The most recent New York Review of Books features one of the most heartfelt, sensitive, open-minded and thought-provoking pieces I have seen on the possibility/advisability of meaningful atheism, of what the author describes as living without God. I happen to think that Professor Steven Weinberg comes to the wrong conclusion, but he has much to teach us and the article is not to be missed.
Weinberg's insight about humor and beauty, especially in so-called mundane places and experiences is crucial. Of course, for me, to be aware of God means being aware that no place or experience is mundane. But that's just another way of saying that the piece demonstrates how deeply religious one can be without believing in God.
I wonder, since religiosity is not his concern, why then he needs to jettison God. Unless he is simply getting rid of the God invoked by those who believe in a small-minded, ethnocentric, power-grabbing old man in the sky. In which case, Weinberg is a modern-day Abraham shattering the idolatry of his own era, much as Abraham shattered those of his. If that is so, then he should argue not against the existence of God, but for a better definition of God.
Or he may just be as deeply committed to God's non-existence, as some of us are to God's actually existing. Some of his words point in this direction.
I do not think we have to worry that giving up religion will lead to a moral decline. There are plenty of people without religious faith who live exemplary moral lives (as for example, me), and though religion has sometimes inspired admirable ethical standards, it has also often fostered the most hideous crimes.
Precisely the same could be said for science, Professor Weinberg!
Or this one:
Living without God isn't easy. But its very difficulty offers one other consolation--that there is a certain honor, or perhaps just a grim satisfaction, in facing up to our condition without despair and without wishful thinking--with good humor, but without God.
Again, the same words are regularly said by honest believers who wrestle with their own faith and the world in which we find ourselves. They would simply change his "without" to "with", and substitute an "and" where he puts "but".
I guess the real challenge is living with whatever you believe and doing so in a way that provides both smart questions and meaningful comfort -- that nurtures hope, without making us naïve. Whatever we call that, I'm in favor of it.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
THe Jewish faith, I have to give credit to. They may feel like they are committed to the devine, by keeping the law. However the Christian who claims to be under grace, does not seem to feel they need to be committed to God. That's why they feel comfortable with the Idol type of gods. They have nothing to have committment to.
Lucy,
Seems to me you are on the right track. The thing I might add is that it is incumbent on us all to bear constantly in mind that the "small corner" of what God is that we have apprehended is just that - a small corner.
Rabbi Hirschfield gave a little talk on beliefnet some time back titled "How Do I Combine Faith and Tolerance?" In it, he said the following:
"... Now, I know for me it begins with a certain belief that Torah, that the Jewish tradition, the Hebrew Bible, is the infinite gift of an infinite God. What that means is that there must be an infinite number of ways to appreciate it, because if God is infinite, then there have to be infinite readings of God’s will. And that doesn’t mean just within my own tradition, but it means that each of these traditions throughout the world is actually one path toward that infinite God. ..."
I was impressed with that the first time I watched the video of the talk, and I'm still impressed. No matter how right our understanding is, it will never measure out as more than a micro-drop in the sea of infinity.
L'Shalom,
Chaim
I am convinced that everyone of us has been given a choice for our belief system by our Creator. I also know that there are many influences such as parents, lack of parents, upbringing and life experiences that make a person wonder about their existence. If you find that living for yourself satisfying, that will probably be no different than what will happen if you are a strong religious person who is hypocritical of their beliefs. I happen to believe that most people are needing to have a reason for their lives and purpose while on earth. It is difficult to imagine a world without questioning our being. Also, I wonder if the questions being asked here is does anyone care about you? Where did the emotions come from for love, happiness, saddness and anger come from? Why are we put above all other animals on earth? Does it matter that a soul exists for man or animals? Who walked on earth teaching us of a higher being? What are we to believe? I had a brother in law many years ago who challenged my belief in God. He told me that I used him as a "crutch". I must admit that I am not as strong as others seem to be. It is the truth I seek and found in my relationship with God. Thanks for your interesting posts today. Nancy R.
If you are a atheist it is meaningful to you.
It need not be meaningful to anyone else.
A possible reason for books and articles similar to Prof Steven Weinberg's. The atheist is the one person almost everyone seems to be able to openly be against and get away with it unless they resort to violence. This is ofcourse an extremly horrible thing. They have good reason to be paranoid. So many doors are closed to them unless they are in the closet like politics. YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE.
The reason he even needs to state that atheists are normal and can live good moral lives is that many so called religous people do not believe this in actuallity altho they may say they do.
Many attrocities have been committed in the name of religon on a huge scale. As for science attrocities you might think of research that can be cruel and inhuman on annimals. Or you might think that what they did in scientific experiements on humans like they did on Jews during the Holocaust. There is a problem with this tho. The Germans and company who did the experiment did not do it because they were atheist nor were and are the ones on animals. I am sure you would find that the scientist involved may or may not have been atheists.
So far as I know our atheist brothers and sisters were the victims and never the prtagonists when there were problems that got violent between athiests and people who believed in G-d.
Hugs
Laura
"Unless he is simply getting rid of the God invoked by those who believe in a small-minded, ethnocentric, power-grabbing old man in the sky."
As a Jew who is also a skeptic, I am reading scripture for the first time as sent to me via Beliefnet. I wonder how you reconcile your belief in a God who transcends the description above with the early part of the scripture. Throughout Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy there are statements, by or attributed to God, that are ethno-centric and power hungry.
I say this in a spirit of honest inquiry.
Also I might insert "need to" in between who and believe above. If there is a valid religious faith it certainly is not the one practiced by those who wish to believe literally in the entire moral system of the early Abrahamic God, whether Christian, Jew or Muslim.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.