I don't believe in God the way most people do. That is, I don't believe in the literal, benevolent, supernatural, creator God. Maybe that makes me an atheist. But I'm as reluctant to associate myself with someone who calls himself an atheist as I am to associate with someone who calls himself religious. I prefer to call myself an "anti-theist." I'm not opposed to the idea of God – just the worship of God the icon. I do believe in God as a metaphor for the questions we can't answer, the mysteries we can't solve, the judgments we have no right to make. The modern, popular way of looking at God and religion as a personified, earthly character, making human-like decisions (or a white-bearded man in the clouds with a full-size train set) is a troublesome departure from the ancient philosophies that invented the notion of God. And it seems as if 'The New Atheists" are as guilty as religious fundamentalists are of only looking at religion on the surface – lazy or afraid of looking for a meaning beyond that which is taught to children in Sunday school. So while it may see ludicrous to accept the commonly believed principles of religion, it's also too easy to dismiss it without exploring it.
Take the debate of Evolution –vs- Creationism. Why does it matter what Ned Flanders thinks is the origin of man? It's true that creationism is not scientific theory. But the schools should be teaching what scientific theory is, and not necessarily that evolution is the poster child for scientific theory. But it seems as if most proponents of evolution favor teaching it because it is "right", and not because it matters. That internal strife of proving one's moral superiority is what religion is meant to pacify. Most people who call themselves religious do not allow themselves to find that peace, but a means exists if they're willing to use it. The "New Atheists" have not proven themselves to be any more successful at discovering a means to find inner tranquility. Rejecting religious text because of the ridiculousness of its literal meaning is as nescient as accepting it as factual.
Dave UngarColumbus, OH
