It would appear that atheism is having something of a “moment.” Stories are appearing in newspapers describing atheists “no longer content to live in the shadows” (or some such cliche) who are buying advertising space on subway trains or on billboards.
The recent death of Christopher Hitchens was announced in rock-star obituaries, because although a second-rate (at best) pundit, he was a top-tier atheist. And, in the run-up to Christmas, we heard that many nonbelievers celebrated “Newtonmas,” as the father of the Laws of Motion, Sir Isaac Newton, happened to be born on Dec. 25 (only maybe, it might have been January).
What better way, it seems the thinking goes, to poke religious people in the eye than celebrating the birth of a scientist? “Reasons Greetings,” they cleverly snickered.
That Newton once said of the universe “this most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being” makes him, one would think, an unlikely candidate for the accolades of nonbelievers. The irony that is apparently lost on Newtonmas-revelers shines light on a core and pervasive myth: that religion and science are locked in a zero-sum game as advances in the sciences chip away at religion (which many atheists prefer to broad-brush as “superstition”). Atheists grin at each new scientific discovery as if it brings “their side” ever closer to, ultimately, “disproving” religion.
And yes, there are Christians who are all too willing to engage the argument on these terms, viewing all science with suspicion and jealously guarding against any scientific camels’ noses under the tent. Efforts to keep Charles Darwin away from schoolchildren, for instance, have been at times positively rabid.
This is unnecessary. People of faith have nothing to fear from scientific inquiry, and indeed should welcome man’s ever-expanding understanding of himself and his world. As Pope John Paul II put it, “Since access to the truth enables access to God, it must be denied to none.” In other words, it isn’t “either-or.”
And what about the nature of God is so difficult to believe? While the bearded Great Big Grandpa in the Sky, the Doler-Out-In-Chief of personal favors, scratch ticket paydays and pass completions is not difficult to identify as the invention of a superstitious mind, this is not really what serious people of faith believe in. Let’s go out on the proverbial limb and assume even atheists believe there are such things as existence (for obviously things exist), goodness (for we can agree that some things are better than others) and truth (because certainly some things are demonstrably false).
Religious people know existence-itself, goodness-itself and truth-itself as God. An atheist may not care to call these by the same name, but that is not the same as disbelief. As the French poet Jean Claudel wrote, “You can still pronounce Yes by means of the No.”
Blaise Pascal — a devout Catholic and no scientific slouch himself — said that “men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true.” Can it be that fear, at some level, is behind this rush to “no,” this reluctance to go out and meet God where He really lives?
To do so means to discover what, if anything, He wants. And even earnest people of faith will confess some measure of confusion on this point. But if we start by assuming that all we can observe has a purpose and fulfils its purpose to the extent its nature allows, we may assume that we should also seek to discover and live by the highest purpose our nature will allow.
The old saw that the purpose of life is to “fill what’s empty, empty what’s full and scratch where it itches” has, despite the constant and accelerating goading-on of our secular humanist-consumerist culture, only produced people who report feeling emptier than ever. Surely, despite the comfort of it being somewhat within our control, attending to our own appetites and desires cannot be our highest purpose.
Christians believe that Jesus issued a three-word instruction manual to nudge us in the right direction: love one another. Sounds easy, but the more we understand love and the more we realize the degree of self-denial required, the harder it gets. And it can get very hard. Small surprise, really, that more people opt instead for denial of a higher purpose.
As St. Teresa said, “Ah, Lord, if this is how you treat your friends, it is no wonder you have so few of them.”
Paul Tormey lives in Orrington.
Paul, there are many wonderful and wondrous things that I can’t explain, elegance in the laws of nature and mathematics that suggest a grand design. Yet I consider myself an atheist.
Like me, you seem to distance yourself from the idea of a personal god – no
Doler-out-in-chief, for example. With “love one another” we are still without conflict between our worldviews. I think I am moral, spiritual, curious, and compassionate.
For me to add magical books and belief in the supernatural adds nothing of value to my world, and seems silly, but I don’t mind that people do it. But when that irrational belief drives public policy, it has overstepped, and I feel within my rights to push it back to the private place it belongs.
Public policy is your only concern? Religion is divisive and immoral in every area of society. When people get disowned from their families, relationship crumble or children/people are treated bad by their peers — based on religion, when it can’t possibly be true, it’s simply not okay. We cannot have anything closely resembling a fair and just society until religion is widely discredited. Here we are arguing about stone age myths while important matters need attention.
Steve, you have highlighted the difference between atheists and anti-theists. I share you concerns about religion, and perhaps I mind a bit that people cling to antiquated beliefs, but my primary concern is public policy, where the argument against infringement is strongest.
Atheists don’t need to convince people that religion is wrong, but they do need to be visible and present reason as an alternative to faith. It is obvious to you and me, and it is increasingly obvious to the youth who are deciding on their own what is and isn’t true. That’s why pews are a sea of grey these days.
The religious liberal combines a healthy skepticism with a love for the beauty of music, poetry, metaphor, parable, myth and liturgy, combining these in an open-minded religious community. So yes, many (like Lao-zi, Baruch Spinoza, Giordano Bruno, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreu, Walt Whitman, Albert Einstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Paul Tillich, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, Rabbi Harold Kushner, etc.,) have been thoughtfully religious without a “personal” God. Such people have associatied God with nature or the Way and Power of the Universe, or defined God as the Cosmic Creative Process, the Ground of Being, etc. Personally, I like the Bible’s definition: “God is Love.”
Hitchens defined God in one literal way, and then rejected that literalism. Jerry Falwell defined God in the same literal way, and accepted that literalism. But there is quite a bit of room left between the fundamentalism of the right (Falwell) and the fundamentalism of the left (Hitchens).
I respect the honesty of ethical atheism — but Hitchens, an anti-theist, thought it was necessary to attack all religion and all religious impulses. He smeared every religious person with the same brush, sometimes inaccurately
Christopher Hitchens “a second-rate (at best) pundit?” There’s no reason to read any further, as Mr. Tormey of Orrington has already demonstrated his own less than towering intellect.
I heard Albert Einstein was a second-rate patent office clerk.
Hitchens was a first-rate writer, one of the most fluent and creative with the English language. I agree that Tormey was wrong here. otherwise, though, he made some good points.
To each his own. But to truly aspire to improve ones life as a human being, what better blueprint than to follow the Supreme One. Hey aspire and be influenced by Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, even the Pope but at the end of the day, they are all human. Science and mathematics only explain things for us to understand but even they cannot explain everything…Why are you here? How did the universe start? How many other are there? Why is there so much pain and war and suffering in this world? Why are there evil people? All math and science do is give statistical analysis of these with no root cause or explanation.
There is no more meaningless question than “Why are you here?” Reasons apply only to things which result from reason. You are here because a sperm met an egg but that is the “how.” There is no “why.” Accept that and the world begins to make some sense. The difference between bad luck (being caught in a flash flood) and bad people (being machine-gunned in a McDonald’s) enables you to accept the one and seek earthly punishment for the other. Root causes and explanations can include physical laws, bio-chemical interactions and large-scale probability. They cannot and do not have to include “purpose” where there is no sentient initiator.
this is what the believers fear most of all: that there is no “reason” for their existence, that they haven’t been created in the image of divinity, that they are just random flotsam like everything else in the Universe. they have an insatiable desire to feel they are “special”, so they have decided that they are.
Why do you believe what you believe?
Because it is true and righteous? Or is it because you were born in a certain place surrounded by other believers. If you were born and raised in Chennai and felt the way you do, that would take some conviction. But to be a Christian in the US…? If you want to ask a “why” question, start with “why do you believe what you believe?”
Good questions but they are from a human. The words written in the bible have lasted thousands of years. Read Proverbs. It explains everything that is wrong with us. Only now we can do things on a cell phone, car, computer and much faster. The core issues facing us are still the same. Thousands of years later and we still are searching for affirmation, peace, love, safety, belonging…Take a look inside your heart, do you really like what you see? Putting the burden of proof on someone else while not examining ones own feelings is a trick that works on young people. But I appreciate your comments, it makes my beliefs stronger.
I am so glad I have been given two things with which to guide my life: a free will to chose as I may and a loving God. If my faith in Him proves to be wrong at my death I have lost nothing but have lived a fruitful life. If the atheist is proved wrong he has lost all. Give serious consideration to your choices.
How does your living a fruitful life deny a fruitful life to the atheist? And that’s exactly what’s wrong with the godly. The thing that keeps them going is denying any happiness to those that do not believe in their god. Pfft on all religions that think they own goodness.
How is it that you choose to believe? Can you choose to believe anything at all? People believe what they experience and trust others (like their parents) to tell them the truth about what they have experienced. The choice for you is whether you are open to more viewpoints. The choice for me is whether to share my beliefs in the face of a disapproving world.
Marcus Aurelius captures it for me: “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will
not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the
virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you
should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be
gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories
of your loved ones.”
You are implying Pascal’s wager. Its not true for a number of reasons. It’s often used to convince people to sell out their beliefs by luring them with promises of eternal life, so for that reason alone, its immoral. It’s a bribe. It says, “Be on my side against the others who don’t believe in these indefensible things,give up your integrity and you’ll get rewarded and if not, no loss. It’s clearly divisive, how is that not a loss? How is it not a loss to give up your integrity? How is it not a loss to society that honesty is unpopular, based on this very idea- The truth nor the facts matter, its the imaginary pot of gold at the end is all that counts. Its not how you play the game, its who wins.
Thanks. I had forgotten who observed the (in)famous “wager”.
From my perspective, it seems as though you are wasting your life worshiping and celebrating imaginary things, while the beauty of the real world passes you by. You will act morally according to God’s laws for no other reason than the desire to receive the reward of eternal life when you die. In other words, you have made your earthly life a chore to be completed so you can reach heaven. To me, this is very sad.
An atheist can choose to do good things because it’s the right thing to do, not because he will be punished or rewarded. A atheist knows that this is the one and only life he has, and that he must live it to the fullest. An atheist knows that the most important and valuable thing in the world is other people, and that is what I choose to focus on, in this, my one and only life.
Then there’s the philosophy, compatible with the Gospels, that we should attmept to create heaven here on earth. That’s also compatible with your stated philosophy. Win-win?
It is quite possible to “Love one another” without a god. And Jesus was not the first person to stumble onto that idea. It’s actually fairly universal.
Possibly, but it’s not possible for people to “love one another” when they all believe the most important being in the universe is on their side and wants them to beat everyone else. Tim Tebow is just a symbol of the way religion often makes people feel toward others. This false sense of confidence is used against people continually, by family members, in relationships, at work, everywhere.
It would seem that God placed his bet on the Patriots. LOL
That would be the god of third and long.
LOL Thanks for the chuckle of the day!
And the “Hail Mary”? My wife just commented yesterday in one of those situations, “Don’t you have to be Catholic to throw a Hail Mary?”
You’re right. Christians should have no fear of science…. except the part of science that proves beyond any doubt that, IF your christ existed, he was most decidedly HUMAN and his mother most decidedly NOT a virgin.
Here’s the science. In order that she be a virgin, she couldn’t have been touched by a male… given no artificial insemination, either she was mucking about with a man and y’know, whoops, drippy, drip.. or there was full-on sex, instantly rendering her NOT a virgin and her child human.
IF, however, you allow the idea of a sexless, DNA-less, gene-less spirit impregnating a human woman who DID have DNA and genes, you would ONLY have a female offspring: without the Y factor and with the very Oxcidentally-named Mary contributing her X chromosome, your ‘christ’ is a girl.
So, you see, christians, this smiple scientific reality pretty much guarantees your myth is just that: myth based on 25 or so other myths with exactly the same MO.
Oh, and the “from the rib” theory? Yeah, No. You can derive a Y chromosome from DNA (meaning, in this case, from a rib) but you cannot derive an X chromosome from a Y.
So, your ‘god’ that can be stopped by iron chariots cannot be makin’ any females out of male ribs. IF your ‘god’ was a scientists with a lab, it might have been able to make male tissue out of a female rib but not the other way ’round.
The whole thing is a story, people.
As for this writer’s opinion that Hitch was a second-rate pundit, I guarantee said ‘writer’ will never, ever in his life read the volumes of work Hitch read, comprehended and redacted; nor will this writer ever begin to write with the ferocious and fierce style of Hitch. The fact that this ‘writer’ sunk to the level of insult indicates a paucity of knowledge and grace.
also, how likely is it that a married woman would still be a virgin? She wouldn’t have been considered married until she had sex with Joseph.
You god people have been advertising ever since you created religion. How come, now, it’s not OK for atheists to advertise? So, lay off the complaining about atheist advertising: it’s clever, it’s intelligent, it’s realistic, it’s pointed and it’s really really funny.
Ah, but “god people”, at least the current ones you refer to, did not create religion. Humankind in general did, at least as far back as the Neanderthals.
This column appears to be from a person of faith who is proposing something in the middle. Which means that he (and many others of us) will catch it from all sides. The fundies especially will take issue with Christ’s 3-word adminition as being sufficient. So be it. He wasn’t complaining about atheist advertising, merely observing.
I have no quarrel with the middle ground. I wish there were more middle grounders. I do have issues when someone appears to think that believing in a god makes a person morally superior to someone who does not. Mr. Tormey uses phrases like:
“second rate pundit”
“cleverly snickered”
“something of a”moment””
“fear is the rush behind “no””
“constant and accelerating goading-on of our secular humanist-consumerist culture”
when discussing atheists. These are not the phrases one would use to advocate for a middle ground
And,finally, this: “…….the more we understand love and the more we realize the degree of self-denial required, the harder it gets. And it can get very hard. Small surprise, really, that more people opt instead for denial of a higher purpose.” is quite clearly a statement that the atheist is someone who doesn’t want to be good because it takes too much effort and conferring that goodness upon those that believe in god.
One does not have to believe in a god to understand social justice, fairness, love, morality, honor, courage or the beauty of the world. One can be good without god. Paul Tormey implies you can’t. He is not expressing an interest in a middle ground.
Agreed. Neither are many of the comments coming from the conservative “right”.
Neanderthals created religion…. That explains it.
Jesus was a mediocre philosopher, and a failed one at that. He was unable to make his message of love resonate. he was unable to change the harsh way we treat each-other.
Did they exhibit religious behavior? Or superstition?
If you’re still on the Neanderthal kick, check the literature, but apparently Neanderthals exhibited religious behavior. Bringing in superstition is somewhat of a red herring since one can be superstitious without being religious. And vice versa.
Are you sure you do not mean Cro-Magnon (modern humans)?
Them too. Anthropologists have reasonably good evidence that Neanderthals also had religious tendencies.
Care to cite such evidence?
To opt out of a higher purpose for self interest. Is that what Jesus meant when He said people loved darkness rather than the light? God created us for better than that. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/
Religion was formed when the first con-man, met up with the first sucker.
Religion was formed when the first con-man, met the first sucker.
See my post above. And try not to double post.
Not double posting anything Gopher, and read your post above, and cant find why you claimed I double posted.
Oh and also Gopher, please try to stick with the topic in the future.
When I accessed the site, apparently 15 hours ago, my reply preceded the 2nd copy of your post. That duplicate must have been deleted when you went on.
As for staying on topic, my previous post referred to the prehistoric origins of religion, confused by so many with Christianity.
PS: check near the bottom of the list. The duplicate is still there, with no likes, so it’s posted lower (if you sort by best rating)
Mr. Tormey i think tries to make an unbiased column, but clearly it is pro religion. Next time when trying to ‘unite’ two separate ideas for the greater good, you should start by not bashing one of them.
If you look at history, religion has been the catalyst in so much death and greed. No one single religion has lasted forever, they come and they go, gods come and go with them. People use god as a crutch to lean on when times get tough. Instead of looking to realistic ways to solve a problem, they prey to a mythical creature who heeds none of their cries.
Chances are in favor of alot of life out there in the universe. If there was a list that sorted out all this life by intelligence, I would hope that mankind would be somewhere in the middle of that list. Those who rank closer to the top, would be in my opinion as close to god-like as we are going to get.
I think the moment–and the future–belongs to those of us, some both scientists and persons of faith, who continue to attempt to understand the mystery and to see what the significance this mystery is to us personally. Meanwhile, we scientists can continue to study this world and universe, try to explain it, and remain in wonder.
The idea that somebody can be a “top-tier atheist” seems absurd. Are there various levels of non-belief that one must progress through to reach the top (which would really be the bottom)?
Brown belt, green belt, black belt???
Maybe there is an elite one percent who own forty-two percent of the unbelief in this country.
This is like Pee Wee Herman calling Stephen Hawking a second-rate scientist.
The problem with religion isn’t just that it isn’t true, it’s that it condemns, judges and ignores the beliefs of most of the world(all religions are a minority) while snickering “we love everybody”. How could you love people while you take on faith against all the evidence and ignoring all the contradictions in the bible, that most of us are going to burn in hell and suffer for eternity, and we DESERVE IT? Geez, if that’s how you treat your atheists friends, and “other religion” friends, no wonder you have so few of them. It’s just like believers to criticize Hitchens without a reason, the whole idea behind religion is that you never need a reason– you’re always right and to disagree with you is wrong. And then they snicker “we’re humble!”
You’re equating “religion” with conservative Christianity which is far from always the case.
Now that Hitchens is dead I quess he knows for sure. Sucks if he’s wrong !
If he’s right (and I think he is right), then he knows nothing as there is no existence beyond death. That’s one advantage believers have: they’ll never know how wrong they were!
And what god do we worship most as a country? Money. Money and cheap plastic stuff from Walmart.
Thank God!!
Of all the reasons to not have “faith” in religion; proof, logic, reason, I prefer to rely on my favorite…BELIEVABILITY! The strange beliefs of miracles and an overseeing “god” just don’t make it in my book as something I would actually think would have ever happened.
I like the miracle where Jesus turned the fish into wine.
LOL You’ve got it all wrong. Jesus turned the water into wine, all the fish got drunk, went forth and multiplied and their multitudes fed the crowd of 5000 on the Mount. The local grocery store sent out 1000 loaves of Wonder Bread. Miracles are just ……………… miraculous.
Jesus turned smelt into Allens Coffee Brandy?
Sounds OK, I can go with that. I don’t remember reading it quite that way, though. Odd.
I am impressed at the commentary thus far; much that I would have said has already been said. I would like to just add one thing. “Can it be that fear, at some level, is behind this rush to “no,” this reluctance to go out and meet God where He really lives?” In the US, the vast majority of atheists are former Christians, and research shows that atheists, on average, know more about religious tenets than do the faithful. It’s not fear that creates atheists from believers, it’s understanding.
Or maybe it’s due to lashing out against practices and policies. Others of us are still Christians but our faith has evolved significantly since our youth. We’ve found a faith environment where it’s OK, even encourage, to ask questions, continually.
Believe it or not, there are atheists who are not afraid of God, or mad at God, who aren’t looking for a license to be immoral. Some of us just plain don’t believe in things for which there is no evidence. I guess it is hard for some of you to understand.
I’m not an atheist as are many other scientists. In addition, conservative Christians won’t claim me (and us) either. Sure, one can’t “prove” the existence of God since there is not evidence (just as there is no evidence to support intelligent design and definitely not creation science). Is that something we should try to prove or disprove? Sort of like the proverbial number of angels on the head of a pin. As I said previously, we in the middle catch it from both sides. That’s OK, we can take it.
I know many kind and decent folks who have deep religious convictions and they never judge and insist they have the true way. But I do resent those who judge and force it on others and those who use it to promulgate their beliefs into the laws of government. Whether its religious zealots or atheists, anyone who proposes to have the answers to something that cannot be proven should be held immediately suspect.
What always amazes me about self-described xtians is their insistence that all must believe as they do. I personally see nothing to make me believe in an “almighty” but I would never have the temerity to suggest that others change their beliefs to conform to mine.
It is a scientific fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed so the energy which powers humans will continue, but the idea that knowledge continues (IMHO) is pure P.T. Barnum. This life is all we have, and if people would accept that reality they might take better care of the short short time we are able to enjoy it.
Atheist ad seen on a city bus:
THERE PROBABLY IS NO GOD: NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE
Sounds like good advise. LOL
As founding father John Adams said, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, were there no religion in it.”
I suspect that Mr. Tormey does not believe in anyone else’s god.
Me neither.
I just don’t believe in his god either.
So, with his one exception, Mr. Tormey is an atheist.
Paul Tormey, the author, has so many flaws in his article that is well beyond a casual web post to correct them all, so I’ll only touch on two. He states:
(1) “While the bearded Great Big Grandpa in the Sky, the Doler-Out-In-Chief of personal favors, scratch ticket paydays and pass completions is not difficult to identify as the invention of a superstitious mind, this is not really what serious people of faith believe in.”
This is exactly the god which people profess their faith to. Believers want their own diseases cured, their lottery ticket to win, and their football team to triumph. The god believers pray to is expected to intercede on their behalf by granting those wishes. All the while that same god is to ignore the health, happiness and very existence of all non-believers.
“Serious people of faith?” Really? Doesn’t that mean people like you? People of faith who make stuff up as they go. See item #2.
(2) “Religious people know existence-itself, goodness-itself and truth-itself as God”
This is a wildly different definition of what “God” is from the omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent overseer presented by mainline Christianity. If god is only the acknowledgement of our existence, plus the existence of good and truth, then there is no need for any of the trappings of traditional religion. No heaven, no hell, no miracles, no need for prayer, no need for the bible or any holy books. No need for clergy or faith in god.
We exist, now be good, tell the truth and love each other. No god required. We are done here.
Fracionally in agreement with you but we should differentiate the “teachings” of mainline Christianity. Some “mainliners” and many adherants do question, look for faith past the bureaucracy, and resist the anti-social policies of the “state” church
Religion, whichever one you may believe in, is just a cult that worked.
I cannot belive in a religion because one religion contradicts another. But I beleive something or somone is responsible for the creation of this universe and us humans.. guess that makes me Aetheist?