Religulous? Eh...

For some reason, the recent movie "Religulous" seems to come up often in conversations with my friends.

And, yes, I think that says something about my social circle... but I'll leave that alone for now.

But, yes, I saw it. And I got a few laughs from the cheap shots at narrow-minded, brain-dead religious fundamentalism.

Now, is it a legitimate attack on religion?

As a non-atheist... I'd have to answer that with a solid, "No."

Unfortunately, the things that made this movie an effective comedy also made it ineffective as an argument against religion.

A serious discussion would have created a discussion with religious proponents who were the most capable of intelligent discourse. And, if you asked religious leaders where the very best theological minds ccould be found, I'm sure that none of them would have suggested interviewing the guy who plays Jesus Christ at "The Holyland Experience" theme park in Orlando, Florida.

So, no. We're not on fertile intellectual ground. Funny stuff? Sure. A source of cheap laughs? Why not.

But rhetorically? It's completely ineffective.

And, yes, in the final scenes, it finally sums up what I consider the "Radical Atheist" argument.

Essentially, that religion is, ultimately an irrational source of conflict. And war.

And, because of this, "Radical Atheists" feel that they need to convince others to abandon religion.

Okay, if I were an atheist (and I'm not), this might make me feel a little more empowered and self-righteous. But will it really advance world peace?

Let's assume that the first part of the radical atheist dogma is right, and that religion creates irrational and irresolvable differences among people.

I don't quite buy into this extreme, but, yes,religion does create differences. And this gets my "amateur psychologist" going.

The fact is, psychologists have long pointed out that differences can create conflict. One of the most famous experiments simply involved dividing children into arbitrary teams.

These teams can be divided by anything. Rational, or irrational. Religion. Eye color. Tosses of a coin. It doesn't matter.

But, yes, once the separation is in place, people on the same side tend to ally themselves against the "enemy".

But radical atheists aren't promoting world peace by preventing religion from starting. Clearly, they're too late to do that.

So, their efforts end up being spent on become a "third team".

Which, in itself creates another separation.

And another source of conflict.

And, to me, that seems counterproductive.

Is there a solution to these conflicts? Psychologists do have some insight into this as well.

When you're dealing with separated teams, it's best to find goals that everyone shares.

Are there common threads between groups that can be agreed upon?

Can mixed groups be formed to solve these problems?

This, in my mind, is what will ultimately reduce conflict among groups. Including religions.

And, if radical atheists really do want to work toward the goal of reducing interreligious violence, perhaps they should spend their efforts building bridges.

And not by denigrating "delusional" folks like myself.