Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience with religion in the public sphere is that ~all of the religious arguments that are actually advanced in that sphere have nothing to do with ones made by religious scholars. Attacking a strawman is perfectly appropriate in this case, because the strawman is what actually drives policy.
I've always been curious about serious scholarship of religion. I've wondered whether it is possible to be both, say, a Christian and an atheist simultaneously (e.g., not believing that Christ existed physically, but at the same time believing that following the tenets in the religion is the right thing to do for the greater good, or perhaps interpreting the Bible completely metaphorically). I imagine that scholars c…
Yes, this happens.