Religion: good, bad, or just useful

Roger Scruton writes about "The Return of Religion." In the article, he criticises the new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) for their vigilance against organized religion, particularly Christianity. He even attempts to attack philosophical naturalism- the philosophy underlying Darwinian evolution.

Yet, he seems to fall prey to the modernist dichotomy of what Francis Schaeffer referred to as the upper and lower stories in his book, "The God who is There." Due to the influence of the Enlightenment, beginning with Kant, Hegel, and moving to Kirkegaard, people began to divorce true facts from religious experience. The upper story proposes a "leap of faith" where religion is meant to be believed but not verified against facts, and the only meaning in life exists here. The lower story has no meaning, because only rationalism resides here- cold hard facts of history and science. Thus, historic Christianity must undergo the modernist split, and must be considered unfounded in how it attains meaning. The division persists today, as Scruton advocates that religion is indeed people searching for this meaning even if they know facts don't support it. But people still need meaning, and so the mysterious search for it must press on. And religion can foot this bill in Scruton's mind.

On the other hand, historic Christianity doesn't settle for this dichotomy. It grounds its truth in verifiable history- God did enter it and become a human 2000 years ago. God did die on a cross, come to life again, see his followers, and offer the possibility of reconciliation with himself to any who would repent. It is important to note that some of Christianity's founders also thought this way:

Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised (from the dead), your faith is futile...we are to be pitied more than all men." 1 Corinthians 15: 17-19

Peter said in his preaching in Jerusalem, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact" (emphasis mine). Acts 2:32