Jim pointed me towards an article recently published in the New York Times- “Confessions of a Lonely Atheist”. As I read the article numerous comments, thoughts, disagreements… and yes even agreements came to mind and so I thought I might come home tonight and make a response to a few things said in Angier’s article. The response will be in the form of Angier’s comments in italics and then my response in normal text. Let me apologise for advance in the length of this post. Let me also recommend that you read the article in it’s context before reading further with this post. There is nothing worse than misunderstanding someone’s words because of a lack of context. … The only problem was what President-elect Bush wanted from me and "every American." "I ask you to pray for this great nation," he said. "I ask your prayers for leaders from both parties," and for their families too, while we're at it. Whatever else I might have been inclined to think of Bush's call for comity, with his simple little request, his assumption that prayer is some sort of miracle Vicks VapoRub for the national charley horse, it was clear that his hands were reaching for any hands but mine. I too was surprised when I heard Bush ask every American to pray. My first thoughts were- “Gee- that’s brave coming from a man who has been elected to represent everyone in the USA, christians and non-christians, religious and non-religious, theists and atheists alike”. Friends refuted me “But you know what America is like… there is such a “God/god consciousness” there” (more about that term later)… it doesn’t necessarily mean he is talking about praying as Christians would pray”. Having thought about it since then I have asked myself the question- Was it wrong for him to ask it? Perhaps he shouldn’t have asked “every” American to pray, because there are certainly those, like the author of “Confessions”, who have no belief in a power which hears or responds to prayer. However, I don’t think it was wrong of him to ask for prayer. Angier states that Bush’s call for prayer was an “assumption” that prayer is “some sort of miracle Vicks VapoRub”. I disagree here. Bush was not making an assumption about prayer. The only genuine reason Bush could have asked for prayer was because he, personally, believed in it’s effectiveness . That is not some sort of rash, and illogical assumption- it is a personal faith. What right does Angier have to condemn Bush on this charge because of his own personal beliefs. Is America to have a president who is devoid of all personal belief, values or ideas which are contrary to those held by others? Or is Angier suggesting that despite his beliefs it was presumptious of Bush to act upon them publically? And if that is the case then want sort of person would Bush be if he believed something yet never acted upon that belief, never publically spoke about it, never asked like-minded others to act upon it as well? So do I believe Bush spoke rashly by asking for prayer? Personally- no. But then again what do I know? I’m just an Aussie. … "Survey data point to an overwhelming belief in God, but when you go down a couple of layers, it can be pretty vacuous," says Cromartie. "It's striking how many people say they're Christian but don't know who gave the Sermon on the Mount." . I agree. Let me give you an example. I was reading the other day that Mel Gibson is, and has always been, a devout Catholic. That he has his own chapel were mass is said on Sundays in Latin, that his daughter is considering joining the convent and that he is very much against the modernisation of the Roman Catholic Church. The same article also stated that Gibson had at times declined roles in movies because they conflicted with his religious beliefs. Well, sorry to say it, but I don’t buy it. I don’t buy this whole idea that God is that important to Gibson. Now that may be presumptuous and arrogant of me but let me tell you why. Because as I sat there watching “The Patriot” the other night, watching Mel slowly drive a blade through another man’s neck just after he had killed another couple of dozen men or so, I also remembered back to his Lethal Weapon movies where the swearing and violence was profuse- not to mention the nudity and also back to Braveheart (aka. The Patriot in Scotland) where his character just didn’t reflect these religious beliefs which Mel clings to. Now the article I read might have it wrong in which case I apologise to my ex-countryman. But somehow I doubt it. Why? Because all those recipients at the 15 billion award shows y’all have each year do exactly the same thing. They thank God (or Gawd depending on where they come from) while singing their songs and filming their videos in the tightest, skimpiest clothes known to man gyrating their bodies in ways which only brings one word to mind (and it aint God) and generally behaving in ways which I personally believe are completely inconsistent with this notion of God being so important to them (if you want to take me up on that point, and why their actions are inconsistent with their words, I would love to go into more depth but for the sake of the length of this post not here. Email me). You know when Mary Mary’s song “Shackles” came out it wasn’t even the words which alerted me to the fact that they were singing about God (and yes for all of you who have sung along without thinking about what you are singing- it is about God). What alerted was the fact that they were wearing clothes which covered more than 20% of their bodies. What am I saying? Certainly not that the American celebrity population is a complete representation of the American culture at large. However, I am saying that there is a “god consciousness” in America but not a “God consciousness”. So many people proclaim one thing yet their actions completely betray them. So many people’s lives are just not consistent with everything they claim to hold dear. And sure it is the same over here in Australia- except believing in God is not as cool or commonplace. Us Aussies are way to independent and tough to have to rely on any sort of higher power for crying out loud. So most of us say straight out that our careers and our money and our power and our success are really our top priority- not God. "It's a consequence of the experience of science," says Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate and professor of physics at the University of Texas. "As you learn more and more about the universe, you find you can understand more and more without any reference to supernatural intervention, so you lose interest in that possibility. Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists. And that, I think, is one of the great things about science -- that it has made it possible for people not to be religious." Rubbish, Rubbish , Rubbish. I am so sick and tired of the idea that science has superceeded religion because it has provided us with oh so many answers to questions with which we used a “religious bandaid” to cover in the past. Some of the most famous scientists in history have been Christians. “Well that’s to be expected” you say? Why? Because it is through the immense depth of scientific knowledge we have today that we can rule out a God? Again I say, Rubbish! Can you imagine what it did to some of the earliest scientists in history when they made their amazing discoveries? It would have rocked their foundations because of their lack of the knowledge we have today. The Christians amongst them reconciled these amazing scientific leaps of their day and age with their belief in the Christian God. What is more is that there is a huge percentage of Christian scientists throughout the world today. At the university five minutes down the road from me the faculty with proportionally the most percent of Christians is the science faculty (and as a side note the astronomers top that list). In fact, statistics have shown that as we learn more and more about the intricacies and complexities of this world more and more scientists are coming to believe that there is some sort of higher power who designed it all. More and more scientists are recognising flaws in the “big bang” theory, flaws which are irreconcilable with the scientific data which they so value. Science does not, and will never, disprove God. Whatever science “proves” can always be reconciled with a supreme higher power. Science and belief in God can, and do go hand in hand for many many people. There remains a sense among a lot of Americans that someone who actively doesn't believe in God might not be morally reliable, or might not be fully trustworthy," says James Turner, a professor of history and philosophy of science at Notre Dame Anglier then goes on to provide data from a study which showed that the atheist subjects were no more likely to behave in an “immoral” fashion that the Christians (what and who is Jesus People movement??). I think she completely misses the point here… let me explain why. At another point in her article she gives statistics showing the percentage of Americans who would vote for a presidential candidate from a variety of different demographic groups. She bemoans the fact that at the bottom of the pile are the poor atheist presidential candidates who come in at 49%. Frankly I am surprised that there are that many who would vote for an atheist as a president. I certainly wouldn’t be- even if I was a non-Christian. Why? Because that person, being an atheist is essentially an immoral person?? No- not at all. Rather, the reason that candidate would miss out on my vote is because they have no reason to be a moral person. They have no foundation upon which they should be and forever remain someone who believes in an essential truth, a moral right and an immoral wrong. They have no basis upon which to build the rights of humans, except perhaps their own rights and that comes only through a selfish “survival of the fittest” notion. I certainly wouldn’t want someone like that governing the country I live in. The point is not that atheists are in reality no more immoral than the next person but that they have no reason to hold to morality. I’m not going to go into the reasons why I believe this but if you feel up to it you might like to read my thoughts on that and other fundamental failures with atheism here. I don’t want someone who believes that I have the same rights as an amino acid making decisions which affect my life thankyou very much. [ed: Having just paid a visit to Wayne's blog I see he is of a similar mind] And as a side note this brings me to something a friend of mine said to me today. He said “When you look at Christians and Atheists it is the Christians who hold more firmly to their beliefs in the way they live. Even with all the hypocritical Christians who say one thing and do another, Christians by far exceed Atheists in the correlation between their beliefs and their lives”. I realise how true that was. If you take atheism to it’s logical conclusion there is no reason for anyone to treat anyone else better than themselves. Atheism teaches that life is all about looking after yourself and making sure that survive. Millions of people throughout the world claim to be Atheists (and by that I simply mean that they believe there is no God) yet so very few of them actually live in accordance with their beliefs. And when you look at those atheists like Pol Pot, Mao and Hitler (don’t spout out that he was a Christian- have a real look at the evidence) who have lived in line with their beliefs- well I think it speaks for itself. The human race resides in one great Show Me state. If we are built to have faith, we are threaded through, as well, with a desire for proof that our faith is well placed -- as Bruce Monson doggedly puts it when he asks his Christian colleagues why Jesus can't step down from on high just once to bring back to life one of many children he has seen die in the line of duty. Ok- so what if Jesus did come back down to earth and bring back to life one, two, twenty, a thousand of those children? Well everything would be coming up roses for a little while wouldn’t it? Thousands of people would likely convert to Christianity. And then in fifty, one hundred, two hundred, five hundred years time people would start saying “Oh but you know- it’s just a legend. It didn’t really happen. It’s just become this great folk story. The records we have of it are unreliable. There are no living witnesses and besides you can’t just bring someone back from the dead!”. Sound familiar? Jesus did come down and bring a young man back from the dead. Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went along with him.As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out--the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, "Don't cry." Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, "Young man, I say to you, get up!" The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. They were all filled with awe and praised God. "A great prophet has appeared among us," they said. "God has come to help his people." Luke 7:11-17 But even though Jesus did just as these "proof seekers" ask how many actually believe it? See Jesus was right when he told the parable below "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, `Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' "He answered, `Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' "`No, father Abraham,' he said, `but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' "He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" Luke 16:19-31 Conclusive, irrefutable undeniable proof that Jesus came to earth, that he raised people from the dead, that he performed miracles, that he died on the cross and that he was resurrected will never be found whilst we live. But you know what? Conclusive, irrefutable, undeniable proof that he did not do those things will never be found either. So where does that leave us? Well it leaves us in the same position we are left whenever we decide to trust in something or someone for a particular purpose or because of a particular reason. We will never have conclusive proof that that thing or person will keep our trust. But we look at the evidence and weight it up and then we make a decision. So to people like Anglier I challenge you to look at the evidence on both sides and make a decision instead of demanding that God come down here right now and prove his existence to you- because he has already come down and he has already paid the price so that you could believe.