Concerning your first statement, asserting there is no god in absolute is comparable to asserting that there is one. I can’t discuss much what is vaguely defined. In a similar way, religion has narratives and if religion is defined too broadly, for example omitting the need for faith, then there usually is not much to discuss. However, when there is a narrative and dogma for a religion and the nature of a specific religion’s god or gods is delineated then there is a basis for making very strong evaluations. In addition, if there is a historic and current record for religion in general or for a specific religion, then there are very strong statements one can make about said record.
In particular, Christianity, Islam and Judaism have a god(s) that is extensively described and have historic track records all the way up to current times. My evaluation is that those religions are silly with nonsensical, domineering and stupid god(s). In some cases, their god does unspeakably evil actions and/or commands such actions to be done. Furthermore, the impact of those religions on humanity, on balance, have been ‘evil’ and still are. Mincing words on this is anything but ‘refreshing intellectual and moral honesty’.
Bernie has good intentions and wants to engage students on a subject that had and still has a strong influence on most societies. However, it is detrimental to treat this subject impartially or to avoid evaluating it with ‘moral honesty’ and on its record.
Concerning whether we can “escape” religion, it is clearly affirmative on an individual basis but is uncertain on a community level. Since faith-based religions will necessarily be bad as I’ve argued in my previous comment, every effort should be made to help learners to escape those types of religion.
Finally, concerning Richard Dawkins, you seem to relish his being ‘defenestrated from the AHA’. Of course, that is irrelevant to the discussion and it does not indicate you cannot ‘escape’ religion. It shows something else. I don’t know much about the American Humanist Association, but I do know a lot about Richard Dawkins. I’ve read many of Dawkins’ scientific writings and many of his books on religion. He is a brilliant person. Moreover, I mostly agree with Dawkins’ views on religion and even on his attitude towards it. However, I can understand why AHA might retract his nomination, especially in the land of Trump, but if AHA were morally honest, they should clearly not have made the nomination in the first place.
