Paper Edition | Page: 8
June 28, p. 7
As a person who believes in science and scientific endeavors rather than dogmas, the logical consequence for me is to become an atheist. For a humanist, being an atheist should come as a natural complement my beliefs. Many famous atheists are humanists and vice versa, such as Jeremy Bentham, Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, Hellen Keller, Ayn Rand, Hannah Arendt, Pablo Neruda, Mark Twain, Virginia Woolf, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Julian Assange.
For some reason, I have failed as an atheist. Now, I have accepted that I am a believer in God, or an agnostic, if we want to label it with a name. It is possible that my right parietal lobe of the brain is not that active, or there is a list of complex and intertwined reasons on why I still believe in God.
In my search to accepting atheism, I came across “wounded theists”, in addition to atheists who believe more in evolution, natural selection or intellectual design. Richard Dawkins, for instance, a new atheist who is actually a wounded theist — someone who is greatly disappointed with God. (By Jennie S Bev, San Francisco)
This article is entertaining. However, the author, Jennie Bev, mistakenly included Helen Keller in her list of famous atheists. Deaf, blind and mute Helen Keller (1880-1968) was a Swedenborgian, a religion founded by Methodist preachers in England in the late 18th century and “exported” to the US.
Emanuel Swedenborg was an 18th century theologian who wrote extensively about the hereafter. Helen Keller wrote My Religion (1927), which was later published under the title Light in My Darkness.
A (Muslim) Sufi once said: “When the secret of an ‘atom-of-the-atoms’ becomes clear, then the secret of all created things will be clear, and then you will see God.”
I say that when you cease to dream, you cease to live. Therefore, hope, as Jennie Bev ended her article, is God.
If I went on a rant about how horrible Voldemort is, would you assume that I’m angry with him, that he’s hurt my feelings, or that he’s disappointed me? Of course not!
Why then, do you assume that Dawkins is angry with God when he is simply making a valid observation about a character in a book?
Sure, there are people who do nice things because they think that God wants them to, but something tells me that they would be doing nice things anyway.
According to the writer, being a “true atheist” means you can see these beautiful things, and because Richard Dawkins can’t see the beauty of the world, he is a “wounded theist”.
There are no “true atheists” or “fake atheists” or “wounded theist”. Atheists are simply people who don’t believe in supernatural beings known as God(s). Atheists do have “hope”.
Changing the meaning of God into “hope” is curious. This is basically what the writer says: God is hope. Atheists don’t believe in God, and therefore atheists don’t have hope. That’s just a twisting of words.
OK, for a start, Richard Dawkins can hardly be disappointed with a god he doesn’t believe exists. And neither can his observations about the God of the Old Testament be hurtful ... who would they hurt?
The opening statement of this article implies that brain damage facilitates a belief in an otherwise incredible supernatural being.
That explains a lot. Also, just because some humans behave in a loving and altruistic manner doesn’t mean that the God story has any influence on their behavior.