The Universe Through Godless Eyes

"The world is an enchanted place, we just got used to it." - Moshe Orman

A peculiar thing happened to me when I left religion. When my belief in all things supernatural dissipated, I found myself wondering, for the first time, about the nature of the universe. I became thirsty to know the mechanics of the natural world. I attempted to comprehend the staggeringly large universe and peer into the intricate world of the microcosmic. I started to care, in other words, about science.

I suppose my sudden interest in science came from the void left in my life when God vanished. When I was believer, how God made the world didn't really interest me; it only mattered that he did, in fact, create and control it. Of course there are religious people who are drawn to science, for to them it is the language of God. To them, the magnitude of the universe, the complexity of living creatures, the "laws" which seem to govern the universe, all testify to his greatness. Hence William Paley's often cited "Watchmaker Analogy." This is not the place, however, to discuss this fascinating, albeit slightly antiquated, argument. I only mention it here to show that for many theologians, science is a way of knowing the mind of God.

Paradoxically, I had never had such an interest, until I left religion. Of course, the "mind of God" I am now interested in revealing is more closely related to what Stephen Hawking meant when he said:

"Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would know the mind of God."¹ 

Once on the outside, no longer covered by the blanket explanation called "God," I became mystified by the sight of the stars above me. I knew very little of scientific discoveries, less than I do now, which is still lamentably less than I ought to know.

In a way, my ignorance of science allowed me to experience what it must have been like for our ancestors when they began to learn about the Cosmos. I was awestruck as I learned more and more "magical" concepts that were common knowledge to most teenagers in high school.

Many today are taught science in grade school. As they grow up and the necessities of life stifle their intellectual curiosity and childish wonder, they are no longer intoxicated (if they ever were) by the fact that our sun is one of around 100 billion stars in our galaxy, many of which are much larger than our own humble star, the circumference of which is 2,713,406 miles. I had the experience of learning all this only a little while ago, as an adult. My school days far behind me, I was free from the distractions of the classroom and the pesky schoolyard social hierarchy that makes learning almost impossible if one is concerned with adolescent social status. Diligent students are seldom also the popular ones.

In my school days I had convinced myself that I was "bad at science." This is no doubt, in part, since the heroes the cool children worshiped, never seemed to be scientists. The image of a scientist, to a kid in school, is generally that of a middle-aged, pale-faced man, with poor hygiene and big glasses. Needless to say, those worried about climbing the social ladder will do best to distance themselves from such people and their passions. Far better to emulate, are the muscular billionaires playing basketball for a living. Science also scared and confused me. Two emotions cool kids didn't seem to be having. I, therefore, accepted that I was bad at science as a sacred truth. I was so thoroughly not present in the science classroom, that I honestly cannot recall whether or not the teacher was inspiring.

Years later, upon leaving religion, I fell in love with the universe. I became amazed by her, humbled before her, and infinitely curious to learn all I could about her. I have traded in the burning bush and splitting seas for Red Giants and black holes. I have replaced myth with method, dogma with critical thinking. When the God door closed, another door, that of the universe, opened.

I have a close friend who upon leaving religion felt himself stripped of wonder. To him, the world had lost all its color, all its spectacular majesty. If the Wizard of Oz wasn't real, Oz was no longer beautiful. If the universe had no meaning or purpose then all that we see is simply an ever-decaying transient accident. If there was no Author, the words of the book become incoherent nonsense.

I feel deeply for him, but I cannot empathize. The world has more beauty to me now than it did in the presence of God. In fact, while religious, I looked past this material world to the spiritual realm that was said to lie beyond it. I believed that we were condemned to live a life here, in this Earthly realm, in order to rise at the appointed to time, into heaven, into eternal bliss. "This world is like an antechamber, to the eternal world;" the Mishnaic sage wrote, "prepare thyself in the antechamber that thou mayest enter into the banquet hall."² This became my attitude towards the physical; it was something to be endured, dealt with, until such a time as I could be free from it.

Since my deconversion, my attitude toward this life has radically changed. Without God the universe may have no ultimate meaning, but I will not let future transience ruin what is now cast before my eyes. And though the words of the Author-less book have indeed become harder to understand, it is precisely the job of curious humans to decipher it. Indeed, where would humankind be, if we had been too afraid or too indifferent to try?

For the task of acquiring knowledge about the rock on which we live, the galaxy in which we hurtle through space, and the universe in which we are only an infinitesimally small part, the scientific method stands head and shoulders above any other method that has preceded it. It forces us to look at the Cosmos with pure wonder, stripped of superstitions and suppositions. We are to remain humble yet daringly curious, admit our ignorance while making strides toward knowledge. It compels us to doubt our most cherished myths and our most deeply held convictions and accept the feebleness of man's faculties while simultaneously sanctifying them. Science is a tool we use to learn about our place in the Cosmos, and it has proven itself a most worthy tool indeed.

For those of you who have grown too accustomed to our world to notice it, for those who no longer feel the awe the universe invokes, for those who have forgotten what it means to be childishly curious, I challenge you to look up at the starry night, stare deep into the black cosmic ocean, and remember the most amazing thing, in my opinion, science has ever taught us: "...the Cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."³

1 Stephen Hawking: Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (1993)^↩
2 Ethics of our Fathers, 4:21^↩
3 Carl Sagan, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage^↩

Why Most Believers Aren't Afraid of Epicurus

The paradox of evil has kept theologians busy for years. As hurricanes level cities, as tyrants slaughter millions, theologians have taken on the daunting task of explaining how their god, to whom they prescribe ultimate goodness and power, stands by, either impotent or indifferent to the suffering of mankind. They have cleverly attempted to explain it away with devils, or free will, or human ignorance but they remain ever haunted by this unholy paradox.

Some of the more fierce theologians have purposed that we stand up to God, rebel against his indifference. They say we should demand that the heavens answer the prayers of the downtrodden; the very same downtrodden that God himself told us to mind. These brave religious leaders cite the daring biblical character Abraham, for he stood up before God in an unprecedented way. As God divulged his vicious plan to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham challenged God's righteousness:

"Will you also stamp out the righteous with the wicked? What if there should be fifty righteous people in the midst of the city? Will you stamp it out rather than spare the place for the sake of fifty righteous people within it? It would be sacrilege for you to do such a thing, to bring death upon the righteous along with the wicked... Shall the judge of the Earth not to justice?" 

Eventually, Abraham concedes when God fails to find even five righteous people in either city. (One must wonder why the children didn't qualify.) After this daring defiance, Abraham becomes the champion for such godly rebellion. It seems odd that several chapters hence, he willfully and without complaint ties his own child to an alter and is prepared to slaughter him at God's behest. I suppose we needn't worry, I am quite sure the theologians have thought of something. 

As more and more tragedies befall mankind theologians are continuously forced to confront the paradox of Epicurus, but to their credit (or perhaps not) they always find a way of quieting their philosophical minds. 

As a non-believer when I am confronted by evil, such as the Holocaust, I am always confounded that people can still hurl praise and worship to a god who stood by and watched as millions of people, including his so-called Chosen People, were gassed, starved, and slaughtered. I have witnessed people thank God for allowing the Americans to defeat the Germans, which simultaneously admits their belief in God's omnipotence and intervention while not being furious at God for allowing it to happen in the first place. I always wonder why, even if an intervening does god exist, he would deserve any praise at all. Shouldn't we take Abraham's challenge a step further and refuse to worship or obey God until he repents for his cruel and genocidal ways? As it is allegedly carved into the side of one of the gas chambers: "If there is a God, he will have to beg for my forgiveness." 

Pondering this I discovered something interesting. While the problem of evil seems to terrify theologians it doesn't seem to bother the other believers all that much. In fact, in times of suffering they turn to God! They claim to be comforted knowing that their suffering is in the hands of a Grand Master who controls their lives, and can relieve them of this suffering at any time. God is their friend, their father; nevermind that he is also the Cause of their suffering. 

This is a peculiar paradox. It would appear that for the average believer their faith is source of comfort to them, not a matter of philosophical consistency. They believe in God because they need to; because in the moments of misery they need someone to whom they can cry out. Leave the philosophy to the theologians, God is love. 

I am not mocking this sentiment. I certainly cannot offer anything in the way of comfort that would be anywhere near as helpful as belief is to the faithful. Indeed, my doctrine could not do what a pastor's could at the bedside of a cancer patient. Not everyone need be philosophers, not everyone is compelled to be so. Why shouldn't people be comforted in their misery in any way they can? I am aware that this essay may come across as condescending toward the religious. I mean no such harm, I am merely attempting to make sense of the believers desire to pray to a god who appears to be either malevolent or not all-powerful. 

Perhaps one day, if there is a God, he will answer the prayers of the widows and orphans, of the hungry and distraught, of the tortured and abused. Until then, I think the religious should follow the advice of Pope Francis: "You pray for the hungry. Then you feed them. This is how prayer works." The rest of us should busy ourselves with the latter part of this statement and together we can do what no god has ever been able to do. 

Uncertainty and Global Democracy

Democracy, so as to protect itself, seeks to prove the democratic method is the best, indeed the only proper form of government. It has a violent rage against those who disagree, for a rebel in a democracy threatens to make it all crumble. It is rage born of fear. Fear that the "savages" - a term given to any whom do not support a democratic government - will attack their civilized paradise. Democracy is founded on compromise. It is the idea that all ideas are to be respected and given voice.

Tyrannies, on the contrary, live by an ideal. They have no interest on comprising on their truth. What they know to be True is to them, the only ideal which matters; the only one worthy of respect. They squash the rebels, silence the opposition. They worship their ideal, their truth, and demand that all bend a knee, or perish.

We, in the West, have been taught that such tyrannies are evil, and democracy, which legitimates all ideas, all truths, is a noble structure upon which to build one's country. However, can one be considered virtuous who comprises on Truth? Can he who bends his ideals to fit snugly with contradicting ideals be thought of as man of truth? Can such perversion of Truth be called a virtue?! Should not all men of truth cling to their convictions and slay all who oppose them? If one lets idolaters taint his place of worship, is he not guilty himself of blasphemy?

What then shall be of the world? Tyrannies of opposing convictions battling for dominance; a jungle of self-righteous bloodshed? A horrible picture indeed. No, I posit that the founders of democracy understood that life has no certainty. They knew that "truth" is a word that should not be used in any ultimate sense. We cannot be certain of anything; we irrational creatures. Indeed to echo the words of the great Socrates, the only thing we can know, is that we know nothing at all.

If our perceived truths cannot be considered absolute, we must allow for the possibility that we are wrong and afford our opposition the same right. The two sides may then humbly compromise on the differing opinions of truth.

It is uncertainty that will unite the world. It is the humility to accept our place in the universe, to stand in awe of its mystery, that will free humankind from warfare. We can strive for truth, we can study the universe, we can formulate beliefs, but we mustn't take ourselves too seriously. We our subjective animals seeking to observe our cage objectively. It is nothing short of hubris or perhaps lunacy, to believe we can ever reach certainty. When humanity internalizes this idea, when we humans are humbled by our own vast ignorance, we shall take several large steps towards real lasting peace.

Therefore, ye advocates of democracy, ye seekers of peace, praise skepticism; for it is the key that will unleash democracy to the world.

Is Religion Evil?

One of the challenges that is facing the great thinkers of our age, is defining whether religion is a force of good or evil in the world. Both sides, atheists and theologians, battle ferociously to show religion's virtue or poisonous nature. In the past it seemed that the debate was focused on proving whether or not a particular religion was true, now we focus on whether it is useful or dangerous.

When one attempts to view religion as a single organism, one quickly realizes that is anything but simple. I always find it strange when a man of a particular faith will engage in a debate as the representative of religion. Even within religions there are a multitude of differing opinions, how then is one to defend all of their disparaging ideas? He has set himself up for defeat before he even opens his mouth.

Religion has played a major role in every moment of history dating as far back as we can tell. It has inspired man to great heights and corrupted him to the greatest cruelties. It has condoned and condemned slavery. It has declared man a servant, and declared him free. It has chosen a nation and made man equal. Religion is ugly and beautiful, sinful and saintly, devilish and divine. It cannot be judged as good or evil, poisonous or virtuous, it transcends such absolutes. We must begin to examine religion in the appropriate fashion if we are to understand why it has been the driving force in all of mankind's history.

When one opens the Judea-Christian Bible what will he find? When he reads its texts, studies its essence, what will he discover? Is there a guarantee, a result every reader will walk away with?  

Human history beginning after the Bible was written, testifies that no two people experience the same thing, nor conclude the same idea from reading the Bible's cryptic text. Indeed is not every book merely a mirror in which one can see his own reflection? When one views the Bible, when he reads its stories, he will really be peering into his own soul. The text will enliven him, verses will cling to his mind while others will be forgotten. If he is cruel than he will learn cruelty, if he is loving than he will find love.

The Bible has been the book called on by tyrants and revolutionaries, activists and the complacent, to justify their deeds. The Bible has shackled the world in darkness and demanded the light. Adolph Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. called on its texts to gather the masses, to inspire their followers. The Bible has given life to the Earth while threatening to annihilate it.

How are we to approach this book of paradoxes, this text of opposites? Is it dangerous? Is it inspiring? Such a debate will bear no fruit, it will but make enemies. Each camp will claim to know the truth distancing themselves further from one another. Atheists learn to hate religion, religion begins to hate its attackers. Each side believes they are right, and they are.

Religion is evil, religion is beautiful. Religion teaches hate, and it teaches love. Religion is neither the problem nor the solution, we are.

Cyber-Misery Loves Company

The 21st century, and particularly the invention of the internet, has vastly changed the way humans interact with the world. The internet, I dare say, was probably one of the greatest inventions of all time, right along side the wheel and sliced bread.

Knowledge, that in the past would have to be sought in books, some accessible and some not, is now available to all at the few clicks on a key board. Indeed, in the past knowledge many times was afforded to those who could pay its price. Books were expensive, and therefore the acquisition of knowledge was as well.

With the invention of the internet that all changed. Now, knowledge was accessible to all who sought it. Not only could one find the answers to his questions but he was able to find several sources to compare from, and to be certain that the information was up-to-date.

The internet, in addition, connected the globe in an unprecedented fashion. People from across the world could now, for the first time, send instant messages to one another. Since the invention of the internet and up until the present day, all the conveniences here mentioned, in addition to the great many that I have not written here, have become better, faster and more accessible.

There are, of course, many ills that have accompanied this fine invention; as always is the case. The enormous amount of misinformation that clutters the endless libraries of the internet, the inappropriate cyber-stalking that is easily done, and the many evils that are now only a click away from the innocent eyes of children, are just a few demons that were released with the creation of the internet. However, that is for another essay, and even perhaps, another writer entirely.

There are other goods which come to us via the internet that are perhaps less noticeable at first glance. It is a fascinating activity, and one I repeat often, to type the beginning of a question into a Google search bar, and let the most searched options pop up as Google attempts to guess your question based on the first words typed, and the popularity of the questions beginning with the same words.

A moment ago, and for the sake of this essay, I typed the words: "Why is life" into Google. The following popped up as the most searched questions beginning with these words:
Why is life so hard?
Why is life so tough?
Why is life so pointless?
Why is life expectancy so high in Japan?
Why is life so amazing?
Why is life so unfair?
Why is life so boring?
Why is life worth living?

In other words, the internet has enabled us to ask life's most pressing questions from behind our safe and anonymous computer screens.

Humans have the strange tendency to pretend that we have it all figured out. That we do not need the advice or, even the comfort of others. We are taught that to be successful at life is to have a great job that rewards you with a large paycheck. We are taught that adults shouldn't be asking questions like: "Why is life so hard?". Those types of questions should be buried deep inside oneself, for they are childish and stupid.

We put on our carefully designed masks in order to hide the child quivering within us. The child who, ever since the invention of the internet, has been able to reach out to others, to ask the questions that he would have otherwise buried, and to receive the comfort of company that he would have otherwise not had. The internet gives us the right to be human again.

The other comforting reality we were given through the invention the internet was to see just how many people are feeling the same way as we are. The most popular search result informs us just how many people are suffering from the same deep existential fears or emotional wounds that we ourselves are suffering from.

If only we could internalize this lesson, understand the pain that our fellow human beings are experiencing, how much pity and love we would we instantly feel for them? Why, we would be hugging everyone we met, with the hopes of comforting and being comforted by them!

Sam Harris in The End of Faith wrote in regards to the simple truth of of empathy-based morality: "Consider it: every person you have ever met, every person will suffer the loss of his friends and family. All are going to lose everything they love in this world. Why would one want to be anything but kind to them in the meantime?"

Indeed, were we humans more aware of the suffering of the woman sitting beside us on the bus, or the man who works down the hall, or the child who misbehaves in class, would not kindness sweep through the world, and pity and love fill the hearts of all men, women and children?

If there is a lesson to be learned from our Google searches it is this: That we are all suffering. We are all asking the deep unanswerable and, at times, childish questions. We all want to be accepted and loved. We are all, in other words, human, all too human.

Critiquing the Zeitgeist

One who would take quick glance at the world today, especially the culture of the young adults, will find a rather horrifying picture. He will see that everything from the music to social interaction to the goals to which we aspire have become meaningless. The music that is produced today is for the most part nonsensical, and that which does retain a level of coherency, glorifies emptiness, worships lust, and deifies money. The mantra repeated by most young adults is "live as if it was your last day." And where this is a fine sentiment to live by, the general attitude is that of partying like there was no tomorrow. That is, making sure that before death's cold hand grips us, we have fulfilled every lustful desire that plagues us; and remaining numb enough, through the aid of drugs or alcohol, as to defeat the fear the we may disappear tomorrow. The obvious fallacy is the notion that desire is something that can ever be satiated. An attempt to placate the screams of desire will only show that it is a like trying to construct a building on quicksand.

Whereas, were it my last day I would wish to spend it in the most sober fashion possible, grasping onto my consciousness with all my strength, the youth preach a numbing of the intellect, so that in effect they are dead already. The very thought of death has the power to make me reach for my loved ones, not a bottle, not so, it seems, of many of my peers. Of course, many of them don't actually think they will die tonight, though some probably wish they would; what is important to focus on is the intention behind the popular sentiment.

It is placing our animalistic tendencies as the zenith of human happiness. "Say as you please, do as you please, live as you please." Respect for the aged has decreased greatly, a sense of duty towards the Earth has almost vanished and "meaning" has become a word so misused and misunderstood as to become the opposite of its own definition.

Yet something peculiar has come coupled with the shallow ideology of the 21st century. As they preach "let me do as I please!" they afford this right to all. And so, amid the decay of the human race their is, arising from the ashes, an unprecedented 'love of thy neighbor.' A certain xenophilia has become the rebellion of the youth.

Perhaps "unprecedented" is not an appropriate word. Indeed, in the not so distant history of America of the 1960's, "love" became the word that filled the mouths of many young adults. However, that generation, drowned itself in drugs and sexual promiscuity and thereby wasted away their chance to bring utopia to the Earth. We should look to their civil rights achievements and be inspired by them, and their decadence and distance ourselves from it.

Religions are staggering to keep their control of a young population that is unanimously screaming for equal rights. The Church who has denied a homosexual the right to marry has simultaneously pushed the youth, who embrace all differences and who abhor bigotry, out of the Church with them. They see no use for systems which exclude others.

The youth are rebelling by loving their fellow human! It is truly a wonderful revolution. Of course, this love is many times misguided, misplaced and crude, but we mustn't focus on the nuances just yet. Let us first revel in the tide that is turning ever so slightly towards global unity.

There is much that must happen in my generation before we can say that we have built on the foundations of the past. We need to deepen our connection to life. We need to relearn the philosophers of the past, not to pass a grade in university, but to excel at life itself! We need a resurgence of discussions about how we are supposed to live. Religions need to reevaluate themselves so as to have some relevancy in the coming years. Secularism has to deepen itself, so as to remain a healthy replacement for religious dogma. Either system, if unaltered will become a poison for the world.

For too long the world has been separated by creeds, flags, and ancient disputes. The youth are demanding unity! They are tired of hate, sickened by war, and broken by poverty. However, even an ideal such as unity can be dangerous to the world if done improperly. Indeed the overzealous sheep who lies with the lion, too soon, will find that unity requires understanding on both sides, not a passion on one.

This is why I am calling for a global enlightenment. A wild change in the way we approach life. Indeed, a unified world filled sex, drugs, and rock n' roll, cannot be considered a monumental step forward. It is our generations turn. We are stepping into the world, and are becoming its leaders. What shall we modern minded, peace craving, members of the human race do? Will we become so openminded as to allow evil to annihilate us? Will we become so shallow as to fall from our noble platform of human intellect to the primal instincts of our lowly origin? Will we, as so many generations have done, waste this opportunity for social justice in our pursuit of comfort and lust? What shall become of us?

The time for universal unity has never been so ripe, We stand at the threshold of a brand new world. A world where people are accepted for who they are. Where people are embraced no matter how different they appear to us. But, if we are not careful our season will pass and we will fall into the pages of history and vanish as a speck of dust in an ocean.

The Danger of Atheism

Fanaticism is not unique to religions. It finds itself in any dogma, in any in-tribe loyalty, in any idea that excludes others. Fanatics can be found in every group even those as seemingly benign as sports teams. In Europe, but it is true all over the world, fans of rival sports teams will brawl with one another and will generally hate passionately anyone who happens to root for the opposing team.

Whenever humans align themselves with an idea, and they hold that idea as a sacred truth, that is, a truth which requires no evidence and that frightens the holder of the idea to even consider, fanaticism rears its ugly head. Of course, this makes religions ample breeding grounds for fanaticism as well as many other species of evil.

Understood simply, when an idea becomes popular to a group of individuals, it means that the idea, whatever its original form had been, must now assume a simpler form in order to inspire and excite the otherwise bored and uninterested masses. Once the masses of individuals come together under the idea that they scarcely understand, they will feel enormous comfort, as they will now feel part of an exclusive and superior group to the rest of outside world. Community has always been the way humans escape the natural feeling of loneliness, which is the true state of man. Phrases like: "I do not wish to die alone." reveals the existential discomfort we all feel when we reflect on the lonely reality of life, and even more so, of death. Community has always been the antidote for such suffering; and communities generally form around an idea. It stands to reason then, that people who attempt to challenge the idea of the community will be met with scorn, dislike, and at times, violence. They may murder countless people in order to protect the idea that binds them, that inspires them, that lets them forget their horrible loneliness. 

This is the paradox of philosophers who wish to inspire. On the one hand what they wish to present is of a complex nature and has taken them long hours of contemplation to formulate. On the other, the masses are generally disinterested in difficult intellectual pursuits, and want their wisdom made chewy and easy to swallow. This is why we have not seen many philosopher kings, and why the most successful rousers of the otherwise drowsy public have been simple yet devilishly clever. Simple, for their thoughts are dull and ill-thought out; clever for they pander to the crowds giving them the bite-size inspiration that they so crave. The American Televangelists are a prime example of such rabble-rousers. They possess the unique ability to appear profound, while making sure not to say anything that will confuse the group they wish to inspire. In other words, they have leadership qualities.

Here lies the danger of the growing atheistic movement. Atheism has never caught hold of people as it has today. Atheism has moved quietly, stealthily through the ages. Religion has always been easy for the masses to gather around. Though many of its concepts are truly of complex nature, the clergymen have simplified for either their own benefit - that of power - or because they themselves did not understand the nature of the texts they were preaching. While the church was inspiring the masses to kill men accused of being apostates and burn women accused of witchcraft, the atheists have been quiet*. They have been philosophers, scientists, writers, poets. They have not ruled, they have not united. They drifted through the world, isolated wanderers, living almost entirely within their own minds. Whatever has slipped out from their writings and entered into the public sphere has generally been quotes pulled from much larger essays, and almost by necessity have been wildly misconstrued.

[*It is important to note here, that when I say that atheism has been a quiet idea, I am referring to the idea that we cannot know that God exists and therefore live as if he does not. I have not forgotten nor overlooked the cruelties and atrocities committed by regimes led by men who were atheists. Stalin, Mao, and Lenin, among others, though certainly atheists, did not do what they did because of atheism, they simply replaced the dogma of religion with there own self-serving dogma. This is also why they hated religion and wanted it expunged; for it is far easier to give a dogma to an otherwise dogma-less person, but it is a near impossibility to convince a person who already subscribes a dogma, to give it up for another one. As proven, tragically, by the many religious people who died as martyrs at the hands of these very regimes.]

Today however, the atheist community (as they are now called) is growing. The numbers of young adults casting aside their faith and grasping onto atheism is unprecedented. Discussions and debates are erupting all over the globe. Atheism has become a movement that wishes to see religion abolished or at the very least, tamed. Presumably, the Muslim extremists who are threatening to destroy the human race or submit them to Shariah law have caused the almost sudden surge of people wishing to do away with faith. Either that, or the bigoted Christians in America fighting with a violent rage to forbid the marriage of consenting adults of the same gender. Or perhaps, it is the rising death toll in the Middle East over Israel between the Jewish and Palestinian peoples. With members of both sides calling it a "holy land given to them by God," people have begun to scorn the idea that seems to be playing so large role in the endless conflict. It may be a combination of all three, perhaps it is something I have not here mentioned; either way, atheism as a movement is on the rise.

The danger of this is clear. As I wrote above, the masses generally do not get inspired by full ideas. Ideas, profound ideas, are multifaceted and require careful analysis if they are to be understood correctly. Atheism, as an idea, is complex, as is religion. Whether we wish to admit it or not, religion has within its tainted chambers many deeply philosophical and frankly, wonderful ideas. Many of those ideas are misunderstood by their practitioners but theologians have been pointing them out for ages. My own childhood faith, Judaism, is a magnificent social system, much of which could serve to benefit mankind, and much of which has! Christianity and Islam, though I am ignorant of much within their texts, have certainly caused a great many people to become refined and sensitive to the needs of others and the world at large. Allegory though it may be, it may still hold deep truths that could help us in the quest toward happiness.

Atheism, in its complexity, is not simply a system of ridicule against religion. It is a vision of mankind, free from dogma, coming together as fellow discoverers of a mysterious and awe-invoking universe. It seeks to perfect the highly evolved intellects of the human race with the goal of creating a better world not just for humans but for all the Earth's inhabitants.

Atheism and religion as ideas, though antipodal, are branches of the same tree: the curiosity to see what is behind the curtain. They are different conclusions to the same mystery. They are not partners, but they are certainly not enemies! Life is an unsolved mystery, and may remain so forever. It stands then that deciding how we should live should be the primary concern of conscious beings.

Atheism as a movement however, runs the very real risk that from within the intellectual garden will grow the wild weeds of fanaticism. Could we not imagine an atheist regime rising and banning religion out of fury of what dogmatic religion has done to the world, or out of fear of what it might do?

It is true that atheism can boast a purity of action in the blood-stained pages of history. Whereas religion must bow its head in shame and talk about moderation or reformation within its texts and practices, atheism can claim, rightfully so, the morally superior past. Denis Diderot rightly said: "The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers." This has been the case in the past centuries, but what of the near future?

One who reads present day atheists speaking of religion will find their words are generally filled with disdain, mockery, or dripping with hatred of religion. The young adults, as is always the case, are filled with even more passionate hatred. The hatred, they always claim, is not against religious people, but religious ideas. That may be, but how long before the line is blurred or all but disappears? "Where they have burned books," the German journalist Heinrich Heine wrote, "they will end in burning human beings." The hatred for an idea does not take long before those who possess the idea are hated.

I must admit, that what I write so far as I know, has never been fulfilled. I have yet to hear of a case against religious people fueled by atheistic passion. What I write then is a warning to those who wish to see a world free of religion, who view that as the only true method to achieve global peace. For when one believes that to be the case, it is not long before he feels obligated to help it along. If discussions and debates do not do the trick perhaps violence would? To rationalize a minimal amount of violence to establish world peace would be a incredibly easy thing to do. Unless we calm the the stirring ocean of anti-religious hatred brewing in the hearts of many young adults, a war waged between the godly and godless seems like a horrible, yet plausible outcome.

This is not to say that we should not criticize ideas that religion promulgates. It does not mean that we should not debate, discuss and critique religion, or any other idea for that matter. Rather we should do so with humility that certainty cannot be met on these topics and that both sides have a voice that should be heard and considered. To claim that any idea is nonsense without first investigating it with an openmind, is arrogant and foolish. Such an attitude will not lead us in the direction of cohesive coexistence. A direction every human should be striving for.

The need then is to return to the journey. Return to doubt about our convictions. Realize the complexity of both religion and atheism as ideas, study them, contemplate them, and finally, and most importantly, realize that no one knows the truth, and we are but fellow travelers down the long and foggy road of existence.

Faith: Certainty in Uncertainty?

The evidence for and against religion is, for the time being, inconclusive. Religion, because of the way it is structured is unfalsifiable, so that no matter what arguments one brings against it, or scientific discoveries one uncovers that contradict it, religion will remain impervious, beyond the reaches of empirical proof or disproof. Of course, this says nothing of religion's validity, quite the contrary; in my opinion it weakens the argument, or rather makes it a mute point. It must be placed among the many unanswerable questions, put on the shelf, and taken down and dusted only when reality becomes a bore, and one wishes to stimulate the mind with unanswerable questions.

As an unfalsifiable, unprovable concept, religion becomes nothing more than a philosophical conundrum, tantamount to the question of individual existence, zombie brains, and the subjectivity of color. The God debate vanishes and the philosophical discussions begin: "Does God exist? Well, we can't know, but it would be good if he did. Or if they did. Or perhaps it wouldn't be good..." Any sort of concrete knowledge of the subject simply disappears into guesses, theories, and personal opinion. It certainly would not be a convincing reason to give up your life or, for that matter, take the life of someone else.

Though it is oft said, and not hard to imagine, that religion offers comfort to a great many people, if one is committed to living truthfully, a healthy skepticism seems to be the only reasonable route to take when a question is unknowable. If I cannot prove god, nor disprove him, how can anyone reasonably make a decision? Is it not the greatest hubris, and indeed, stupidity, to presume that your religion is right without sufficient evidence to prove it? Is it morally acceptable to teach children, indeed indoctrinate them, with fables of miracles and divine intervention, based on claims that were simply told to you as a child with equal conviction? 

It doesn't matter whether one is comforted by religion, repelled by it, or simply indifferent to it, the only rational approach to unknowable questions, is that of doubt. Regarding anything else in the world, would anyone ever be tempted to pose an argument to this point?

Indeed, it is quite perplexing that religious faith has survived as long as it has. Well, only perplexing until the secret of religion's success is revealed: "And these matters that I command you today shall be upon your heart. You shall teach them thoroughly to your children..." (Deuteronomy 6:6-7) Religion has always targeted the vulnerable minds of children. In this way it fills the young child's head before the child knows to doubt, to administer reason, even in the face of the authority of his parents or teachers. The child, believing without question, follows the path chosen for him by his parents and teaches the subsequent generation, and thus, religion survives. 

The only honest response to the question of God, is that of doubt and honest skepticism. To respond any different is to be dishonest; the reason for the belief, be that what it may. What could our world be like if only people were more in doubt about their religious convictions? How much could society have progressed if only people could admit to themselves that their faith in God is nothing more than a personal feeling, a whim, planted in youth, or received through contemplation, but a personal feeling, no more. As Bertrand Russel aptly wrote: "The whole problem with the world is that the fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, and wise men so full of doubt." 

People who base their certainty of God's existence on personal experience or intuition have simply shut off their minds in favor of the comfort religion offers them. They consider the warm feeling in their heart as sufficient evidence for their faith. Yet, most of these people simply discount the thousands of people in other religions claiming their own experiences and intuitions. Such hypocrisy is tragically commonplace. 

I have heard religious people who find that leaving religion to accept atheism, is to them, just replacing one dogma for another. To them, though there is no sufficient evidence for God, he also can't be disproved, so why not continue to practice religion since no one knows the truth anyway. This is a great fallacy. Atheism is not a dogma. There are no principles one must accept on faith. Atheism is the removal of religion, returning your mind to a neutral state. It is ridding it of the dogmas placed upon it, to view the world with child-like innocence again. The sinister people who convinced the overwhelming masses that atheism is a religion did a great evil to truth. Atheism, is precisely the opposite of faith, as Bill Maher wittingly said: "Atheism is a religion, like abstinence is a sex position."

Atheism is looking at the world with eyes of wonder and applying your mind to understanding the majesty of the universe. It is having the courage to live in doubt about the questions that have no answers. It is being skeptical about fantastical claims, while remaining open to have your common sense proven utterly wrong (as science continues to do to us). It is not, when defined properly, a religion in any sense of the word.

One can, if one wishes, ponder on whether all of mankind is hooked up to the matrix, prisoners of a computer simulation. This is an unknowable point, that the majority of humankind simply does not think about. We do not spend our days obsessed with trying to break free of the computer program. Rather, we live as if it does not exist (and it probably doesn't). The same needs to be our reaction to God and any other claim that lies beyond the scope of reason. We can ponder it all we like, we can formulate fascinating theories about gods, aliens and robots, but to act on those theories is nothing short of lunacy. 

Faith traps your mind. It shackles your ability to critically think about anything that contradicts your faith. And for what; to retain certainty about that which has no evidence?! Could there be anything more backward! Should not every person who wishes to be intellectually honest simply say "I don't know" about that which is unknowable?!

It seems clear that the most honest, indeed noble, course for humankind to take is that of healthy skepticism towards religion and any other supernatural claims. Perhaps, if we do, we will yet see the end of the ideas which originate from the infancy of our species. 

Belief is not a Virtue

It is a common misconception among religious people, and because of its constant utterance even some secular people have subscribed to it, that belief in God is a virtue. Absolute faith is praised as a noble virtue, as something positive to be sought after.

The reason for this misconception is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of belief. The truth is: belief is not a choice. Belief is a direct reflection of something we hold true. You cannot believe something while simultaneously thinking it to be untrue. To put it in our terms, one cannot believe in God without also thinking that he actually exists. Therefore, what you think to be true you will believe in, and vice versa. This point is obvious, yet overlooked. If one doubts the truth of this notion, one should attempt not believing something he knows to be true, or believing something he knows is not. 

The first time I was informed that belief is not choice I was still a believer in God and almost immediately rejected the idea. It was only after stammering out a pathetic response to this claim, that I began to comprehend its validity. As a believer it was very humbling to suddenly realize that what I had once held as a virtue of mine was merely a reaction to an idea I had already accepted. 

People generally wish to be considered virtuous to themselves and more so to their friends. It is for this reason that we are so easily convinced that belief in God is a virtue. Belief in God for believers is not a difficult thing to retain. A believer can then be virtuous by the mere act of being himself! Even in the face of the worst suffering, so long as the believer still thinks that the notion of God is true, the most he will feel is anger or hatred toward God. Though the believer may overcome his anger and confuse this with choosing belief over disbelief -- and thereby feel virtuous -- he has done nothing more than fall back in love with an idea he never doubted.

I suspect that the origin of this misconception, promulgated by almost every religion, is far more sinister than simply wishing to be virtuous. When someone thinks that he chooses to believe in God, he then thinks of himself as better than he who doubts God. For as he chooses, so does the skeptic. The believer will then at best, pity the non-believer as we see in the more benign christian sects, and at worst, hate the nonbeliever, as we see in the fundamentalist Islamic regimes of today. Religion therefore sets itself apart from the secular as they who choose to believe in God against those who choose to disbelieve in him. 

Once we can admit that belief in God is nothing more than a reflection of what we consider a fact about reality, we can understand the great fallacy in blaming someone for doubting God, or praising one who doesn't. Of course, since our beliefs represent what we consider to be an actual state of reality, it behooves us then to have some evidence for this claim. Is this not the rule regarding everything else? This is why all religious people whom I have met have called on some personal experience, or reasonable argument, or piece of evidence that resonated with them as the reason they believe. I suspect it would be very hard to find a true believer in any religion who does so without some reason or another, at least not admittedly so.

When the reason for belief is challenged in the mind of the believer -- when he actually doubts the principles of his faith -- he will be compelled to find an answer of sorts to quiet his doubts. If he cannot find one, he may begin to doubt other points of his faith, and may eventually leave his faith entirely. What brilliance of certain religions then, to make belief a virtue and doubt a sin! 

The "virtue" religion is actually referring to is that of allowing oneself to be credulous to the supernatural, obedient to the religious authority, and to not question the "truths" it espouses. They seek not to excite your investigative mind, but rather to inspire your feeble heart. Why else would religion praise blind faith over honest skepticism, if not to keep the wolves far away from the sheep? 

Doubt too is not a choice. One can only choose to question the assumptions he has been taught. One can look for truth at the risk of his convictions. One can choose to be unafraid of what one might find... does this not seem virtuous? 

It is the skeptic who stands in opposition to religious dogmas, or societal convictions. He casts aside any unproven claims about reality and ventures forth to see them for himself. He does not wish to be told that faith requires him to not know, for to him that sounds suspicious and rather stupid. He does not need some clergymen to lead him shackled and comfortable; he is brave enough to face reality on his own... as a free man. 

Doubt has another feature that sets it as more positive than belief. It was best said by the English actor Sir Peter Ustinov: "Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." Doubt is the function of being unsure about a given proposition and therefore not willing to die or kill for it. How quickly peace among men could flourish, if we could only admit our own ignorance.  

It is humility (an actual virtue) to know the limits of man's knowledge. It is noble to admit those points of which he is ignorant, and it is brave to face this mysterious world as a man of doubt. It would seem then, that the path to doubt is the virtuous one, a path found only through honest questions, and an open mind. 

Are Science and Religion Partners?

Pope Francis has recently announced that he believes in the Big Bang theory and has reaffirmed that religion is compatible with science. He is not the first religious person to make such claims. Maimonides claimed that science has precedence to religion in matters regarding the laws of nature. Rabbi Abraham Kook, the chief of rabbi of Palestine in 1921, said regarding scientific discovery that: "In general this is an important principle in the conflict of ideas, that when an idea comes to negate some teaching in the Torah, we must not, to begin with, reject it, but build the edifice of the Torah above it, and thereby we ascend higher, and through this ascent, the ideas are clarified." Rabbi Jonathon Sacks, the former chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, wrote a comprehensive book entitled: "The Great Partnership: Science, religion, and the search for meaning."

It would seem that religion, and Judaism in particular, has come to terms with the validity of scientific discoveries, and have found ways that these new discoveries serve to enhance their belief in God. How many less people would have been tortured and killed had the Catholic Church respected what science had to say in the centuries passed?

When I was believer I manged to accept that science simply showed us how God created the world. As a child I had studied under rabbis who taught that the dinosaur fossils were sent by God to test the faithful and confuse the heretics. The one time I remember learning about evolution in my elementary school was when one rabbi exclaimed: "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?!" The students laughed at the silly scientists, and the class continued. However, these cases are extreme and are fundamentalist views according to many leading rabbis, as shown above. In my later adolescent years I modified my religious belief to include respect of science.

Religion use to be afraid of science, but religious faith has adapted and evolved to be impenetrable by reason or evidence to the contrary. Every new discovery no matter how contradictory to the Bible will be accepted as God's tool. They have learned to embrace science as a branch of theology. Religious leaders no longer need to be worried about scientific discoveries since their faith and the faith of their people do not rest within this world. Their God is beyond this physical existence, therefore though he cannot be proved, he cannot be disproved. Why then should religion be wary of discoveries that can only affect this physical existence?

It would seem that religion is compatible with science; but is science compatible with religion? I do not think it to be. Science is based on the principles of testable theories, observable experiments, and, perhaps most in contrast to religion, that no "truth" is sacred and cannot be later proven wrong. There is no dogma in science. No principles one must accept without evidence. Scientists are always aware that at any moment some piece of newly discovered evidence can change the way we view the universe entirely; and they seek it! It was the scientific mind that first challenged the notion that the world was flat, or that the biblical creation narrative was accurate. Where would we be without the scientists? Indeed, we would be right where are superstitious, ignorant, ancestors were, would we not?

This idea of questioning assumptions, challenging common sense, and commitment to evidence, has propelled us from shepherds to astronauts, from creatures within the universe to its observers! It is this passion to know the universe, the humility to accept our ignorance, and our defiance of dogma, that permitted us to see beyond the stars, and below the deep dark oceans.

Religion cannot be compatible with science so long as it makes claims about the way the world is. Though the clergymen who have stopped condemning science have certainly helped it move along undisturbed, religion and science are still antipodal ways of discovering the universe. I am certainly pleased that religion has begun to accept science, for as I said, scientists will no longer be hunted down and silenced the way they once were, but there is still a gap the size of God that creates the dissonance between science and religion. Science may be a great partner for religious moderates, but religion is certainly no partner of science.

There's No Place Like Heaven

Growing up I was certain there was another life awaiting me, upon crossing the threshold of death. I knew there was an afterlife, a heaven, a paradise, just beyond the reaches of this world. Whereas other religious people whom have confessed to me they have many doubts regarding the fundamentals of their faith, I believed absolutely in God, the Bible as his word, and the tradition of Judaism as the living truth. Though in Judaism heaven is not as predominate as in some other religions, it is understood that after we die, we are brought before God for judgment and, provided we repented before our last breath, we would be spared from the darkness of hell, and brought forth into heaven.

There is a certain comfort which is unparalleled in the secular world, of knowing that one is going to outlive his own death. What came after this brief and tragic life was promised to be glorious beyond earthly comprehension. I so believed in the eternal afterlife that as a child I would spend many a night laying awake in bed terrified by the concept of eternity. Eventually I would become so frightened that I would wake my mother with tears in my eyes, asking her to explain eternity. She would comfort me by stating that God is smarter than we, and therefore we need not worry about how he will make heaven enjoyable for us. 

This deep seated belief stayed with me for 23 years. I loved life, but was unafraid of death, for I knew without a shadow of doubt that beyond this earthly existence, this tragic play of suffering and joy, of tears of laughter, of chaos and order, lies a place of only goodness, whatever that meant. (I can retrospectively see the paradox in a paradise, for wouldn't "good" lose all its meaning without a measure of "bad"?) When I rejected my childhood faith, when I committed myself to rationalism, I was faced with a fear many people seldom think about. 

I was suddenly gripped with the fear of death. I was finally able to stare into the abyss that awaits us all. After our "moment in the sun" we are gone, never to live again. Whereas most people I presume, have either ridden themselves of this irrational fear, or they have suppressed it and are only struck by its harsh blow when they too, focus on the brevity of life, I was faced with it for the first time.  

For me, it became an obsessive thought. At any moment I could stop breathing and I would vanish from existence. And with my death, everything I was planning, my dreams, my hopes, my goals, would vanish as well. How pitiful when one lets his fear of death envelope his life. 

I am still trying to conquer this fear of death, for I have never had to do it before. It has made me less courageous, less able to risk my life, and uneasy with concept of sacrificing my life, even for the greater good. I used to know that if the moment arose, I would be the first to give my life for another, now, I am now hoping I am never confronted with such a challenge. 

Of course, the fear of death is completely irrational.  That is to say, there is nothing to fear. Once you no longer exist, you will not feel anything, your consciousness will be as dead as you are. You will quite simply, not exist. I once heard it said: "There is no reason to fear death. When you are here, death is not, and when death is here, you are not." A rational platform, indeed. 

The fear of death mustn't be confused, however, with the will to live. These two, though similar in subject, are very different in content. The will to live is a healthy disposition, based on enjoying your life, the people around you, the work you are involved in, etc.  The fear of death is the terror of no longer existing. It is the solipsism that believes the world just could not go on without you. It is the arrogance that your life is too important to simply vanish. The will to live, mentioned above, should also not be confused with self-preservation. Self preservation is a natural impulse, an almost inescapable instinct, not a will. 

This fear of death, that I have recently begun feeling, has made me even more suspicious of religion. Is it not just too convenient that just as every human feels the fear of his own death, every religion has ways to circumvent it? The pieces seem to fit too well, do they not? This is not the only existential fear that religion vanquishes, but it is perhaps the most comforting. Heaven has also been a great motivator for righteousness, for it is the righteous, religion teaches, who receive a share of paradise. The danger for the rest of humanity depends on how "righteousness" is defined by the myriad of religions and their myriad of gods. 

So, I will continue to suppress this fear of death by combating it with its inherent irrationality. Where I once would proudly die for my beliefs, I will take the, perhaps, more timid approach stated by Bertrand Russell: "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Lastly, I will grasp every moment of life, every precious instant with a vigor and excitement, for any one of them could be my last. 

And in the times where the fear has all stricken my heart, I will remember the great words sung in Monty Python's "Always Look at the Bright Side of Life": 

For life is quite absurd

And death's the final word

You must always face the curtain

with a bow

Forget about your sin - give the

audience a grin

Enjoy it - it's your last chance

anyhow. 

So always look on the bright side

of death...

Life's a piece of sh*t, when you look at it

Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true

You'll see its all a show, keep 'em laughin' as you go

Just remember that the last laugh is on you

And...

Always look on the bright side

of life...

The greatest weapon against fear is comedy, is it not?

Why I No Longer Want to Be an Atheist

When I left my religion a little less than a year ago, I quickly gravitated towards atheism. Not passively, because I no longer had belief in God, but actively so. It would seem that after I removed myself from the community of believers, I sought a new community, a community of atheists.

Interestingly, I have met only a few people who will call themselves atheists. Even my most secular friends shy away from the word. Stranger still, my friends who will admit that they don't believe in God, will call themselves non-believers or unbelievers, that is, if they don't avoid any such labels entirely. Thus my community was formed online. Through various social networking sites I was able to attach in some way or another to a a cultural array of thousands of men and women who do identify as atheists. This was comforting for a time, a sort of roadside inn on my ever-bending path.

However comforting having a cause to fight for or having a community may have been, I could not avoid two facts: 1) The word atheist carries with it a negative implication, and 2) It is not how I wish to identify in the long run. It is not, so to speak, "the sword I wish to die on."  I began to critically examine the word "atheist" both it's literal understanding, as well as it's colloquial undertone.

The term "atheist" according to the Oxford Dictionary means: "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

However, many people wrongfully define it as: "The belief that there is no God."

Though I am quite certain there are people who believe there is no god, this, in my experience, has not been the true definition of an atheist, nor is it any less illogical than the theist. The religious, ironically, are very quick to point out such hypocrisy. "We are not all that different, you and I," the theist will say to the atheist, "for as I believe there is a God, you believe there is none!" Indeed, he would be right in the case of an atheist who believes there is no God. Disproving that anything exists is an impossibility, as was pointed out, in a mocking sense, by Russel's teapot.

The majority of atheists with whom I have come in contact have identified with the actual definition, that of  disbelief or lacking belief in God or gods. An a-theist is simply someone who does not subscribe to any theology. The same is true with words like: apolitical, amoral, and achromatic, the prefix "a" simply means "without." In it's simplest sense "atheist" is a harmless word that describes nothing more then that the individual labeled as such does not have a belief in God. In this literal definition many secular people can be rightly placed. Yet there is resistance, why?

A word's definition has never been set in stone. It flows with the culture, it evolves and morphs with society. This etymological evolution must be respected for words have always been a means to communicating with other people sharing our era, or eras to be, nothing more.

Therefore, it is not the literal definition that will shine a light onto a word's true meaning, but it's implication when used in contemporary dialogue.

In our 21st century society this term seems to come with a sort of negative stench. Moreover, it is received as an attack against theology, against religion, against God himself. Thus, atheism has become synonymous with anti-theist. Though many atheists are troubled by this, is it not at least somewhat the case? When one calls themselves an atheist, identifies as an atheist, is one not standing in direct opposition to religion? This is not necessarily a bad thing, it may at times even be a great thing; however, we should be aware of what we are doing when we use the term. We are making a statement. A statement of rejection, of disagreement with religion, and generally people feel antagonized by those who disagree with them. One cannot help but feel threatened when someone is standing in opposition against what they love, what they hold dear, what they don't want challenged.

Today, calling yourself an atheist sets you apart from the religious, opposite them. This, I will repeat, is not to mean that I condemn in any way its usage, but that one who claims to use it just to define his state of credulity toward religion, is as silly as someone calling himself gay in the 21st century, referring to his happiness.

There are those atheists who are on a mission to correct the definition. They hope to appeal to the masses and change the connotation of "atheist." I salute their valiance. However, I do not know if such a thing is possible. People do not enjoy changing their opinions nor the words they use to express those opinions. Perhaps in this age of tolerance we will yet see this word made into a positive label. Though I suspect, if that day comes, there will be no more use for it anymore.

So, after almost a year of non-belief in God, am I an atheist? Literally speaking, yes, but what of the "definition" as it is perceived today? I suppose that would depend. I think it best to use it as one would a weapon. I will examine the situation, evaluate the effect the word will have on the person listening, and acknowledging it's mighty power, choose to use it, or not. It is not who I am, I am not wholly an opposition to religion. I am a rationalist. What is rational I embrace, what is an insult to reason, I dispose of. I have no enemies. I walk a path beaten with steps of many travelers, both religious and secular, who have come before me. We are all on the same journey, the relentless pursuit of truth, above all else.

Western Implosion and Middle Eastern Explosion

The Earth, it seems, is imploding in the West and exploding in the East. While ISIS gains power and rages through the Middle East, we in the West have become fearful for our very lives. Indeed, if ISIS or one of the other terrorist organizations fueled by Muslim fundamentalism gets hold of a nuclear weapon, one cannot help but wonder whether that would spell the end of existence on this planet. It would seem that as science comes ever-nearer to fully understanding the earth's beginning, religious fundamentalists are hellbent on it's end. However, is that all we have to fear?

As our worried eyes turn inward, toward our western democracies, are we to worry less? Perhaps, we mustn't worry for our bodies, for the law certainly protects us, but what of our souls? I use this word for lack of a better one. I not referring to the concept of "soul" in any immortal sense I assure you, I am merely referring to the part of humans that seeks to transcend itself. The portion of our consciousness that motivates us to build rather than destroy, to plant rather than uproot, and to "become all I can be" instead of become what they want me to be. 

As we look upon our free societies we can see a sort of moral decay. People seek money, fame and decadence, abandoning wisdom, truth, and goodness. The religious speak of their high moral standards, yet many of their so-called high standards have nothing to do with human happiness on this world whatsoever. The atheists speak of their morals as well, but how many can be said to study them, master them? Ethics may be the most important area of study today, and it is absent from most of our children's curriculum. Money has become as powerful as a god. Money represents survival, more money, more survival, and thus, more power. People are killing, stealing, and as selfish as ever. The world pursues temporary fleeting pleasures and not lasting friendships, strong ethical characters, and the thirst for knowledge. People seem not to notice the other, that is, whenever we are not actively hostile toward them. Which evil is worse, indifference or cruelty?

What is the source of our society's moral decline? I would like to posit that it is consumerism. The constant "need" for the next best thing. The misery of the present and the lust for the future. The great enemy of happiness. Consumerism is the confusion of "want" and "need." It is apparent to me, that this deadly confusion, this mixing of terms, has caused modern man to feel his very survival in jeopardy. When we are told that we do not have, and that we need more, how are we to focus on our moral fortitude? How am I to care for the less privileged when it is I who am lacking? When my lust is not satiated, why worry about them, the disgusting other. In fact, is it they who prevent my happiness, and more importantly, my very survival. 

This moral implosion, this ethical decline, will spell a cruel end to our civilization. We mustn't be confused, there is a real threat of death that hails from the fundamentalists of the Middle East, but we are no utopia either. We are strangling ourselves with self-imposed misery. Our society of individual rights and equal opportunity, is the platform necessary for a strong and happy civilization, but alas, without individual morality, without studied and taught ethics we are nothing more than a jungle of beasts disguised as civilized creatures.

One may read into this that I am calling for a socialist movement; that my enemies are the big corporations. This analysis would be dead wrong. I have not the interest in this essay to explore the positive and negative aspects of the many varying social orders, I am merely calling for something much more simple, yet sublime. A return to values. We need to study ethics, teach ethics, live ethics.  Scholars of history today know more than they ever have.We have seen many systems that have tried and failed. We have watched many revolutions against tyranny only gain power and become tyrannies themselves. Who better than we to create a lasting ethical code? One that seeks the best for the individual, whilst not forgetting the whole. One that embodies the morality inherit within each of us. One that is led by rational discourse.

The first step, I believe, is to live by the maxim: "Who is happy? He who is happy with his lot." Once we reestablish the distinction between "want" and "need," once we realize that our survival is not in jeopardy we can climb Maslow's pyramid and begin to focus on actualization, both of the self and society. Once accomplished, I believe humanity without much help, will begin to peek out from their material caves and seek to build a civilization based on values, based on respect and acceptance of the Other, based on ethical imperatives.

This analysis may, of course, be wrong. Consumerism may be not a cause but a symptom of the moral decline. One way or another, these are the discussions we should be having, we need to be having, or nuclear annihilation is not the only thing we should fear.

My Atheistic Faith

Recently, while conversing with a rabbi who is fast becoming a good friend of mine, I was "accused" of being a "man of great faith." The rabbi was of course making an ironic statement that followed our two hour discussion on religion. I advocated for raising children through reason-based ethics, and he, a man who has raised a few very fine children (within religion) told me that I must have a lot of faith if I believe I am going to be able to raise children in this crumbling world, without God.

I appreciated the irony of the statement, but also began to wonder about it's validity. Am I going to be successful in raising godless children to be as ethical and universally-focused as I am? Can reason withstand the roaring waves of emotional complexities that accompany raising children? Obviously, I am not leaning all aspects of child-rearing on cold calculative reasoning. There are no mathematical laws that can help parents raise a youngster. Every child is a vastly different universe sui generis.

However, rationalism in a broader sense, can be a guide. Is not the understanding that every child requires their own unique love and care, a rational discovery? In fact, it is irrational to think otherwise.

Yet without the great Judge in the sky who can see and hear everything, without heaven or hell, how am I to convince my young children to behave before they reach the age of reason? Certainly, even a young child can be frightened into good behavior by a god who is ever-inscribing their good and bad deeds in an eternal rap sheet. Is it possible to raise ethical boys and girls without God, or at the very least, Santa Claus?

The rabbi went further to say that even if a deserter of religion can raise ethical children, it is only because he or she was raised in a religious and therefore, moral environment. It is only a matter of time, the rabbi claimed, before the second or third generations slip into narcissistic indulgence and, in the worst cases, vicious barbarism.

If these observations are in any way accurate (I'm not convinced they are), we must reiterate the question posed above: Can one, without the "policeman in the sky," raise children in such a way that will ensure the continuance of ethical behavior throughout many generations?

Here lies my so-called faith. I do not know whether I can accomplish this feat, yet I am confident enough to try. I may have been raised religious, but I do not believe that religion can take credit for all, of even most, of my ethical behavior. I was raised by religious humanists, who found every Biblical verse they could to bolster the teachings of universal brotherhood, and mankind's responsibility to protect and care for the earths inhabitants. I have met other religiously-raised people who have very shallow characters, and yet others who have used religion to unleash evil unto the world. It then stands that religion is no more than a medium for good people to be inspired towards good, and bad people to strengthen their evil. [As a side note, I once heard a quote from Steven Weinberg which is most befitting to insert here: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion."]

I would rather therefore, place my faith in myself as a future parent, and mankind as a race. Indeed, both I and humanity at large have committed varying evils that have led the cynical to give up on our species. I am yet young, and therefore still retain the hope that man, given the proper tools, can rise above his base animal nature and create a more refined world. I do not believe that man need religion to escape the bounds of self-indulgence, but simply to be educated in the importance of reason-based ethics and morality. Man can transcend himself if taught the proper perception of reality. We may be products of evolutionary natural selection but we are not slaves to it. Indeed, reason is the very tool needed to free ourselves of the shackles of survival of the fittest, where the strong prey on the weak.We can be compassionate to the sick and distraught; we can care for the widow and orphan; we can build societies based on principles of justice and integrity; and we needn't abandon our reason in the process.

It is with such a spirit that I will attempt to raise my children. A daunting task indeed, but alas, a glorious one.

Good Religion vs. Bad Religion

Atheists are frequently charged with the crime of painting with too broad a brush when it comes to religion. As Islam has held a monopoly on cruelty inspired by religion in the recent past, it is said to be unfair to compare Christianity, Judaism and Islam when discussing the problems with faith. This is certainly a valid point. Everyday on the news we hear about the acts carried out by Muslim fundamentalists against Western civilizations and even other Muslims. ISIS is becoming more of a global threat everyday. It is not being dramatic or apocalyptic to say that a great war lurks in our near future that may spell the end of the world.

Judaism and Christianity have been somewhat benign for a long time now, and even though there are, of course, fundamentalists in each of these religions as well, their rare acts of violence, however vile, scrape only the surface of the evil that has been unleashed on the world in recent years in the name of Allah. It would be irresponsible of us to forget this distinction in our discourse regarding religion.

It therefore, is irrational to place all religious faith or dogmatic obedience on the same scale. Clearly, some sacred texts have evolved, at least somewhat to fit the modern world, where others have not. To put it another way, a way I have heard it from religious moderates, there seems to be "good religion" and "bad religion."

Let us examine these two phrases. What does a "good religion" consist of? Does a "good religion" necessarily fit snugly with a 21st century mindset? Does a "good religion" change whenever the moral zeitgeist does? If the answer to this question is yes, I don't see why we even call such a practice "religion" anymore! Perhaps, it is more fitting to call such a religion, a tradition instead. That is, sacred practices observed fervently, unless it conflicts with the morality of the generation.

Certainly many, if not most, religious people would be repulsed by such a description of their faith. They wish to follow the word of God, not distort the word of God to fit pop culture. This type of religious faith is certainly more respectable, but what then, is a "bad religion?"

Do Islamic fundamentalists go against the word of Allah? Do they corrupt the text in order to live lives of temptation? Perhaps some them do, but others are just following the words emblazoned in the book they believe to be the infallible word of the one God. "Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out from the places they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. (Qu'ran 2:190)" These fundamentalists are following the word of God to the letter. Where the "weak-minded" have modernized and changed the texts to better fit into society, these "pious crusaders" are ridding the world of the evil infidels. Can this be called: "bad religion?" Are they not, in principle, acting the same way believers of other faiths do? Are they not simply going according to the text they believe to be sacred? To act any other way would be irreligious, would it not? It would seem that the only difference between religions is that some texts are more hostile to modern society and others less so.

Of course, it can be said that interpretations of these verses vary, and therefore, other Muslims believe such verses to be time-bound, and no longer relevant. This is, of course, what religions like Judaism have done. It is clear, for example, that most religious Jews do not hearken any longer to such commandments as: "If your brother, the son of your mother, or the son of your father, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is like your own soul will entice you secretly saying: 'Let us go and worship the gods of others'...you shall not accede to him and not hearken to him; your eye shall not take pity on him...Rather, you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be the first against him, and the hand of the entire people afterwards." (Deuteronomy, 13:7-10) For reasons of interpretation, the religious Jewish people have abolished such commandments. One would be hard-pressed to find a case of a Jewish man killing his brother for trying to entice him to Buddhism.

It would seem then, that the real distinction is not between good and bad religions, but rather interpretations that are more compatible with Western culture and interpretations that are more dangerous. How is one to know which interpretation of a given verse to follow? Say, for example, a Jew were to kill his brother for trying to convince him to convert to Buddhism, could he not simply cite this verse and explain that his interpretation varies from the norm? Surely the Jewish people would rise up and condemn such an act, but could they say more than that such an interpretation isn't the popular rabbinical one?

Indeed, once we allow ourselves to believe without needing evidence, we have, in a sense, opened the door for religious extremism. This is a harsh statement to make, and it must be read in the spirit in which it was written. Obviously, I am not claiming that all religions are the same, nor am I stupid enough to think all religions pose an equal threat to the continuance of our species. I am merely saying that faith as a principle, belief which "transcends" evidence, is a dangerous and uncertain path from which the human race should distance itself. We should try our best to expel such dogmas from our minds. We must demand evidence before accepting fantastical claims, or we run the very real risk of cultivating men and women who will do as we did -- that is, accept claims without evidence -- with simply, more adverse interpretations. This is a danger every religion, every faith-based dogma, poses to the world at large. To compare religions is certainly unfair and inaccurate, but to point to their common "thinking error" is perhaps the most important thing we can do. Such "thinking errors" are currently plunging parts of our world into a dark abyss, and making large strides towards complete annihilation of the human race.

Meaning in a Meaningless World

Upon leaving religion many people feel a sudden and rather terrifying loss of meaning in their lives. Since almost every religion informs man that he is part (a crucial part) of a divine plan, and that the universe and everything in it was created with him in mind, the very act of breathing for the believer becomes a meaningful one. For the believer, doing a good deed is forever recorded in heaven by an all-seeing Being who is intimately concerned and in love with him. His life is ever-infused with a divine purpose that supersedes this world entirely. Is there any meaning more fulfilling than believing oneself to be an emissary of the one true God?

It is therefore obvious, that someone who ascribed to these beliefs for part of his life will feel a blow to his ego unparalleled when he accepts, however reluctantly, that he is just a creature living a finite life, ever-awaiting the grave which may come at any time. His good deeds seem to lose their grandeur as does the whole of his being. The world begins to look gloomy. He becomes cynical about words like "hope." For a brief time his life may, in his mind, cease to matter.

I experienced these feelings upon the rejection of my childhood faith. I had spent 24 years engulfed in the "reality" of my beliefs, and "knew" that I was destined for greatness. I felt that I was an important part of the divine scheme and would constantly seek to uncover the purpose that I had been fashioned by God to accomplish. I would be lying if I said that it did not cross my mind once or twice that perhaps I was the Messiah. Every action that I carried out, I "knew" was of universal importance. I was mending a world filled with sin, a universe of darkness, and I was helping usher in the new age, the age of redemption.

When I left my faith I was broken. I would take long walks trying to understand life anew. How could the world have no meaning? How could my life have no meaning?

It did not take me too long to discover that it did, in fact, have meaning. Perhaps not the eternal and ultimate meaning I had attributed to my life before, but meaningful my life certainly was. To be there for my loved ones. To give to humanity. To be compassionate and kind. To seek truth relentlessly. To write and teach. To help others with their problems, however, I could. Yes, the meaning in my life was not hard to find once I understood what to look for. Of course, everything listed above can be stripped from me, however unlikely that may be, and therefore, the question arises: Is it worth anything at all?

This question is almost meaningless (pun intended) for it would be difficult to find a person who has no meaning to live for. He may not be aware of the meaning of his existence, as many of us are not, but he cannot say with certainty that his existence is futile.

Does life itself have meaning? Well no, but our subjective meaning should not be effected by this conclusion. In fact, we should realize how important it is for us to find meaning in our lives, for no one will do it for us. We must actively create the meaning in our lives. For some, spending their every waking moment reciting the words of a prayer book is meaningful. For others it is pushing the boundaries of the universe through scientific discovery. For yet others, it is creating something that will outlast them. To find, or rather create meaning, in my opinion, is the key to unlock what, for lack of a better word, can be called: Happiness.

Happiness may be a difficult word to define, as most words describing emotions are, but mankind has been relentlessly seeking it since the beginning of time. If we were to do a poll of people who claimed to be genuinely happy, I would be willing to bet, that the majority of them would quickly be able to define the meaning in their lives. The two are inseparable. I believe the sadness that so permeates many people, is due, at least in part, to a misunderstanding of the linkage between these two concepts. If we are going to be happy, we must have meaning.

Meaning need not be eternal nor of universal importance for it to matter. Subjective, finite meaning may be all we have, but it is more than enough. For the fact that something ends, does not rid it of it's potential meaning. How foolish is man who worries about the grave, whilst life passes him by! Though this is a common human failing which leads inevitably to despair, it can be rectified by simply being aware of life, and the meaning which you have cultivated within it. The pursuit should therefore be not of happiness, but of meaning.

If this is the only life we get, if we will all end up in the grave and be gone forever, should happiness not be the only goal of man? However, as I have presented here, happiness is not to be found without having meaning in one's life. The question of how to find meaning in a otherwise meaningless world deserves an essay of it's own, one I hope to write in the near future. I only wish to present here the importance of understanding that even though we may only live once, your life can have meaning. I also hoped to present the unbreakable connection between both meaning and happiness.

However, fleeting life may be, it can be meaningful, and we can be happy.

Religion Answers the "How" Questions

It is oft said that where science answers the "how" questions, religion answers the "why." Put another way, whereas how the world came to be, may eventually be answered, so to speak, in the laboratory, the question of why the world came to be, is one that is to be answered in a house of worship. Religious moderates will cite this as an attempt to show the equal importance of science and religion, as well as there compatibility. 

Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" chastises this way of thinking: 

"It is a tedious cliché (and, unlike many clichés, it isn't even true) that science concerns itself with the how questions, but only theology is equipped to answer why questions. What on Earth is a why question? Not every English sentence beginning with the word 'why' is a legitimate question. Why are unicorns hollow? Some questions simply do not deserve an answer." 

When I first read these words, I remember being swept away by their objective and rational precision. It was true, after all, that some questions are so outlandish that to answer them insults the person who wasted the time. Yet, are the "why" questions religion claims to answer as ridiculous as such questions as: Why are unicorns hollow? Does inquiring into the purpose of existence, seeking the meaning behind the universe constitute a question undeserving of an answer? In a completely rational sense, yes, these questions are as strange and irrelevant as to inquire into the nature of a unicorn's biology. Perhaps, they are unworthy of answering if we are judging questions by their practical applicability. 

However, as I once heard from Martin S. Jaffee, a recently retired Professor at the University of Washington who spent the majority of his career studying and teaching Judaism and comparative religion, "These questions are important because people are asking them." 

Jaffee was telling me that whether or not these questions are answerable, whether or not the answers religions have provided are true, we must address the fact that man, unlike any other species that we know of, has been asking these questions for centuries. These questions, therefore, are real, and of utmost importance. Yet, we must ask: Can they really be accurately answered?

Dawkins seems to preempt this challenge and closes the paragraph quoted above with: "Nor, even if the question is a real one, does the fact that science cannot answer it imply that religion can." This, in my opinion, is a far more accurate objection to religion's "how/why" sentiment. 

Let us, for a moment, accept that perhaps religion is capable of answering the seemingly unanswerable "why"questions of man. Is that really all religion attempts to do? Is the Bible really just a moral guide making no claims as to the nature of the world? 

Upon brief reflection, or rather upon glancing at the very first verse in Genesis, one will discover the fallacy of such a statement. Genesis 1:1 begins with the "fact" that: "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth." Is this not a claim as to the nature of the universe? Whether God exists or not is a fact, perhaps an impossible one to prove in any scientific sense of the word, but it is, or is not, a fact. Whether or not such a Being created the earth and is constantly attentive to it, is yet another fact, or not, about the world. 

The Bible recounts many times that the Divine Hand intervened with the natural course of events. God allegedly caused water to turn to blood, hail to come crashing onto the Egyptians property, and all the Egyptian firstborns to simultaneously fall over dead. Not to mention perhaps the most glamorous of all the miracles, that of the splitting of the sea. Where, according to the Bible, the Israelites marched through the raging sea on dry land. These were but a few miracles of the plethora found in the biblical narrative of the Exodus. Are these not meant to be read as accurate accounts of history? Are we to read these supernatural events as mere metaphors? 

It may be impossible to answer any of the "why" questions without making certain "how" claims, but that does not justify making claims about the universe without evidence. Therefore, if religion truly wants to answer the "why" it may have to either admit it's rejection of science, or be quiet. 

It would seem that up until science destroyed the "scientific" claims made by the Bible, religion was able to claim to know the "how" of the universe as well. Once science advanced to a point able to challenge the origins of the world, as well as it's age, religious moderates were forced (reluctantly in some cases) to resort to religion's comforting values. Though science has answered, or is in hot pursuit of answering the "how" of the entire world, religion will always be able to comfort man's searching soul with the "why" answers. This, religion claims, was always their intention. 

Science of course, will not be able to take away these "powers" from religion, for science does not, nor will it ever, pretend to know the unknowable. As of now however, science has shown that chances are, there isn't a "why" to be worried about. Though this conclusion, if it is indeed true, is uncomfortable and will leave the contemplative rather disappointed, there is some good to be found in it. Mankind can stop worrying about why we are here, and instead focus on the fact that we are, and get to planning what we should do about it.
    
The point is, whether or not religion is comforting to the "why" questions that so plague humanity, we need to face the reality that religion was not meant to simply answer such questions, but attempted at answering the "how" questions as well. Lucky for mankind, science broke through these answers and found them to be what they are: primitive guesses made by men who were collectively more ignorant about the universe than a child in the grade school today. 

That religion was only meant to answer the "why" questions is a thinly veiled attempt to distract from the fact that for centuries they had professed absolute knowledge of the "how" questions, as well. They were effectively, through openminded inquiry, proven to be utterly mistaken. The Bible is an attempt of man to understand the earth (which was thought then to be flat). Today, ancient poorly-educated guesses should be considered for nothing more than an accurate account of how man thought before he knew basically anything about the universe.