Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Maggie Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Godless delusion
by Maggie Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
What was the biggest suprise of Election Day?



Gratitude.

It's fitting that a nation founded on rights, which are personal entitlements, should pause once a year to cultivate the opposite emotion.

Yes, I'm thankful: that, for all its undoubted flaws, something as mysteriously wonderful as America should really exist. Also that for no good reason I can see, I, of all the 6 billion people on this Earth, should be one of those lucky enough to inherit this nation. I'm grateful to all those who gave this gift to me, from the first Pilgrim souls searching to build a new heaven on Earth, to the Deist Thomas Jefferson methodically stripping his Bible of every evidence of the miraculous.

This original tension between Athens and Jerusalem (reason and faith) -- out of which much of Western civilization, but most especially America, was formed -- is still very much with us. Case in point: This month the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., held a forum on science and religion, which (according to The New York Times) "began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: In a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told." (See it at www.tsntv.org).

The scientists at this conference were almost all atheists or agnostics. They pose as strong men of Athens, but in the intense, lively, fascinating anger at religious influence, their clay feet keep peeping out: in the deep discontent some displayed with merely doing science as a rational activity, in their need to find a greater meaning and purpose, and in their strong human desire not only to proclaim the truth, but to suppress people and ideas that they feel threaten their founding truths.

On the one hand, Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium, displayed heartbreaking pictures of deformed newborns to disabuse the audience of any idea that an intelligent, loving creator could be behind our existence. On the other hand, Carolyn Porco of Colorado's Space Science Institute displayed a photo of Saturn and its rings as evidence of the universe's grandeur: "Let's teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome -- even comforting -- than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know." The fact that these are contradictory responses to nature seemed not to make a dent in the faith of those present that they are moved only by their profound commitment to reason.

The emerging religion of science has its fundamentalist prophets. Richard Dawkins, Oxford biologist and author of the "The God Delusion," thundered: "I am utterly fed up with the respect that we -- all of us, including the secular among us -- are brainwashed into bestowing on religion." Dr. Steven Weinberg, who has a Nobel prize in physics, argued: "Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization."

The greatest contribution to civilization is the capacity to destroy?

At the La Jolla conference, Dr. Tyson pointed to a possible antidote to this fear-based church of reason. At the human heart of science lies not a fear, but a love -- the love of discovery: "That's a really cool problem. I want to solve it." He frets that having "God on the brain" will be the antithesis of this love of discovery, but we don't have to share that anxiety.

The desire to create and to discover, along with the capacity to love something outside of ourselves, is part of what being made in the image and likeness of God means. "Perfect love casts out fear." Happy Thanksgiving.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.

Be the first to read Maggie Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

agnosticism
There is nothing in agnosticism which requires that one can only believe things available to the senses. Such a belief would rule out much of modern science which involves making inferences from the things directly sensed according to principles of reason. (The idea that all that we should believe in is what is sensible has been known as "Positivism").
An agnostic (about God) is someone who believes that there is not enough evidence either for or against the existence of God to justify believing either side of the question. What standards one uses to come to that conclusion can vary without effecting whether one is agnostic. One can also be agnostic about other issues on the same basis. It simply means one does not know (but really should mean that one does not even have a strong enough belief to commit oneself either way).

Agnostic
RelicMM::Well said!
KM and LiveFreeOrDie::I do not write this to demean anyone, I just don't understand being agnostic. Perhaps this is because I have known God for my whole existence:-)
From my understanding of the concept, agnostics belive that God is an unknown. Am I correct?
For an agnostic to believe something it must be available to the five senses. Correct?
For an agnostic to believe something it must be accompanied with valid proof which out weigh any doubt. Correct?
For an agnostic to believe in God they would have to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste Him. Correct?
Am I correct in these assumptions or am I in error? Your help is appreciated:-)
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.