You know, when I read that phrase about the "arrogant atheists" I thought, "Oh boy, here they come. You shouldn't have said that." The reason? I knew that the phrase would attract the ire of people who are angry and bitter, and the comments would be flooded with sneering and hostility.

When I added that bit about asking what the naysayers had done for others, I wasn't talking about all atheists. I was specifically referring to the people who were reacting with that bitter defensiveness that turns so many other off. I know perfectly well that not all atheists are like that - hell, I know several great people who don't hold any religious beliefs. It's not a person's beliefs (or lack of) that make me sad and want to distance myself. It's the condescending attitude of "You believe in a Sky Fairy and therefore you are a moron" that I object to. From my point of view, this attitude places the person who has it in exactly the same position as any bigoted fundamentalist, that of thinking themselves better simply by virtue of their view on the world.

Hell, it makes them fundamentalists, because in framing their objection that way, they are approaching the subject of religion in exactly the same terms as any literal fundamentalist. I.e., the only possible interpretation of religion is absolutely literal, therefore, since the literal claims of religion (gods that dwell in the sky, or in a volcano, or have elephant heads, etc.) cannot possibly be true, religion must by definition be worthless hokum. This betrays an incredibly naive view of religion, not to mention it's not a particularly profound way of looking at humanity or the world.

In my own view, all religions are true in their deepest and most metaphorical sense. Joseph Campbell talked eloquently about this subject, and this is the way in which I view religion - as a coded interpretation to explain and explore human experience. Not as some childish alphabet-block rationale for never wanting to be intellectually challenged, but as a way of communicating the deep impulses of the human heart. Science, for all its wonders and profundities, cannot address these subjects simply because they are subjective, not measurable by the very yardsticks that are the stock in trade of the scientist. And there is, in some atheists' viewpoints and declaration, a kind of schoolmarmish disapproval of the very idea of trying to understand subjective experience, and the devotion of part of one's life to systems that explore these issues.

Thus we have people thinking it's "stupid" to ascribe divinity to the touch of another human, or "a waste of time" for any scientist to partner with a Buddhist practitioner to try and quantify spiritual experience (as was written about here in Salon a few months ago). I know that Carl Sagan was looked down on by many folks of a scientific bent, but the man had a real point in his book The Demon-Haunted World, when he said that this attitude does science no favors. The teachings of religion may not be something one believes in, but that hardly makes the subject irrelevant or ridiculous. This is something that has been with humanity since its beginnings, and much as some might want, it isn't going to go away. Religions say an enormous amount about who we are and how we view the world, and although one can point to the harm they've caused, it's just as easy to point to the good. (Almost every movement for social justice and change have had roots in religion and been championed and/or led by deeply religious people, for instance.)

I don't think atheists are bad people, neither do I think them useless or immoral. Having gone through my own time as an atheist years ago, I understand what's going on there and the reasons for it, and certainly do not disapprove of somebody deciding there is no reason to accept a religious view. But when some atheists come on as hostile, bitter, and yes, arrogant, I really have to ask what is it exactly that makes them better than the hostile and arrogant people whom they oppose. The Buddhists say that in understanding, there is no opposition, and I believe that to be true. But understanding is not the same as approval or even agreement. Making an effort to understand simply gives one the tools to better shape one's argument, to see what the ground of conflict is, and to take the steps that actually will lead to resolution, instead of simply more conflict. That is the sense in which I asked that question. I am sorry that you might have thought I meant all atheists; that was never my intention.

I'm not sure why I'm surprised at your dismissal of my explanation, since I've seen you pull the same trick before - i.e., you think someone else is being dishonest, therefore they are. You decide someone else's ideas are nonsense, therefore there couldn't possibly be anything useful in them, even though the subject under discussion is by definition a subjective one. Talk about disingenuous.

But since my comments were not directed at you, but at another poster entirely, it really doesn't matter. What I wrote was exactly what I meant - some atheists are hostile and bitter, and not all atheists are prejudiced enough to think that religion = nonsense. You may think that the subject of religion and spirituality is an either/or, all-or-nothing proposition, but five minutes surfing on the net (or a half-hour dipping into Joseph Campbell's book The Power of Myth) would disprove that notion easily. That you are crossing the notion out and insisting that I mean all atheists speaks far more of your reaction against (I imagine) past injustices than it does about any intentions I might have had.