Dawkins on biology is an elegant, lucid and even enchanting explicator of science. Dawkins on religion is historically uninformed, outrageously partisan and morally obtuse. If Dawkins is indeed our best, the life of the mind is in a precarious state.

Christianity is shipwrecked on the rock of "biblical authority." Twelve hundred people a day leave the church. The Bible, once an asset, has become a liability.

Dawkins' views on religion are by now extremely well-known, to the point of cultural saturation thanks to the media's fixation with him. But the dogmatic assertions and withering dismissals that made Dawkins a media-darling lend themselves particularly well to the anarchic medium of Twitter, where his unjustifiable claims can shrug off any residual requirement for justification.

There have always been fringes in every group that will kill for their cause, but we rarely extrapolate beyond their group membership to make generalizations based on religion, ideology or color. But if we find out tomorrow that the bomber was a Muslim, then I don't think we can say the same. And that's a problem.

In the wake of my piece last week, "The New Atheist Movement Should Care About Poverty," a variety of commentators -- some a part of the movement, some unaffiliated atheists and agnostics, some religious -- have weighed in. Naturally, I wanted to keep the discussion going.

There is a form of atheism that is closer to the divine than the standard theism witnessed in the church. For wherever a concern of beauty, an embrace of life and a love of liberation are exhibited the sacred is proclaimed.

Religion has always been a broad topic. Rather than simply being two sides of the same coin, a discussion on religion is an octagonal die, loaded with biases, experiences and deeply rooted beliefs. In the end, everyone must find their own, without treading on others.

This month at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a select group of students will show their humanitarian spirit by participating in the B...

The atheist movement must begin to openly care about and fight against class inequality and poverty, and they must do so by breaking down the divides between themselves and religious communities that share the same goal.

The conceit probably originated with Kant: Way back a long time ago we weren't so hot at science. We were babies then, so in the face of an unpredictable world we clung to our religion like mama's skirt. Now we're growing up and must put away childish things: all religion must go.

Those who lack the atheists' certitude that there is no afterlife, and who have never seen, and never will see, proof of the existence of God, are the agnostics -- those who do not "presume to know." Some are tempted toward the notion that underlies the famous bet of Blaise Pascal.

Yes, whether he admits it or not, Dawkins is endorsing Prophet Muhammad's teaching. And while hell just might have frozen over, perhaps we can work together to a world of freer consciences and fewer mental abuses.

Atheism+ is an exciting movement. I'm looking forward to seeing it grow and evolve. We can use this opportunity to bridge divided worlds, build interfaith coalitions and make social justice campaigns stronger.

What scares me? Plenty of things. "The Shining" scares me. Cancer scares me. The vulnerability of my children scares me. And for a number of years now the New Atheists have scared me.

This is part of a larger task of how to turn us all toward each other in an open conversation about what it is to be human and how we should treat each other. Christopher Hitchens was integral to that conversation, and I miss him.

Alan Miller hopes for a humanist culture full of "inspiring alternatives" that "inspire and engage," and in which people's ethics and behaviors are built on, as he puts it, "something beyond themselves." It seems to me that this will require making room for SBNRs.

Selecting a superficial mixture of "nice-feeling" items from Yoga to a slice of Zen and a moment of Tao is hardly progressive as far as options for humanity is concerned. They have jettisoned the hard work, diligence and observation of organized religion for a me-me-me what-ever kind of lifestyle

The histories of "science" and "religion" deserve more thought and attention than a Facebook meme allows. That history is still being made.

What is the relationship between the New Atheism and Evolutionary Religious Studies? This question is surprisingly complex and needs to be answered in at least three steps.

The 21st century will be seen as humanity's rite of passage. We're growing up as a species, going through the very same process we've all gone through individually. Our biggest challenge? Idolatry of the written word.