Go, God, Go.

This post is from my "other" blog. that I don't quite know what to do with. I want it here too.

Atheism fascinates me. I both admire and pity atheists. Admire, because I think it takes a huge reservoir of faith to nullify a first cause. Pity because among atheists there often seems an overriding desire - an obsession really - for all things to be rational and sensible. Though, rationality is - thank God - the primary impulse of our age - it has not won out entirely. An entirely rational- and almost certainly meaningless - world sounds like hell to me. Mystery has its place.

Among the most vocal atheists, the determination to disprove God is elevated to...well...a holy war. This war never seems to escape its real subtext - which is a distaste for, resentment of, and condescension toward religion. Christopher Hitchens book God is Not Great openly states this bias in the subtitle: How Religion Poisons Everything. It is an astute and compelling book. The attacks on religion are mostly deserved. Religion is full of barbarity. But a thoughtful theist comes away with no good reason to stop being a thoughtful theist. A deeper reading of the book, with just a smattering of knowledge about Hitchens, renders the entire thing an obvious exercise in alcoholic defensiveness.

Edgar Dahl's piece - Imagine No Religion - falls squarely into the Fight Religion or Fight God conundrum in the "Atheist community". Dahl condescends to religion - of course- then makes the usual arguments against the existence of God. The arguments are good. But he just doesn't get it. His reasons for arguing against religion and God; morality is not contingent on religion and belief in an "old man in the sky" is an absurdity, don't matter to religious and non religious believers. Why don't atheists see this? Smart people can easily see that morality is not contingent on religion. One can also ignore the Bible and still believe in God.

The issue atheists do not understand is that morality and stories are not the reason religion emerged and still exists. Religion acts as an funnel for a basic human desire - the desire to matter. The desire to feel that one's life has meaning which goes hand in hand with the consciousness of self. Religion is expert at infusing meaning. Everyone of us has an internal narrative about who we are. Until atheists come up with a narrative that does not add up to everything is accidental - religion will be just fine.

Additionally, until we evolve past our basic wiring to survive, religion will have a hold on people in that it contextualizes morality. Morality is always in spite of the survival instinct. Giving of what one has, saving a life, not stealing, whatever - all are about setting aside a survival impulse. (Selflessness with ones offspring is a survival imperative.) To be moral, a story helps. Jesus loves me more...karmic debt erased....Without that narrative back up many would, in fact, devolve into chaos at this point in our evolution. We are just not wired to do good for good's sake. Even rich 1st worlders are charitable for a payoff. Often just to feel good. But in the moment of feeling good, the fact of death is lessened. In Los Angeles, David Geffen "survives" by paying for and putting his name on buildings.

Every one of the arguments the Dahl makes is sound. If he expects to argue religion away, every one is irrelevant. In the rational age, many of those who believe do so in spite of the stories religion tells - not because of them.

In fact, the author finds meaning in a lack of God as surely as a theist finds meaning in the a belief in God. His life takes on meaning by being an atheist. The "I know better" sensibility is very satisfying. The "Do you believe in God?" question, followed by "No, I'm normal" in the piece is the perfect expression of this. It is also absurd. The greatest scientific minds of the last 400 years - Newton and Einstein were theists.

AMENDMENT/RE-WRITE here: Einstein could in no way be construed as a believer in a traditional God. He wasn't. The sentence above is incorrect in the broad sense. From Austin Cline of the Atheism Guide: Albert Einstein is often cited as a smart scientist who was also a religious theist, but both his religion and his theism are in doubt. He denied believing in any sort of traditional, personal god and he also rejected the traditional religions built around such gods. On the other hand, Albert Einstein expressed religious feelings. He always did so in the context of his feelings of awe in the face of the mystery of the cosmos. He saw the veneration of mystery as the heart of religion.

Again, mystery has its place.

Newton was a theist in the traditional sense.

As is often the case, South Park nails this in the episode Go, God Go, in which factions of atheists take over a future world. Needing some meaning, they, of course, fight and kill over the correct interpretation of godlessness.

Other than demanding equal treatment - which they have a right to - why do atheists even argue these points? It is not smart. They will never win. They only thing in potential retreat in Western society is the anthropomorphic God. A post-anthropomorphic God will, no doubt, take its place.