The New Republic

"Which of them is right? That is perhaps the most pressing human question..." Or perhaps not. The God question is pressing only if you're a believer, and by 'believer' I mean one who is of a believing turn of mind whether you're a Christian or a riled-up atheist like Hitchens. For more easy-going atheists, among whose number I count myself, the question as to which path leads towards metaphysical truth is hardly pressing at all. It's more like a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, I think philosophy is deadly important; it's just that among the philosophical problems to which one can devote himself, the God problem seems perhaps the LEAST pressing. I'm much more concerned about what constitutes a just distribution of wealth or what the proper relationship of human beings to the natural environment should be or, thinking of Mr. Hitchens, what constitutes a good death. Leave God to the religious and let's get on with the business of life in the here and now.

- AaronW

August 11, 2010 at 8:03am

Interesting idea: that true faith is discernible only at times of contentment or only at times of extreme distress. For the Christian, it is only through God's grace and redemption that one obtains salvation, so it's not surprising that deathbed conversions to faith would be idealized. Indeed, it's in the instant of passing from this life to the next that determines one's true faith and salvation. [The corrollary, which non-Christians (and many Christians) find puzzling, is that a lifetime of good works does not guarantee salvation.] What Linker doesn't get right, but Levi does, is that prayer for one to be spared from suffering and death isn't true faith at all, for it is the true (Christian) believer who welcomes death. Indeed, Levi shows his faith by refusing to pray that he be spared from the gas chamber and another substituted in his place.

- rayward

August 11, 2010 at 8:04am

It is not unChristian to ask God to spare us from suffering; it is unChristian to reject God if He does not grant us our prayer.

- timteeter

August 11, 2010 at 8:49am

Oh, and another thing, I just watched the Anderson Cooper interview, and I wouldn't have said he was "vapid" at all. He's a fat target with a demeanor that puts one in mind of a bright but callow law student at some lower first-tier school like Duke or UVA, but in his session with Hitchens, Cooper asked detailed, probing questions that drew Hitch out quite nicely on the subject of his cancer and his mother's suicide. Granted, it doesn't take much effort to get Christopher Hitchens to hold forth pungently on himself, the subject that interests him most, but you can't slag off on Cooper just because his task was an easy one. He was still at risk of making a botch of it, and he didn't. He understood most of what Hitchens was saying to him, and he got him to clarify the few points that he missed. If Cooper was truly vapid every word of it would have gone straight over his head.

- AaronW

August 11, 2010 at 8:50am

"Levi shows his faith by refusing to pray that he be spared from the gas chamber..." Huh? His faith in what? He refused to pray because he understood it to be pointless--"absurd" is the word he uses--and because resort to prayer in such a moment of extremity would constitute an insult--"blasphemous"--towards that in which he did believe, this is in the concrete and the finite. Maybe I'm misreading you and you're using "faith" in the same lose way in which Levi applies religious terms such as "impiety" towards his own non-religion, but it rather seems to me that you're imputing to Levi some sort of Christian faith. If so, this would be wrong on so many levels as to take one's breath away.

- AaronW

August 11, 2010 at 9:06am

I think Linker is quite correct -- though there are many varieties of believers and non-believers, it seems likely to me that a common difference between these two groups of people must be a sense of power and pride in the one camp and a sense of weakness and guilt in the other. Of course, I do not mean to suggest there are no proud believers, nor that atheists are incapable of humility. But I do think it takes some pride and a sense of power, as well as a good bit of courage, to be comfortable seeing this life as having a clear and final end, its outcomes those of our own making, and this world as a place of wonders but not of miracles. Being a non-believer in a family and community of faithful and religious people, I give this subject some thought now and then. I'd like to understand better why some people - most people - profess to believe. I agree with AaronW that the metaphysical stuff is not worth our time to consider, but given the impact of religion in our politics and culture, and in world affairs, it seems to me that we would all be better off if people understood the nature of belief. Neil

- purcellneil

August 11, 2010 at 9:22am

It seems to me the discussion of deathbead conversion invokes Pascal's wager. Suppose God exists (a very defensible proposition) and that belief in Him determines one's fate in the afterlife (a very dubious proposition, but a proposition with a petigree). The converting on your deathbed costs you nothing and may save your soul. By contrast, refusing to convert may cost you everything and, if your disbelief is right, gains you nothing as you slide into nonbeing anyway. What kind of "integrity" is it that (a) does nobody else any good; (b) costs you potentially everything; and (c) gains you nothing? Granted that the odds against the worst case scenario being true are enormous, so what? Infinity times anything is infinity.

- JohnEMack

August 11, 2010 at 9:45am

Far more reliable are the sober, critical reflections of a man in good health, protected from danger, insulated from threats to his well being. Isn't that more like insulated from reality? You are aware, I take it, of the story of Buddha whose father raised him in as pampered a way as possible, which only made him incredibly ignorant and not sober and critical. As to Hitchens, love that ego that he has to forswear any future actions he might do as though any additional knowledge or understanding is impossible, that he already holds the truth to all of existence. I have found his raging egomania tiring for years, and I avoid him whenever possible. I don't know why his dying has to be part of the circus. Luckily, this is likely the last time I have to read about him until his obit. With 7 billion people in the world there is no way I am going to be sentimental about a man I can't stand. And I simply can not understand why an atheist would be embarrassed by making a prayer in an extreme situation. After all it is private so no one can hold it over you, and what do you have to lose?

- blackton

August 11, 2010 at 9:47am

"And I simply can not understand why an atheist would be embarrassed by making a prayer in an extreme situation. After all it is private so no one can hold it over you, and what do you have to lose?" Blackton, if you're referring to Levi's comment and not just pondering a general curiosity, he used the word 'ashamed', which I think captures a different emotion. Shame is something that I think all of us are capable of without witnesses. I think he answered your question in the preceding sentence: "A prayer under these conditions would have been not only absurd (what rights could I claim? and from whom?) but blasphemous, obscene, laden with the greatest impiety of which a nonbeliever is capable." You may feel this isn't something worth feeling shame over, but it's not hard to understand Levi's perspective given the rigorous intellectual standards he set for himself. And I couldn't disagree more with your characterization of a man in good health, protected from danger and insulated from threats to his well being as being insulated from reality. Those conditions may be rare or fleeting, but it doesn't mean the person experiencing them is unaware of the variety of existence. In fact, it comes off as a desparate attempt to deny the validity of anything associated with Hitchens to take issue with his claim that men do their best critical thinking while not under extreme duress. Otherwise, how do you account for the fact that it is a generally accepted method that jurors are not selected from the family of the victims and that we try to avoid them being put under threat of death from the accused? The same reasoning behind that practice is behind the claims of Levi and Hitchens.

- Fishpeddler

August 11, 2010 at 10:23am

Ok fish, even in that situation of Levi, I simply can't believe that he had anything remotely to feel ashamed about. Stealing from your grandmother and getting away with it might make someone feel shame. Making a deal with what you believe to be a non entity? Let us say he has a highly fine tuned sense of shame. And where is the blasphemy, obscenity, or impiety? Does he really imagine God to be so petty? This concept of God that both believers and non believers have I find to be so silly. As to the nature of existence, of God, the Universe, and everything, sober or not, in good health or not I have never believed we have known more than a shadow of the shadow. On such questions I find greater insight coming from people not in this insulated state. What you are describing is a condition that normally leads to happiness, so when most people are happy they find no need to ponder such questions, and those that do are not happy and are looking for an excuse for their unhappiness. This is about as far a cry from jury duty as I can imagine. This is a conceit, I doubt if we were to impanel 12 people to decide the existence or non existence of God that you would find their verdict definitive.

- blackton

August 11, 2010 at 11:54am

"Indeed, Levi shows his faith by refusing to pray that he be spared from the gas chamber and another substituted in his place." It's refusing to pray that another be substituted for him in the gas chamber that shows his faith (unwittingly, perhaps), not his refusing to pray that he be spared, and distinguishes Levi from today's pious true believers. Levi shows his faith, but not Christian faith (how could he, not being a Christian). That one is devoted to a humane life, even while in extreme distress, has more meaning in matters of faith than praying for a better-paying job. In the Christian context, believing as surpassing doing is Paul's legacy, but it does not alter the the second instruction of Jesus to "love thy neighbor as thyself", which is eactly what Levi did in refusing to pray that another be substituted for him in the gas chamber.

- rayward

August 11, 2010 at 12:08pm

purcellneil: "Being a non-believer in a family and community of faithful and religious people, I give this subject some thought now and then. I'd like to understand better why some people - most people - profess to believe." Neil, As a decided non-believer married to someone who clearly needs to believe, and frankly to "practice" faith, I wonder the same thing very often. The one distinction I have been able to discern - and I think it's related to your "sense of power" argument - is that believers need to live in a world where the human experience, and their lives, are cosmically significant. Some seek higher authorities in the cosmos to get this cosmic significance (Judeo-Christian and Islam), some seek it in meditation (Buddhist, e.g.). Non-believers lack this need. The importance of self and humanity to most non-believers comes from the fact that we are human, and are inherently responsible for our own success both as individuals in groups and as a species. No larger authority is going to guide us - we have to figure this out.

- IowaBeauty

August 11, 2010 at 12:27pm

Oh Lordy. I line up with Blackton for the larger part. "The importance of self and humanity to most non-believers comes from the fact that we are human, and are inherently responsible for our own success both as individuals in groups and as a species." It is good to allow that you are creatures of the cosmos. I just wanted to kick in a place holder for future kicks as time allows.

- jacko

August 11, 2010 at 12:39pm

"Oh Lordy. I line up with Blackton for the larger part." Quick amendment.... I have a soft spot for the cantankerous Mr. Hitchens even though I think his evangelical atheist forays are half baked and common.

- jacko

August 11, 2010 at 12:48pm

"Ok fish, even in that situation of Levi, I simply can't believe that he had anything remotely to feel ashamed about. Stealing from your grandmother and getting away with it might make someone feel shame. Making a deal with what you believe to be a non entity? Let us say he has a highly fine tuned sense of shame. And where is the blasphemy, obscenity, or impiety? Does he really imagine God to be so petty? This concept of God that both believers and non believers have I find to be so silly." He will have allowed his fears to overwhelm his faculties, and thus would have sacrificed something precious of himself for selfish, immediate reasons. He would have allowed the Nazis to turn him into someone else -- to not only capture his body but capture his soul, or, if you prefer, mind, as well. With his body at the mercy of the Nazis, his soul is all he has left. What a shame to give that up too. As for your "petty" God, in order not to be petty, He should require no prayer at all nor any sort of profession of belief, sincere or otherwise, when He has refused to validate it with any reliable indication. In the Old Testament, God and people conversed. If only He would have continued the conversation! Indeed, any God that permits infinite punishment is extremely petty, and cruel besides, and the fate of Levi's soul for all eternity should not turn on whether he made himself a sniveling supplicant without adequate rational justification, including the small detail about whether the king is even there, during life. As for Pascal's wager, it doesn't work. Faith based on a pragmatic caclulcation is not the sincere faith of a true believer, and there's no way of knowing whether God would indeed find such a pragmatic or desperate last-minute profession of faith to be the greater insult. There's no way to know whether God would in fact prefer Levi's conduct -- his "stoicism," etc. -- even if it's misguided on the facts. Because we can't assign values to these possibilities, which are perfectly plausible, the wager falls apart as a win-win. Because we haven't the first clue about what any god could possibly want or do to us, there's no conduct or omission whatsover that doesn't stand a chance of incurring His wrath, and no way to guard against it. Any suggestions to the contrary rely on knowledge that nobody has.

- JakeH

August 11, 2010 at 1:41pm

The imminently and painfully dying are not the only people who come to have the need to look for a life boat (literally), a parachute, a reset button, or anything else that would reverse the law of entropy of the universe as man has come to understand it. And every sentient being regardless of his level of scientific understanding has to ultimately confront the irreversible nature of his instant situation or condition; and, the impossibility of the reset of those conditions to a state of greater entropy (a prior, past state) along a particular world/time line. Not only the imminently dying discovered a need for the reset button. Young men imprisoned in America’s prison systems have come to have such a need a well. As they approach early middle age (35 – 45 years old) usually having been incarcerated since they were between 17 – 20 years old and have exhausted all possible means of legal appeal, they have come to realize what society really meant when, at 18 to 20 years old, they accepted a life sentence for a drug gang execution they performed (some fifteen or so years earlier). With the true monotony of life they are leading before them every day, and the observation of men 20 – 25 years their senior (who are also lifers) also before them every day, they go desperately looking for a reset button. They go looking for something that will essentially opt them out of the continuum of their existence and allow them to no longer exist along the time line in which they irreversibly find themselves. So they have this great burst of religiosity amongst them. Traditional religions, exotic religions, any religions, all attempts to bargain with a believed to exist Someone, who, having undefined implied and inferred powers, is asked to employ those powers not just to free them from their present confinement (though that is the first tangible request), but also to do the clearly miracle and impossible, to reset and undo the totality of their existence, as it has accumulated itself to be. This is a second and underlying search, to redo the done, to have back that pitch that Reggie Jackson hit for his second home run in the World Series, or to take back that bad Umpire’s call in the 2010 baseball season that clearly robbed a deserving Pitcher of the fame of having a “perfect” major league game. I think one of those lifers said it best, he said: “…Religion does not exist to do anything. Not the least of all to do anything for a particular individual in a particular situation. Religion should be divorced from Receipt business. It is not a formula (do this, say these words, believe these things, all of that)...” Religion is an empirical attempt by man to understand the world, no more no less, and it does not exist to fulfill man’s needs or objectives. It may be enjoyable or not, useful or not, but it is not a prescription from a pharmacy, that man can, or should, turn to deal with his needs, desires, or to “fix” or “reset” the total sum of his/her life. Its acceptance or rejection by men, be they the Pope or Christopher Hitchens, in the end matters not at all to it. Just as the General Theory of Relativity does not alter what the sun, moon, black holes, or the velocity of light did, does, or will do in the universe.

- 12alainu

August 11, 2010 at 1:47pm

a person can say a prayer without it being a prayer to god. "May I have the inner strength to . . . "

- agreensfel

August 11, 2010 at 2:02pm

Actually, from a biological viewpoint, what you all are really debating is genetic variation. As for many other examples of phenotypic variation (e.g., homosexual/heterosexual continuum, I.Q, or introvert/extrovert continuum), the belief in supernatural forces is in part (often large part) genetically determined by exactly what combination of multi-locus "God-fearing" genes you have inherited. The other part of the variation determinant of phenotype is environment/experience. In the US, that is most commonly some Christian sect or tribe.

- drofnats1

August 11, 2010 at 3:14pm

Hitchens had this in common with Tony Judt: (also a self imortant stricken intellectual) they both changed course a hundred an eighty degrees in the middle of their career and made it seem as if nothing had changed. They were as cocksure about their news views as they had been about discarded ones.

- jdyer

August 11, 2010 at 4:08pm

IowaBeauty: I think you make a good point -- the importance of a meaning to our lives, and the cosmic significance of one's existence, are probably the drivers for some people. For myself, the meaning in life is found in human relationships, in the utilization of my mind and senses to appreciate the world around me, the music and literature and other pleasures of human culture, my contributions (however humble) to the lives of others, the opportunity to live a life that I find satisfying in many ways -- this is where I find meaning and significance. When I am gone, I hope that some memories of me, some feeling of appreciation for who I was, will linger in the minds of those who meant something to me while I lived. That is all the cosmic significance I hope for. A concept of eternal life in the presence of a deity seems absurd to me, and as far from the source of meaning in my life as I could imagine. And, I wish Hitchens well. Neil

- purcellneil

August 11, 2010 at 5:17pm

I have a lingering sense that this post, though articulate and interesting, is comparing apples to oranges -- in a revealing way. The atheist, such as Hitchens, believes that "a person’s capacity to determine the truth depends on his or her ability to think calmly, coolly, dispassionately." The religious person, on the other hand, believes that "we are fundamentally weak and needy creatures, [t]hat we are anxious animals, longing for someone or something to soothe us, to protect us from and relieve us of our worries." But, does it make sense to say "on the other hand"? The first two propositions are not contradictory. A person's capacity to determine the truth of the matter may depend on one's dispassionate analysis -- which is how we all normally determine most questions of fact -- while at the same time we may be accurately described as weak and needy and desirous of comfort, such as that which religion provides. I doubt that any atheist would deny that humans are religious because they seek comfort. They would merely point out that wishing doesn't make it so. Meanwhile, do religious people believe that truth is best determined in a crisis? Linker doesn't say so, and I don't hear religious people say so either. Religious people aren't characterized by their assertion of the "deeper truth" of human weakness, which atheists would acknowledge (perhaps pointing to religion as Exhibit A). Rather, religious people are asserting the supposed deeper truth of the actual substance of their beliefs -- e.g., there is a god, he wants x, this is what happens when you die, and so on -- and *that* is what atheists dispute. According to Linker, the "critique of pride comes in" when atheists "deny the fact of their frailty, deluding themselves into believing in their self-sufficiency." I have trouble understanding what this means exactly. How do atheists deny their frailty? Do they claim to be able to live forever? No, that would be the other guys. How do they believe in their self-sufficiency? Do they claim to hold answers to unanswered or unanswerable questions? No, that would be the other guys. The main difference is not that believers see humans as weak and atheists see them as strong. Humans are humans, both weak and strong, depending on what scale you're using and what context you're examining and what mood you're in. At times, we see humans as Macbeth sees them -- idiots, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. At other times, we see them as Hamlet describes them -- a wondrous piece of work, noble in reason, infinite in faculites, in form and moving express and admirable, in action like an angel, and in apprehension like a god. No, the main difference is that believers, confronted with human weakness and uncertainty, fill in the distressing blanks with hokum to make them feel better, and atheists resist that temptation. Does that make them especially proud? Believers are proud of their hokum, and would view a valiant display of integrity in the midst of crisis -- say, a refusal to submit to a forced conversion or renunciation of their faith that would cost nothing concrete -- as admirable indeed. I might even find it admirable, as one can admire integrity and sincere conviction even if one disagrees on the substance. Is this what Linker means by "self-sufficiency"? Atheists say that they don't need hokum. Does Linker resent this? I'm reminded of a past post of his in which he said that he wished that atheists expressed greater anguish. Many atheists don't seem to be so affected, and I pointed out that they're under no obligation to express anguish that they simply don't share. I get the sense that this drives Linker nuts. Why *aren't* you anguished? he seems to say. Don't you realize the implications of what you're saying? Don't you share the "horror of obliteration"? Who are you not to be afraid of death? You think you're better than me, asshole? But this is all kind of silly, and hardly one of the "most pressing human questions."

- JakeH

August 11, 2010 at 5:52pm

Hitchens has been an interesting writer and interviewee for years. God Bless Him

- OscarPeck

August 11, 2010 at 6:15pm

purcellneil, I see no contradiction between your description and mine.

- IowaBeauty

August 11, 2010 at 6:25pm

This reminds me of the quote: " 'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheists; it's an argument against *foxholes*". The meaning being that, the foxhole engenders a sense of desperation and fear within which humans cannot be relied upon to make thoughtful decisions. Instead, they're grasping at anything which they think will help. The same seems to be true for Hitchens. Any deathbed conversion, like the article says, would be from a brain consumed by cancer and a body ravaged by pain.

- jemenake

August 11, 2010 at 6:29pm

From a biological viewpoint, the god (supernatural)-needing genetic varients are equally satisfied by Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Taoist, Animalistic, Wicchan, ESP, etc., religions/beliefs. Each of which often advocates their own sect is pushing the one-and-only truth.

- drofnats1

August 11, 2010 at 6:38pm

JakeH nails some very important points. I have been long mystified by the perception of believers that, as a non-believer (I hate the word atheist, although it fits, because it's been so co-opted by evengelical atheists, whom I generally dislike), I am arrogant and lack humility. Yet they claim immortality, cosmic-centrality, irreducible and unarguable truths. I claim none of these things. I do have a fair bit of confident in my own and human abilities, but I recognize their limits. I know that the universe is filled with elements vastly more powerful than anything humans command, which could wipe us away in a flash with no more impact on the cosmos as a whole than my breaking a blade of grass when I walk out at night to see the stars has on my farm as a whole. I don't lose sleep over what we can't control, but rather choose to focus on what we can do to make our existence on earth better - more "humane" for all concerned.

- IowaBeauty

August 11, 2010 at 6:59pm

"Oh, Lordy." ...lol

- Tgossard

August 11, 2010 at 7:23pm

From my perspective, a lot of good points argued here. For myself, an unhindered desire - zeal, really - for expanded and/or clarified experience is a hallmark of living human. I am an unabashed subjectivist. I admit to being incapable, despite my best efforts to date, to be objective about matters. Perhaps it is that I believe there is no difference between what I observe and ponder and what and who I am. Experience is continuous and open, objectivity regarding experience is a tool to sharpen one's sense(s) to experience/existence. Animals, it seems all forms of life, struggle mightily to survive, to prolong their existence. Why? I suppose it might be that all life fears death, but I think that is simplistic and arrogant to assume. I believe life on its own terms is damn well worth living to the nth, and life struggles to continue to exist in order to obtain, longer, therefore added, experience of living, to use and profit from for one's own ends (and another's). I admire Levi for his rigorous refusal to lapse into sentimentality and regret his hard-won experience of life. In other words, he refuses to cave into the sentiment that there is something, anything, beyond the present moment, to hope for and pray for. Also, he rejects the idea that suffering might bring about a change in himself that would...what?? No. If there is God, let God accept him exactly as he is without gratuitous obeisances and promises to "be good" in the future. If there is no God, then what is the point, it's a waste of precious time and energy that would better be spent being present moment by moment for what comes. Including death. I'm an unabashed believer. I may be a fool. Really. But I don't think so and I don't expect so. God is truly good and that is unchanging and eternal. I believe that in the face of suffering, in times of fullness and lack. I struggle to hold to my belief because I think it is well worthwhile. If I should abandon my faith, it would be to surrender my experience to an imagined contradiction of it, and frankly that would be silly. I don't attempt to push my belief on anyone else because I think that is small and boring, besides. Other people's experiences are at least as interesting to me as my own. Same for beliefs. Is life a test, graded on a bell curve, points to those who get it right and from those who don't. To me that is stupid, puerile, laughable. Life is a wonderful mystery and I am a mystery. What I believe, too, is a mystery, and how and why I believe it also a mystery. God is mysterious, among the best (and most honest) of claims. If you aren't interested, to me that is a mystery too, one I would like to know more about. I don't know what to think about Hitchens most of the time. He seems a most complicated and troubled individual, whatever it is he troubles about. I think he is interesting to read and consider, at other times he is a raving bore. Sometimes I'm amused, sometimes annoyed, but I don't really fear the man. I imagine he might be quite a gentleman, and he is certainly an interesting conversationalist.

- Tgossard

August 11, 2010 at 8:05pm

Linker sets up a false choice in the final paragraphs. All of this: "That we are anxious animals, longing for someone or something to soothe us, to protect us from and relieve us of our worries. That we greedily crave good things for ourselves—many of which (fame, fortune, honor, glory) only the luckiest will ever acquire, and some of which (happiness unmixed with sorrow) no one will ever enjoy within the limits of our finite lives." I would assent to without reservation. But my response to those truths is not to: "[offer] up [my] existential anguish as prayers, opening themselves up to the possible existence of a providential divinity who will answer those prayers and grant salvation from the horror of obliteration." The latter simply does not follow from the former. I live with my existential anguish as best I can, but even on my worst days I feel no compulsion to believe in supernatural nonsense.

- santoast

August 11, 2010 at 8:26pm

Yes, santoast, well said. Linker is being slippery here, which is what I was trying to get at too.

- JakeH

August 11, 2010 at 8:37pm

@JakeH: I enjoyed your final paragraph immensely. So much of what Linker and the rest of the god-botherers seem to be expressing is a sense of insecurity and befuddlement in the presence of those who refuse to take the blue pill, as it were.

- santoast

August 11, 2010 at 8:57pm

No valid argument for God can come from our intense desire that he exists. I know I'm going to die even though I hate the fact. There are other arguments for God, and even if those are shown to be flawed, most of them are not so childish as the argument from deathbed conversions.

- MICRM

August 11, 2010 at 9:38pm

jemenake quotes "There are no atheists in foxholes." I often wondered about myself until I had the awful (awe-filled) experience of being in a fatal auto accident. I was completely conscious during the (subjectively very long) second or two between the initial impact from a speeding car and the second impact with the car behind me. As the driver, I had great fear that I might have been responsible for the probable injury and possible death of my 3 passengers (two of whom did die). I realized that I had survived the initial impact. My great surprise on later reflection was that it never occurred to me to worry that this might be my last second on earth. (I was knocked unconscious when my head hit the window on the second impact.) Although there are other possibilities, I choose to believe that my lack of belief in an afterlife saved me from Hamlet-like fears. So I now claim to be evidence that one can remain a atheist even in a foxhole situation. I also consider myself to be a "re-born" atheist. The experience of the accident led me to review my entire life and embrace the world in a new and more intimate way that certainly has some parallels to the experience of born-again evangelicals.

- BobElgin

August 11, 2010 at 10:09pm

In a way, both camps have a point. For me, the rationalists are correct that we are at our best when we can think and investigate clearly. But the religionists are correct that there is more to our mentation than reason and calm investigation. Much more. Some believe that the neocortex (the seat of reason in humans) is but a thin veneer on top of an ancient, and powerful, visceral/emotional system: the brain stem and the Limbic system. So it is true that: "That we are fundamentally weak and needy creatures. That we are anxious animals, longing for someone or something to soothe us, to protect us from and relieve us of our worries. That we greedily crave good things for ourselves—many of which (fame, fortune, honor, glory) only the luckiest will ever acquire, and some of which (happiness unmixed with sorrow) no one will ever enjoy within the limits of our finite lives." But Levi, Hitchens, and rationalists and scientists more generally know this, though they may despise the fact. But in the end, fear of death, and the concomitant desire for a savior, prove nothing about the existence of a metaphysical being (who might save us or not, who really knows?). Linker's conservative friend is logically and empirically incorrect. But he has correctly emphasized a side of human nature that may make some rationalists uncomfortable...

- dkremler

August 11, 2010 at 11:34pm

JakeH: "No, the main difference is that believers, confronted with human weakness and uncertainty, fill in the distressing blanks with hokum to make them feel better, and atheists resist that temptation." That, certainly, is the assumption. No one knows, fully and finally, whether God exists or is as anyone believes. If the atheist presumes to know beyond doubt, (s)he is a fool. Ultimately the atheist must believe something; or, believes the question is pointless or unimportant.

- Tgossard

August 12, 2010 at 1:01am

No atheists in foxholes, eh? I find it amusing that that old canard should be repeated after an essay in which not one, but two strong counterexamples are presented. Primo Levi was in a large, devilishly organized foxhole called Auschwitz, and unless we are to call him a liar, then we must accept that he remained an atheist.

- AaronW

August 12, 2010 at 1:49am

Hey, Tom What's happnin? Long time no.... I'm feeling a bit pregnant these days thus somewhat hesitant to credit the ultrasound as an acceptable descriptor of my alchemical infant in waiting. Have you seen " Inception" ? I'd love to explore the inspiration with Mr. Nolan. What ever the case, the work is profound in many ways. And so turn the page. Good to 'see' you and Summum Bonum my man. Jack

- jacko

August 12, 2010 at 9:18am

Tgossard, the atheist does *not* presume to know beyond doubt. Rather, the atheist regards God as a dubious proposition that people made up, like any other fantastical fiction that we would ordinarily dismiss without any handwringing. Ultimately the atheist, with respect to God, believes in doubt and is mainly opposed to its opposite, faith -- unjustified belief -- which gets people in intellectual trouble and sometimes worse. Intellectually, atheists do regard the question of God's existence as pointless and unimportant, like the question of undetectable unicorns' existence -- a matter for, at most, idle speculation that by its nature is not susceptible to rational inquiry. They get exercised because others take it seriously and address it poorly, which is annoying enough as atheists are big on empirical truth and reasoned analysis, and then proceed to make bad decisions based on their faulty analysis that hurt others, which is intolerable. If you mean to suggest that atheists fill in the blanks too, that may be, except that they're generally careful not to fill them in with baseless assertions about objective reality (i.e., "hokum"), which is the main difference between them on the one hand and believers on the other.

- JakeH

August 12, 2010 at 12:14pm

JakeH. If you were to contend that anthropomorphism has its limitations we would be in complete agreement. Of course we would then find ourselves intersecting with many believers on that score. By the way, my many doubts are informed by a niggling yet uncompromising faith. You cannot have one without the other. Unless you propose that a new human psychological construct has taken the stage. I suppose that I am accusing you of being every bit as dogmatic as those of your mirrored constructions. Have you ever wondered about the mystery of God projection and its meaning beyond addressing it as indictment of all us guilty "tards" ?

- jacko

August 12, 2010 at 1:56pm

This all reminds me of the controversy over Wallace Stevens’ alleged deathbed conversion to the RCC, and the attempts to re-read his poetry as a long, slow road to conversion. (Can saying that "God and the imagination are one" ever really be seen as Catholic or pre-Catholic sentiment.) The loneliness and terror of death does something to people. Candles and resurrection and ancient sentiments can be very comforting. Modernist poetry doesn't account for everything; neither does Shakespeare. In 2004 a near-death experience and some harrowing despair led me to take the plunge and join the RCC. It helped me a lot, for awhile. Then the sense of life I had built up before that reasserted itself, a sense of life that Stevens had done much to nurture. I'm grateful that there was a place to go when I needed it. I wish that it--the RCC--didn't have so much baggage, or that the churches that have less baggage were not so shallow. I went to a liberal church for awhile. I got restless. One day he minister mentioned his enjoyment of poetry, which was part of his spiritual life, and he specifically mentioned Larkin and Stevens. I left, went home and curled up with a book. I know when the Spirit has whispered to me.

- masmith

August 18, 2010 at 12:35pm