Somebody warn Dawkins about his analogy!
Athorism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Can there be a productive conversation between Valhallans and athorists?
Naïve literalists apart, sophisticated thoreologians long ago ceased believing in the material substance of Thor’s mighty hammer. But the spiritual essence of hammeriness remains a thunderingly enlightened relevation, and hammerological faith retains its special place in the eschatology of neo-Valhallism, while enjoying a productive conversation with the scientific theory of thunder in its non-overlapping magisterium.
Militant athorists are their own worst enemy. Ignorant of the finer points of thoreology, they really should desist from their strident and intolerant strawmandering, and treat Thor-faith with the uniquely protected respect it has always received in the past. In any case, they are doomed to failure. People need Thor, and nothing will ever remove him from the culture. What are you going to put in his place?
At least the audience of commenters at Newsweek is split between cheering rationalists and bewildered Christians, with no axes in play yet. Now if he presented this idea in Kearny, on the other hand…