In todays NY Times, Stephen Holden reviews Bill Mahers anti-religion movie Religulous (How long do you suppose it took for them to come up with that title?) After describing two of the favorite biblical images Maher holds up to ridicule: a talking snake, and a man who lived inside a fish, Holden has this paragraph:

The majority of Americans, however, embrace some form of blind faith. But because that faith by its very nature requires a leap into irrationality, it is almost impossible to explain or to defend in rational terms.

I take this to be Holdens own opinion, and I wonder if it has any more basis than Mahers ridicule. Earlier Holden cited Maher as cliaming that he was speaking for "a skeptical minority" that "constitutes 16 percent of the American population." Presumably, then, its the 84 percent who are meant in Holdens comment, embracing "some form of blind faith" that "by its very nature requires a leap into irrationality." I wonder if Holden has ever done a serious study of religion, whether it was part of his education, so that he is writing out of simple ignorance. Or is it that he is so convinced that religious faith cannot be rational that leads him to think it blind? Or is it both?