One more thing, (for now)
I really believe that a healthy life includes the dimension of the human experience that searches for meaning and purpose in life. (which is my definition of spirituality) So many have these experiences at church, raised to believe that Jesus or YHWH is god, and they rely on that and interpret much of the world through these beliefs. Others give expression to this in other non thiestic, or non traditional points of view. It is a mistake for all to believe that there is only one way to find this purpose and meaning in their life.
I am very open to the faith of thiests and the benefits that it brings them. I can't rule it out in the future, even if I definitely don't subscribe to such thinking now.
A well rounded education at home should include a respectful, intellectually honest, non judgemental overview of other peoples faith and beliefs. It will work to erase the idea that some ideologues have that "they are the only group that are true Christians." So many groups say that, and it is a potentially dangerous way to think. Even athiests should imo, teach their children that thiests are everywhere and that they need to be understood. Point out inconsistencies if you want, point out differences. But I believe a good education teaches your children how to think, not what to think. At the end of the day, all of us and our children will evolve and change in our viewpoints. It if folly to freeze out differing viewpoints in trying to control what people think and believe.
Athiests need to be careful not to sink to certain levels. It's easy to say to someone who believes that they have faith in something that they have never believed that they are silly. Perhaps that is true, but lets face it, you only set yourself up for a fight. You entrench the other person in their own point of view and make them feel justified in vociferously defending their thiestic beliefs. Why not try to understand them first. Even in groups of thiests, there is still a wide variety of points of view. Not all believe as the group teaches.
The point to me is this: The whole premise of these two essay by Vitz is to help thiests battle and when debates. It's a tool to battle athiests, not to help understand them.
I personally think the best thiests can do is to say (if they are honest) in response to athiest questions, queries and arguements: "You know, I can't prove scientifically what I believe. But it is a personal matter of faith to me and I am content with that." It will certainly garner a lot more respect and a lot less loud arguements then insisting that athiests are wrong, when they most certainly are not wrong for maintaining that "god doesn't exist".
It should be noted in all of this that "god" if he chose to, could put an end to these discussions very easily and very fairly. And I promise you, most scientists would be believers at that point. Such an occurrence would replace faith with evidence. It would be much fairer to the world in general that it occur in this way. No mystery, no codes, just show us who you are god, and what you want, I am pretty sure that there would be a quick falling in line.
Alas, no human can made god do this, and therin lies the problem. We argue, but the one whom the thiests rely on the most remains quiet, and has for some time.
