his idea of states being for the greater good was so far ahead of his time that we still have trouble with the concept. But he is a better source of religion for me because he existed before any religions were founded, at least in his known world. Now what we generally find are religions fixed in their beliefs who are unwilling to change with the times. The question is whether Islam, or any religion for that matter, can change or adapt to the conditions of the present and future.

Frederick Kluth
Kent, OH (WKSU, 89.7 FM)

Buddhism Should Have Been at the Core of This Discussion (October 21, 2007)
The phrase "religion versus atheism" does not pay respect to Buddhism, which is a-theistic and a religion. As such, Buddhism should be central to the discussion going on right now with Mr. Cox. Religion divides into monotheism, polytheism, and atheism (Buddhism being the major religion in this last category.) It then becomes interesting to ask whether Buddhism is secular or not. It promotes kindness, which is the core moral component of all the major religions, and I prize kindness as well, in my secular (free of religious belief) moral views.

Mr. Cox seems giddy for some reason about the current chaos of religious claptrap, which I find puzzling. Fact and value are separate categories, which Cox seems to recognize from his remarks about Stephen J. Gould and the fact-based province of science. We ought to see therefore, that religion has a place in exhorting us to kindness and its associated values, while the so-called "doctrines" of various religions, which are purported as facts, is clearly a case of religion working outside of its proper province. Religions must swear off making statements of fact altogether. The confusion of fact and value is where it all continues to go wrong.

Carey Carlson
Minneapolis, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

The Listeners Should Be Left to Decide (October 21, 2007)
I have been listening to your programs for many months and just listened to your show this morning. You mentioned that you do not ask Hitchens and others onto your show because they have theological questions answered for themselves and everyone else, and apparently you do not believe that any of your listeners may appreciate hearing such views. You are seriously mistaken. In the interplay of ideas you should give your listeners a chance to judge that question for themselves. How do you make yourself the judge and jury on such matters? I would suggest you invite Sam Harris onto your show. He is a gifted speaker on questions of spirituality and would give you and your listeners a chance to expand their spiritual and intellectual horizons. I urge you to be fair and give Sam Harris a chance to be heard.

Philip Ahrens
Huntingburg, IN (WNIN, 88.3 FM)

What I Couldn't Say (October 21, 2007)
I'm just another person saying thank you. You and Mr. Cox both put into eloquent words many things that I have felt and thought, but been too tongue-tied or overwhelmed by complexity to express adequately. I love the image of internal pendulums within each of us.

David Moskovitz
Silver Spring, MD (WAMU, 88.5 FM)

Oppression of the Working Classes (October 21, 2007)
Karl Marx famously said "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes." This means "... Opium for the Masses, i.e. the working class. This statement implies that the upper classes use religion as a tool of oppression of the working class rather than say anything at all about Marx's opinion on the existence of God.

Daniel Langnas
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

How About the Ordinary Person Who Doesn't Believe? (October 21, 2007)
First, like most people of faith who have not read either Dawkins' or Hitchens' books, you completely misunderstand and misquote them. Both authors say belief in God is irrational and that religion should not be a protected institution, and religion is neither a good source of social policy nor a good guide to a moral life.

Second, you repeat the frequently cited canard about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao as examples of the evils of atheism. I would remind you that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, and Stalin spent part of his youth in the seminary and as a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. Furthermore, let's not forget the agreement between Pope Pius XII and Hitler which, to some measure, at least in the beginning, protected Roman Catholics in Germany and prevented the Vatican from condemning Hitler and his final solution of the Jews.

Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris state that Hitler, et al, set up their own religions (cults of personality, if you will), with themselves as the "deity." After all, didn't they have absolute control of the lives, persons, and deaths of those subjected to their brutality? And, what about the tens of millions of innocent children, the physically infirm, the elderly and the mentally ill that suffered under them? Where was their "free will"? How was this part of "God's plan"? Where was God during most of the 20th century? Or during the Middle Ages when his church crushed millions of men, woman, and children because they rejected the tenets of faith?

Third, you said you would not interview Dawkins, Hitchens, or Falwell, because they "had all the answers." I agree that Falwell, and others of his ilk "have all the answers" about God, the meaning of life, the afterlife, and God's plan for humanity, but Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris specifically say that no one has the answers. Rather these three authors have questions, which our society has a taboo on asking. These three authors state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary, independently verifiable proof — not a shred of which is forthcoming from the leaders of religions. As a side note, do you really believe that Falwell's antisemitism and homophobia are ideas that would be shared by Jesus?

Lastly, let me ask you a question: How can you believe in a God that would permit the chosen representatives of his original church (Roman Catholicism) to sexually abuse thousands of children? If God is all powerful, a nanosecond of thought would have swayed priests from this horrific conduct, or, at absolute bare minimum, swayed cardinals and bishops from covering up such activities. When the Bible has Christ saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," I am dead certain, his message would not have included sexual abuse when they came to him.

It is your show, of course, and you have the freedom to interview whomever you choose, but please stop misquoting rational people and disseminating false statements about their ideas. Why not interview an ordinary person who does not believe in God, instead of interviewing people who only talk about a view of life to which they are completely opposed?

Jim McKeown
Waco, TX (KWBU, 103.3 FM)

Big Mistake (October 21, 2007)
I am an atheist and a senior citizen. I spent most of my life committed to a religion and have likewise done much to make the world a better place, but these are unrelated. I do care about the world and about others. While I see nothing of value in organized religion and much that troubles me, I am not trying to convince others to share my beliefs. I do not believe in God and have seen only small-mindedness, hatred, and violence in religion as it is, and has been, practised. I would have liked seeing an open mind on this subject, Krista, but you are an excellent example of all I find abhorrent in religion. I do not routinely listen to your program but heard the teaser that it was to be about atheism so I made an exception today. Big mistake!

Selma Goldberg
Crofton, MD (WAMU, 88.5 FM)

Religion's Version of Magisteria (October 21, 2007)
Listening a fair amount to an NPR station, my radio is tuned to it and sometimes I hear portions of your show on a Sunday morning. I declared myself some 40 years ago to be an agnostic and skeptic and remain in those positions and so I listen to portions of your show now and then only with half an ear. Today's show with your guest Cox, of which I heard about half, sufficiently agitated me to write.

Cox brought forward Gould's two magisteria. I fully accept the science magisterium; it has delivered many important fields of insight: physics, evolution, neuroscience, biology, etc. I would have liked to challenge Cox and you to name three comparably important fields of insight of religion that then would make it a magisterium. I don't think ‘we know nothing,' ‘we have no idea what it is all about,' and ‘we have no evidence that there is a God' would qualify. Occasionally, I would like to challenge some of my religious family members and friends, but have learned better, to give me a scenario of what in the view of Christian religion the purpose of the world (to keep it simple) is. Presumably, the Christian God is all powerful. So what is his little experiment with the world and its never-ending cruelties all about? Can Christianity come up with a hypothesis that makes any kind of sense without being immediately absurd?

Rolf Kuehni
Charlotte, NC (WFAE, 90.7 FM)

Shake It Up a Bit (October 21, 2007)
Today's program was a breath of fresh air compared to many of the programs you have presented that feature an Evangelical spokesperson justifying their views. When you have a guest that offers the Evangelical viewpoint, Krista doesn't really press them about what many of us experience everyday in the workplace. I'm a teacher and every day at the public school where I teach teachers that are all wrapped up in their Evangelical church wear necklaces that are about 16 inches high that spell Jesus and act as though Jesus is the superior version of God.

When you get into a conversation with them about religion, they tell you that you're going to hell unless you believe like them. They also say that all the Jewish people that don't convert to Christianity will burn in hell as well, not to mention Buddhists, Hindus, etc. This is what many of us that are not churchgoers and are not involved with a specific church experience everyday. This arrogant and intolerant attitude does not promote much conversation and discussion of spiritual ideas. Krista's attitude is that this movement is so large that if you don't accept people's sheep-like attitude to be a part of the thinking that makes you feel safe you're missing the boat. It sounds like Krista will not have one of the world's great scientists and obviously a deep thinker on her show because he has a very strong view about why organized religious belief is foolish. That's too bad and on its face appears cowardly.

Her explanation as to why she may not have him on her program, which she stated on today's show sounded quite a bit like a rationalization. Why not take a chance? It might be a very interesting show. How about presenting the ideas of Dr. Fred Allen Wolf or Bernard Haisch or even Robin Meyers. Wolf is a physicist and Haisch an astrophysicist and both have a view of the spiritual that is somewhat different. They offer the idea that science and religion are growing together because of new discoveries on the subatomic level that coincide with the macro view in astrophysics. They're saying we need to create a new vocabulary that allows science, philosophy, and spirituality to play together in our minds. How about something more than the same drum beat of here's science and here's spirituality and they must be considered separately. Maybe you could present Robert Thurman, a Buddhist scholar, on your show. Maybe you could offer a guest host or a co-host such as Robert Thurman once in a while to open up the discussion and present a fresh perspective. Robin Meyers is a United Church of Christ minister that has written a book titled, Why the Christian Right is Wrong and journalist Bill Moyers states that this book is not for narrow sectarian minds. Go on, take a chance and shake it up a bit.

Patrick Graney
O Fallon, MO (KWMU, 88.1 FM)

Make a Space for All, Even the Poles? (October 20, 2007)
I enjoyed the program with Harvey Cox. It is certainly an example of the greatest strength of Speaking of Faith, the re-framing of an issue and fresh approach to an area of conflict, the search for a larger and more inclusive context of discussion. It might also be said that this approach, or some corollaries of it, are the program's central weakness.

Cox was at his best talking about how most people have their moments of doubt, no matter what religious beliefs, or non-religious beliefs, guide them. I do think that Richard Dawkins largely deflates the "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" argument of Stephen Jay Gould that Cox cited. The conversation between Krista Tippett and Cox about "fundamentalism" is virtually the same conversation I had with her when she spoke in Philadelphia. I don't think we can define a "fundamentalist" as someone who knows thinks they know what's best for themselves and the rest of us. After all, the doctors telling us that it's bad for us to smoke cigarettes are telling us what's best for us. They aren't "fundamentalists." A fundamentalist is someone who draws on an unscientific source, usually an ancient one (and typically the Bible), and carefully selects a few pieces of it, removing them from the rich and complex context they were in, and then subjects them to very narrow interpretation. Still, I heard Jerry Falwell talking about his marriage on a radio show once, and although he was someone I pretty much totally disagreed with, I could relate to some of what he was saying. (He seemed to have had a remarkable marriage.)

There are several components of the thinking of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. There's a scientific examination of the religious hypotheses, a look at the effects of religious belief, and some more "political" parts: the question of why religious belief is protected by a social sensitivity that doesn't apply to other beliefs, and the fact of discrimination against atheists and agnostics. A part of their argument that really needs more discussion is the question of whether or not moderate religious belief opens the path for extremism, notwithstanding the abhorrence of moderates to it. I tend to question this, but Sam Harris apparently sees a real danger to our survival. He uses the word "maladaptive." It's not hostility; it's anxiety for our future on this planet. Stalin isn't a good example of an atheist!

Cox's book on Jesus sounds interesting; I will have to pick it up. It has always seemed to me that Jesus is what various people want him to be. Even his name, a Latinized version of a Hebrew name, probably Hellenized in between, is a reflection of the desire to de-Judaize him. The common Islamic critique (offered by writers such as Maulana Muhammad Ali in his Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur'an) is that many of Jesus's figurative statements were mistakenly taken literally. This may or not be the case with the claim to be the "son of God," but it's hard not to allow this in the case of the Last Supper and transubstantiation. Was he really saying that people should set up houses of worship and have a wafer or slice of bread actually become his body — or was he saying that these essential symbols of Judaism were inseparable from his identity, that he was Jewish through and through?

Not everyone who doubted or rejected religion has allowed "The Market" to replace it. Cox is certainly right that the need for continual expansion is a problem, and I certainly don't look to the business world and where its successes are to find moral, spiritual, or emotional direction. The conversation needs to include these people, the atheists and the fundamentalists, and others who think they have it figured out right — and it needs to distinguish two concerns, what we believe, and how we act in response to our beliefs and differing beliefs of others.

The program offers a wealth of insight, but sometimes suffers from an overarching fear of conflict. People of differing beliefs are on, but they all seem to share the program's own admirable and pluralistic viewpoint — but this isn't the only viewpoint out there. This is the tricky conundrum of Speaking of Faith.

Jonny Meister
Bala Cynwyd, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Perhaps Zealots, But I Am Convinced (October 20, 2007)
Krista, I sense that you are a deep believer in a larger, intelligent force. You are not a zealot. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are zealous atheists. One cannot have a conversation with them. I find their arguments convincing, however, and I have no need to bring God into my life, which doesn't preclude me from seeing the important role that God plays in many of my friends' lives. Putting oneself in another's position has led humans to the place in the world that we now occupy. It is easy to see how that can lead to a desire/need for an intelligent overseer, for a plan for the world and especially for our lives.

Your show is one I very much enjoy. You minimize your beliefs as a good interviewer must do, which is not to say that there are no hints of where you stand.

Al Jette
South Burlington, VT (WVPS, 107.9 FM)

Why Wasn't Judaism Mentioned (October 20, 2007)
I was wondering why, during the program today with Harvey Cox as the guest, Judaism wasn't mentioned. I noticed that Dr. Cox mentioned the other religions a few times during the broadcast. Is it because Judaism doesn't share the same recent increase in participants?

Rita Zuckerman
Slate Hill, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

A Believer and Non-Believer in One (October 20, 2007)
I listened to this program twice on streaming audio because it talked about what must've been hidden until I heard you this morning — wonderings about religion, environmentalism, and business that thread deep inside me. My world came in that sequence reversed. In college, I was a finance and management major. Then I worked in an investment bank. After I quit and in boredom of preparing for the GMAT, I chanced upon E.O. Wilson's book The Future of Life.

With that, my eyes opened for the first time and I touched the first pulse of peace while sitting with the rest of life. A year later, I had the gift of your interview with Karen Armstrong on WNYC. Since then, I can't stop thinking of spirituality in ecology seminars, nature's carrying capacity in income statements, and spiritual hunger in consumer confidence. And yet while my life and world is deeper and more beautiful for it, I am still the non-believer and believer in one. Thank you SOF.

Josie Hua
New York, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

Same Tired Old Anti-atheist Chestnuts (October 20, 2007)
In your interview with Harvey Cox, you and he claim that neither Richard Dawkins nor Christopher Hitchens address the slaughter perpetrated by the atheistic regimes of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler. If my memory serves me well, both authors do address those issues in their books, making your claims either erroneous or deliberately misleading but in any event false. I believe both books cite Christian quotes from Hitler, whose regime was not atheistic. Beyond that, the horrors perpetrated by Mao and Stalin had a primarily economic impetus with atheism being a secondary issue. Conversely, the horrors of the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. ad infinitum were primarily of a religious nature. Also, to say that religious extremism is fading away with the passing of Jerry Falwell and the diminishing influence of Pat Robertson is to completely ignore the rising power of James Dobson and other dominionist theocrats who wield great influence in Washington. Maybe you should ratchet up your own open-mindedness and interview Richard Dawkins, because to dismiss him as being in a class with Jerry Falwell only displays your own limitations, not his.

Frederick Kaselow
Glen Rock, NJ (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

Athens Versus Jerusalem (October 18, 2007)
In my rural Midwestern farming community, faith has always been conspicuous, especially on Sunday mornings, but among my parents' generation I have noticed that sometimes faith seems to fade as the greatest generation shoulders the burden of age. In conversations with some friends, the the theme is that of a gradual withdrawal from God by once devout Methodists or Lutherans. Keep in mind that these people are the parents who used to shepherd us to Sunday school.

And I have noticed in reading of the many saints of the Catholic Church, that it wasn't unusual for some of them to feel out of touch with God at some point. Mother Teresa would be a case in point. If there is an antithesis to good, then it might be found in aging bodies and minds that are weighed down by illness, pain, and loneliness. The true measure of faith may rest not in a confession of faith, but in the continued belief in a moral and fruitful life, even in the face of all those negatives.

Richard R. Oswald
Langdon, MO (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Not Two Kinds, But Two Aspects of One Kind (October 18, 2007)
For me and for increasingly many, the "Atheism-Religion Divide" is insurmountable because of universality — so as to interact, all which is natural must be of the same kind. This renders it, the "natural," incapable of interaction with the hypothetical "supernatural" — a dualistic assumption. We will not be deflected by the concept of "non-physical" thought, for a thought about a thing is only a neurological pattern, meaningful to us because the mind is the aspect of the brain we see from within. We do generate our consciousness from our neurons, but that is merely how we experience them. In all their vast complexity, our neurological brains are not other than physical.

The proposition of "the soul" is therefore sheer, naive metaphor; it has no physical counterpart. There is no "spirit world" but as we fantasize it, and there is no such thing as an efficacious supernatural. Granted that its existence cannot be disproved, that is irrelevant, for its effectiveness within our reality can be. It lacks the natural interface required for anything which does affect us. Our metaphor serves us poorly. This is why, for many, the "Atheism-Religion Divide," between "all is one" and "all is two," is utterly, totally, and permanently insurmountable.

Albert Fonda
King of Prussia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Looking Down the Barrel... and Listening (October 18, 2007)
The "Beyond the Atheism-Religion Divide" newsletter is simply stunning and your show continues to impress. A strange dichotomy is that I immensely enjoy your show which my wife finds strange as she cannot drag me to church. Rather, I have come to view your program as part of the time I spend reflecting upon the mysteries. You may be interested to know that my favorite time of the year is just starting when I can sit in my deer stand and observe nature while I succumb to modernity by listening (with one ear only) to SOF and PHC!

Greg Carter
Alexandria, MN (KNSR, 88.9 FM)

Fine Beginning (October 18, 2007)
Your intro to this week's topic is well done. I think Richard Dawkins makes a good point in his book that many people profess a religious affiliation "just in case there is an afterlife." For me spiritualism (religion) is important, but god save us from the churches and the demagogues that run them! H. L. Mencken, known for his definitions of terms, defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

George Reid
Rochester, MN (KZSE, 90.7 FM)

Challenge Yourself (October 18, 2007)
"I'm committed to the conversation taking place between the poles of seemingly irreconcilable difference." So you say. Well, if you're so committed then it's a no-brainer: interview Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens or Dennett. Do so in a manner that doesn't "deepen the divide" or "extend the debate." Your refusal to interview such intelligent thinkers just makes you look sub-par. Are you such an unskillful interviewer that you can't ask questions that highlight what's important to you? Really, Krista. Grow up! If you wish we can work on some questions together, OK?

Hugo Freed
New York, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)