Open Letter to Ken Ham

Dear Ken Ham, 



Let me begin by stating I am sincerely attempting to understand. 

The subject of this open letter is a request that you clarify your definition/conception of religion. You often state that critics of your creation museum are following their secular, evolutionary, and/or atheistic religion.  

There are virtually no definitions of religion that would result in secularism, evolution, or atheism being considered religious. 

That being said, I think your definition of religion would be "a belief system that is unchanging and fundamental to your overall worldview."

If this is correct, I am unsure how you would differentiate between a religious belief system/worldview and a non-religious belief system/worldview. Or under your conception, is it even possible to be non-religious?

And is going to church, temple, sangha (etc...), participation in rituals, and communal experience purely tangential to being religious?

As of yet I have not been able to find an explicit definition of your concept of religion. Though, you seem to be very comfortable claiming that secularism, evolution, and atheism are religions. 

In full disclosure, I have given a great deal of thought into the definition of religion and I prefer definitions that emphasize the community aspects of religion (i.e. religion is a community that shares beliefs and rituals). 

This is the conception of religion that I would defend; though, I am open to using other conceptions as needed. 

Other conceptions include: individual belief and experience, collective group experience (which aligns very nicely with community), morality, and more. 

Thus, I accept J.Z. Smith's analysis that religion is the construction of the thinker. 

In other words, you need to provide the rationale by which you are 'imagining religion'.

The request of this open letter is for you to be as transparent as I have been in this letter about how you 'imagine religion.' 

We cannot even have a debate about whether evolution, secularism, and atheism are religious, because you have not yet explicitly defined or conceptualized 'religion'.

Definitions are important. And before I can even think about changing my mind on evolution and etc... being religious, I would need to see it defined. I have provided my thoughts about religion, it is now your turn. 

Alternatively you could simply stop calling evolution, secularism, and atheism religions.




In the hopes of understanding, 

A Religion Critic




*Addition 5/5/2016

Continuining my search for a definition of religion, I have found one endorsed by AiG's Tim Chaffey: "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." This is the fourth definition from Merriam-Webster. He seems to arbitrarily choose this definition over the first and neglects all scholarly definitions of religion.

Ardor and faith are not sufficient to call something a religion, unless a hardcore Red Sox fan is religious. These fans have an unwavering belief that theirs is the best team and they have an ardor that is above many who I would call religious. 


Thus, Chaffey's definition includes things that I would be very hesitant to call religious. Granted there is no clear line separating religion and non-religion, but I will reject any definition that includes baseball. (Perhaps I am biased against baseball).

I also found more information about Ken Ham's conception of religion. His conception seems to include a comprehensive worldview, origins of the universe, origins of humanity, and moral codes. This is based on a Facebook post from November 4, 2015 and sections of the book Inside the Nye Ham Debate. 

Ham's conception has the benefit of potentially distinguishing religion vs. non-religion through comprehensiveness and origins. Though Ruism (what many call Confucianism) doesn't really have any position about the origin of the universe or humanity. And these are (mostly) lacking in Buddhism as well. 

Perhaps a comprehensive metaphysical belief system is sufficient for Ham's conception. This would allow him to include both Ruism and Buddhism.

Though, it would be strange for Ham, the president of AiG (Answers in Genesis), which focuses on origins, to admit that origins do not matter when categorizing something as religious. Not impossible, but strange. 

With what I think is a better understanding, I now challenge Ham to debate over how word religion is used. He is using a particular conception of the word because it serves his purposes. And he has not yet, to my knowledge, justified this 'imagination' of religion.