Letters to the Editor
-
Another person creating God in their own image
Do we see any presentation of God Himself? No, just another act of faith which is just a submission to emotion. What's interesting is the use of reason to submit to emotion. And when the authority of your church asks you to believe something that you disagree with do you just pass that over and retain your faith. Better start your own church. You're the ultimate arbiter of who God is anyway.
-
Bio 101 - hi Jeffrey
To me, the "why" question is meaningless. It's not even an interesting question to ask. There is no "why." It just *is*, and the "how" questions are fascinating enough. Like Dawkins says, you wouldn't ask "Why is a rock?"
(Uh oh, I said "Dawkins," let the shitstorm begin.)
So, people who insist on asking "why" have to invent a supernatural agent. But you have to admit, religion hasn't done a very good job of answering "why" either. At least I've never heard a consistent religious answer besides "god has some mysterious plan."
-
tedious Chloe
You can always be counted on to come out with the "you stupid skeptics if only you realized what I realize your life wouldn't be so empty." You know what? It's tedious. You can sit there on your holier-than-thou perch, but don't pretend you aren't just as snarky and sneering.
"Though if there was no one who believed anything, who would the empty-headed cynics get to sneer at?"
Chloe, I believe in lots of things. As another poster said, I belive in love. I believe in a great big universe full of interesting things to explore. My life isn't dull. But I don't believe in your myths, and I think they're silly, ok? Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but I plan to keep pointing out the silliness when I encounter it.
Cheers.
-
I guess it all depends where you come from...
For Ms. Miles, religion seems to be her way of finding her own identity - one that's separate from, but perhaps not completely incompatible with, the humane, though atheistic, values of her parents.
Her frame on the whole question of religion would likely be very different if she'd grown up in an environment similar to my own - in a small Southern town full of Baptists and other fundamentalists. Although the church I grew up in would be classified as mainstream Protestant (not fundamentalist), the general experience of being surrounded, from a religious perspective, by narrow-mindedness, intolerance, hypocrisy and self-serving interpretations of the Gospel has probably driven me away from church and any kind of organized religion forever. I simply saw too much of that in my youth to place any trust in any religious institution. It's the nature of institutions to serve themselves first, and that includes many of the liberal ones.
Although I greatly admire the moral teachings of Jesus, I find today's retail, consumerist version - the "personal Jesus" - to be profoundly offensive and narcissistic. I wouldn't necessarily accuse Ms. Miles of propagating that, but the greater problem of all religious fervor lies in the very notion that one should believe in something with no evidence. When extrapolated to other parts of peoples' lives (and, in my experience with religious people, it invariably happens), that mindset is fertile ground waiting to be exploited by all manner of charlatans, bigots, shrewd manipulators and plain old crooks. Ultimately, we surrender our critical thinking habits only at a great price.
-
An honest openness to understanding the world is never wrong
Someone here argued that if you were X and then became Y, you must not have been much of an X. I'd like to address that.
If a scientist subscribes to a particular school of thought (say a geocentric astronomical model), resistant to evidence in a new direction (say a heliocentric view), they may be quite a geocentrist but they are a poor scientist.
If a human being decides they have arrived at any "right" side of any argument and no longer questions herself, she's forgotten the nature of being human. Because we see the world very well (to our view) in comparison to other species, does not mean we see it clearly or completely. We see the world through the senses we have, interpreting it using the brain we have, and most of us seem to forget that we will *always* be trapped in that perspective. These assumptions go very deep. For example, color theory assumed three primary colors; but now we know some species see two and others see four. It's possible some humans see four (this is currently being researched).
Scientists and philosophers alike have struggled to describe the world to the best of their ability. They have struggled in different ways but with the best intentions to maintain objectivity (through acknowledging subjectivity, through suppressing it). They've done this successfully both as atheists, and also as people of every major religion. What they shared, whether religious or not, whether believing in their own objectivity or not, was a desire to understand the world to the best of their ability. Typically they were humble about that ability, because humility encourages openness to new data and thoughts.
There are non-scientists who likewise pursue this. Someone who grows up religious, becomes an atheist in response to new information, and then becomes religious in response to new information, may not be a good proselytizer for a given perspective, but may be an excellent human being. A true agnostic, such as the deeply moral Huxley (Darwin's bulldog), is surely a gem among humans, as is a true, "walk the walk" Christian such as Mother Teresa. Yet Huxley managed not to dismiss thoughtful Christians; indeed, theologian G.K. Chesterton was a close and valued friend. The struggle for authenticity should not be suppressed by people who have "decided," because such decision makers have made an assumption about their understanding of the universe not justified by human nature or history.
Rorty (among others) has suggested the best human is someone who formulates an ironic world view: understanding it to the best of their ability, yets holding that view lightly, open to change. Odom argued that a true ironist would find it appropriate to put "as if" faith in a given worldview for its duration. Authenticity is a constant balancing act, requiring the ability to live at a high level of uncertainty, acknowledging the inherent absurdity of the world and still focussing on what matters. If we could stop slamming people for being honest about their personal quests, we would be much more likely to achieve the open-minded, respectful society for which I think most Salon readers hope.