One of the hallmarks of skepticism is its use of critical thinking to provide a rational and non-biased evaluation of ideas. When a claim is made; such as, the invention of a cold fusion device or a perpetual motion machine, it has to be tested and also confirmed by independent sources. Until then, a skeptical attitude is prudent, if not required for rational thought. Scientific testing often leads to harsh and critical analysis. A scientist is not being hostile or arrogant when he tries to replicate an experiment and publishes results that contradict the original theory. So why does everything change when it comes to critically examining religion? The moment one critically examines a religious belief they are labeled as hostile or closed-minded. Is it because religious criticism involves more than just the testing of ideas? Where there is religion there is politics. And here is where the conflict arises. What is the goal of the rational evaluation of a religious belief? Is it to promote political and social change? Is it to decrease the conflict between science and religion? Or is it to determine the probability that a religious belief is correct regardless of its impact on society?

My writings frequently focus on the validity of Christian beliefs; specifically, the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists, which generally reflect the views held by many of the ancient church. Their world view holds that the bible is the word of god that it was revealed to mankind. It is fundamentalist Christianity that is leading the attacks on science and the separation of church and state. Most Christians today do not believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. They accept evolution and reject the violent and hostile god of the Old Testament. In this sense they follow what I would call Neo-Christianity; a revised Christianity that appeals to humans living in our modern world. Many allow women to preach, they permit divorce, they are not hostile to homosexuals, and they may engage in interfaith communication. Usually they are not hostile to science or the separation of church and state. So, should freethinkers embrace them? Should we avoid criticizing fundamentalist Christian beliefs because we might also offend these liberal Christians? Is building a bridge of communication and good will between liberal Christians and the free thought community more important than the search for truth, however we might define it?

It has been argued by some secularists that public criticism of religious belief increases the faith of believers and should be avoided. Whether this is true I do not know. But even if it is, should it matter? To me the idea that religion is a sacred cow that must be protected is absurd. Should I not be free to explore the extraordinary claims made by religion regardless of its social impact? Or should my writings and blogs focus on values and goals that the religious and freethinkers share in common? The idea that science and rational thought will be able to fill religion's niche in the human psyche of the majority of people is not sensible. Where ever there are humans there will be religions. If we are lucky, with them there will also be free thought, science, and reason. What do you think?