Posted on 07/02/2002 5:16:45 PM PDT by Dog Gone
I'm struggling with my atheism.
I don't mean that I'm losing my belief in a random universe. I mean it's getting harder to remain in a congregation in which the membership -- at least that part that grabs the headlines -- skews toward the sullen, cantankerous and litigious.
Last week's court ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Constitution for its use of the phrase "under God" has no doubt many true believers crying, there "they" go again. The "they" is, of course, me, in that I'd be a card-carrying atheist if "they" bothered to issue one. But also not me in the sense that many of us of no faith have the same reaction as most with faith to cases like these: Lighten up; we live in a country in which a large majority identifies itself as Christian.
I can live with that.
Contrary to the God-fearing public's view of us as a monolith, atheists belong to many denominations. The branch that has been lawsuit-happy now for decades is from what I call the evangelical atheists.
They are intolerant, pushy and self-righteous. If it didn't interfere with their busy schedule of dark moods and constant brooding, they'd probably be handing out pamphlets and ringing doorbells. In short, they embody all the qualities that sparked this country's movement for religious tolerance and freedom in the first place.
Tolerance is something the lawsuit's plaintiff, Michael A. Newdow, could use a mighty dose of. He told reporters he doesn't believe in God for the same reason he doesn't believe in Santa Claus.
Evangelical atheists like Newdow delight in the Santa Claus analogy. It's memorable, sounds clever and is incredibly insulting. I've even heard the same assertion made with the Easter Bunny. In part, the evangelicals make such callous remarks because they see themselves as bringers of "Truth." And if a few feelings get hurt along the way, they reason, that's the price for the liberating light they bring.
But I would never make such a comparison, nor would many atheists I know. We wouldn't because it not only is bad manners and shows a lack of intellectual humility, it's also grossly unfair. It's empirically verifiable that there is no Santa Claus. The same cannot be said of God.
If you stuck a gun to my head (and, thankfully, I live in a country where that would happen only to rid me of my wallet rather than my religious beliefs), I would classify myself as an atheist. It was not a decision I made quickly or lightly. My reasons can probably be best summed up by paraphrasing the old Woody Allen joke: If there is a God, he's a tremendous underachiever.
But I cannot say with 100 percent certainty there is no God, and neither can anyone else. The proposition that the world just spontaneously came into being is preposterous. But so is the idea that a deity created the universe and now sits in judgment of what we humans do all day. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm going to hell, as many evangelical Christians have told me. But I believe what I believe. Even we atheists must have faith.
The other problem with evangelicals like Newdow is that while he's so disrespectful about the beliefs of others, he insists his own be treated with the utmost reverence. Don't even mention the word "God" around him or he'll go to pieces. Society must accommodate him, not the other way around.
One of the many magnificent things about this country is that it does strive to accommodate the individual, but in this case, it's gone too far. There are no absolute rights, even with free speech. (Try shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater.)
Thus, the question becomes what is reasonable. Is it reasonable in a nation where the dominant culture believes in God to recite the words "under God" in a classroom for a nonmandatory morning pledge?
I think so. I grew up in the Bible Belt and said the pledge every morning of elementary school and don't recall my delicate sensibilities being trampled upon or my belief system altered by the ritual. It's a harmless nod to the majority.
Now with the Justice Department seeking a rehearing by the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it seems likely Newdow's lawsuit will be overturned, as it should be. But, in the meantime, guys like him will continue to shape public perceptions of atheists.
I'm a newspaperman and I know how the business works, but one headline I'd love to see out of this affair is: "Well-Adjusted Atheist Doesn't Object to `God.' "
I wonder if the Kaiser's god was the same as our God?
True, I am only a layman, and there is a lot about physics I don't understand. But the more I listen to scientists trying to translate the meaning of their mathematical equations into English, the more they begin to sound like religious mystics.
And if they ever do find the Unified FIeld Theory, which I think is likely, I think the scientific proof of God's existence will be undeniable.
Just wait, give them another 10 to 15 years and I would not doubt one bit.
Evangelical atheists like Newdow delight in the Santa Claus analogy. It's memorable, sounds clever and is incredibly insulting. I've even heard the same assertion made with the Easter Bunny. In part, the evangelicals make such callous remarks because they see themselves as bringers of "Truth." And if a few feelings get hurt along the way, they reason, that's the price for the liberating light they bring.This part I don't understand. I don't see how you can empirically verify that there is no Santa Claus. You can't prove a negative. I have lost my faith in Santa Claus, for the same reason I lost my faith in God - there's no empirical evidence for either magical person's existence.But I would never make such a comparison, nor would many atheists I know. We wouldn't because it not only is bad manners and shows a lack of intellectual humility, it's also grossly unfair. It's empirically verifiable that there is no Santa Claus. The same cannot be said of God.
I don't disagree with anything in this quote. I said I am not an atheist, but I am also not a Christian, and long ago abandoned the Judaism of my youth.
I never believed that God needed us to worship Him because he is insecure. I just think that God is like a river that we need to go to gain strength and spiritual nourishment. I don't think that God gets anything out of being worshipped. The worship is for us, not for him (I use "him" for convenience, because I believe that God is beyond gender).
As for morality, I see it as a code that we need to live by because it works for human beings in God's physical universe. I don't think God sits in individual judgment on us. I just think that the Universe is the physical manefestation of God's law, and we act in opposition to that to our own detriment and ultimate destruction.
So I think Einstein's perspective makes a lot of sense here.
With God for King and Fatherland
German soldiers of WWII wore a belt buckle with the inscription: Gött mit uns.
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
Instead of going to the media, Virginia could have stayed up all night waiting for the jolly old elf to come down the chimney. Seems pretty empirical to me.
Could have been written by Pardek, if Pardek knew how to write.
But I agree, this was excellent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.