Mmmm, What a delightful comment, Jon J
An interesting notion, Yuyutsu, humanists thinking humans are gods... . it does explain how a purportedly rational species could so effectively poison their own nest and means of survival. Unless we're not rational after all? Merely creatures of evolutionary instinct?

Well put, Squeers, my thoughts precisely.

>>...worse, he goes on to breathe life into and personify himself exactly the straw man of ignorant-aggressive-militant-atheism he props-up<<

But no discussion on religion would be complete without Sells.

>>I agree that "religion" in general is rather a nasty thing but faith is something quite different<<

I know what he is trying to say. But I think he is kidding himself.

There should, on the surface, be no harm in taking Sells' line, that faith and religion should be seen as two entirely separate aspects of the human condition. The classroom could then put faith under the heading of philosophy: what is it about the human condition that enables some people to replace rationality with dependence on spiritual externalities. And religion, under history: how have societies placed self-serving structures around a belief system.

Faith is, at base, only one of the many possible reactions to the deeply philosophical questions we ask ourselves, from the moment we are told exactly how far away the stars are from earth. Religion is the tapping of that feeling of mystery and wonder, channelling it into a set of rules within a command-and-control structure.

But here's the rub. Without faith - here describing the commitment to a set of ideas that have no basis in rational analysis - religion cannot exist. And without a religious framework, faith - in Sells' context - is entirely irrelevant.

Sells makes a living (pun not intended on this occasion) from his position within a religion. In describing the Anglican Church, which is his version of religion, as "rather a nasty thing", he leaves us - or me, at least - to wonder how he would write his job description.

Mmmm... one with optional death benefits?

Or is that irrational?

Yuyutsu,

Either you don't have a clue what humanism actually is or you are simply projecting your own idea of what you want to interpret it to be because of some axe you have to grind. I can't find a single definition that supports anything you're saying.

I remember saying the same thing too when I was a Christian. It's one those things that gets around congregations like, "Einstein believed in God" and "They’ve found Noah's Ark", where no-one actually bothers to check the truth of the claim, they just believe it because they like it.

Religion in a nutshell really.

Do you have any evidence for your claims, or should we just write them off as emotive religious babble?

Yuyutsu is correct in that atheistic humanists have their set of rules and beliefs of which to adhere [their religion]. In their opinion man is the highest intelligence in the universe [except those that have faith in a Creator of the Universe] and then atheist humanists have higher intelligence - the absolute truth [because they see no eternal cohesive mind behind all reality].

To be honest, Pericles, I only glossed Sells's post and was going by the representation we've all come to know and ...

I find myself in an uncomfortable position here where while I don't believe in God, I don't discount the possibility either; where I don't have much patience for the "rather nasty thing" populist/fundamentalist religion tends to be, but can't dismiss the fact that highly intelligent people, no disposed to be deluded, have "religious" experiences; where much as I respect reason and rational thought, it also has its populist/fundamentalist abusers. Hence my comment above: "religion does not breed ignorance any more than science and so-called reason do".
On the face of it, it would seem it most certainly does but it's not the fault of religion or science that there are a great many idiots and bigots (as well as the merely naive and immature) among their ranks; there are also savants. It's not politically correct to say such things these days but I think it's true. It seems to me that "religion" and "science" are different ways of rationalising the world, opposing hypostases, based on idealism and materialism respectively and each with their dangerous excesses and innanities. Whether rationalists like it or not there is a spiritual/uncanny dimension to human life that is not necessarily delusional; "religion" doesn't have to signify something inane, any more than "scientific" signifies objective reality to the exclusion of all else. At its best, religion projects an ethical paradigm (though it's never been ideal or realised); at its worst, science projects an amoral. What we have on all sides is ignorance and education's cure--at least for those interested in learning.
"Faith", for the thinking person at least is, is more than a "feeling of mystery and wonder", and is as deterministic as rationalism; based on predestination, as opposed to nihilism.
But I'm getting in a bit deep here. I think all human experience, objective and subjective (arguably inseparable) should be part of education, and would be if it was done with any rigour.