- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
JSwift ("Sounds Familiar...") makes a good point. Value(s) come to life when a creature begins to learn what is good for it (e.g. food) versus what is bad for it (poison). When this happens via natural selection (i.e. those that get it wrong don't get to have offspring), it's hard to say where those values are written down, as it were, except in DNA. When it happens via culture (i.e. through observation, imitation, and then oral and written media), those values are easier to point to and discuss as such. To the extent that values transcend individual moment-to-moment utility and become prudential (i.e. good for the group, and/or life-enhancing over the very long term), they become part of Constitutions as well as our constitution (e.g. the incest taboo, once cultural, now all but instinctual).
What has this to do with God(s) or divinity? Atheist: nothing. Believer: everything: it is the Word that lifts us out of earlier barbarities. Wise observer: both are right, but the believer is more right in the following sense: morals and values, like the commitment to preserve, honor, and promote all forms and instances of life-promoting life, have a supra-individual reality. They are abstract linguistically but real algorithmically, as when we live them out through our actions and so give them (to) the witness of others. Atheists call this "doing good". Believers call this "doing God's will." It's only when you realize that God *is* our doing of good that you can see that both are right, and that their quarrel is over the utility, and advisedness, of personification in the matter of transmission. Says a New Believer (or a New Atheist): moral law is the algorithmic DNA of God; but God is embodied only in and as our doing of good. Extend the metaphor: God is an "application" not in any box or CD, but "running" in your brain, hands, and tongue.
I find interesting that nearly all "old" atheists--and certainly the ones in this forum--proclaim that they don't *need* God (or rather "God"), the implication being that they are strong-minded and believers weak-minded, that they can feel all the fine feelings at nature (awe, wonder, gratitude [though that one's harder], etc.) without, "resorting to" or "falling back" on God. Don't feel much of that? Fine. Living with meaningless is the stuff of manliness. Believers: you are ignorant sissies.
But these attitudes are pretty adolescent, are they not? Fresh from the high-school yard, uninformed except by the most obvious skepticism about figurative language, and aimed at the beliefs of children. I am struck by how little internet atheists (and yes, Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris) have read of modern theology, this while they accuse believers of ignorance of Science. Figurative language is all we've got, science-heads, and that includes you.
And believers: do not for a moment blanket-accuse atheists of Godlessness. Just watch what they do. They may be more Godly than you.
