I don't understand atheists much, either.

I have not given equal time for atheists; so it's time I commented about them also. This will not be as passionate a commentary, because at least atheists are not trying to sabotage our educational system or threatening our progress as a species -- quite the contrary, actually.

There was one occasion, however, when I believe an atheist behaved almost as badly by stirring up unnecessary trouble in one school. A few years back there was an attempt to petition to change the words to the Pledge of Allegiance recited by kids in public schools. The fact is, the founders of this country were Christians, and nothing can change that fact. In addition, the overwhelming majority of people in this country probably believe in a supreme being, whether they be Christians, Muslims, or Jews; this was underscored by the fact that there was so much opposition to the petition. But what made me uncomfortable about that event was that, there were so many other more pressing issues in education, e.g., the fact that many teenagers could not pick out the US from a world map. Compared to issues like that, the whole “under God” fiasco to me was such a petty annoyance at best and a distraction at worst. But I feel that this was not typical of folks who are self-proclaimed atheists, an overwhelming majority of whom I believe are more far-seeing in their causes and beliefs – especially in issues such as poverty in the third world, justice for suppressed peoples, and saving ourselves from environmental collapse. (I wish I could say half as much for SUV-driving fundamentalists who dismiss “tree hugging”, or are determined to alienate America from the rest of the world, or even plant the occasional burning cross.)

So, as an educator who values civilized activities, I have no problems with self-proclaimed atheists. My only real concern about them is more philosophical, more personal – specifically the concern that they, not unlike the fundamentalists, could be denying themselves access to a bigger picture of truth.

The fact is, I used to be a self-proclaimed atheist; so I’m familiar with all the arguments. If God is so perfect and needs nothing, why did he feel the need to create us? If God is such a loving entity, how could he allow all these bad things happen? If God is so good, how could his creations do such evil things? Why does God make it impossible for us to scientifically prove his existence? And then there are the critiques on gaps or holes in holy Scripture, including inconsistencies in the gospel stories of Jesus, etc. etc. I would later find out that these questions come from a lack of understanding of the Christian faith, which often comes from a refusal to step inside the shoes of a Christian. (Ironically, I get the same feeling when a creationist asks silly questions against evolution – questions that obviously come from a lack of understanding of scientific principles.) I mean, these are all very good questions, but I think it would do well for the asker of such questions to actually sincerely pursue the answers to such questions by talking to people of faith – for, certainly one cannot turn to science for that.

Now, I have always valued science and the body of knowledge that it has given to humanity, as well as the advancement of our quality of life that it has provided; indeed I will always find unspeakable beauty in how nature works – an appreciation that is all the more heightened by the understanding provided by the sciences. However, I suppose that at some point, I had to admit to myself that my five senses – or, by extension, physical measurements – could not possibly be enough to determine the absolute truth behind every aspect of my existence. One of the few Shakespearean quotes that have stuck to me is Hamlet’s assertion to his friend Horatio that “There are more things in heaven and earth, …, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” I find it disconcerting that atheists accept the findings of science that we are nothing particularly special in this universe, and at the same time believe that humans are capable of omniscience. I do believe that our five senses – through the unblinking eye of science – is capable of great insight; in fact I have always thought of science as one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity – actually an extension of the free will that we have been given. But when I consider the insignificance of man – whether in my spiritual musings of his nothingness compared to God or in my intellectual musings of his being such a small part of the diversity of nature’s workings – at some point it just became difficult for me to believe that there is nothing beyond what our senses provide.

One just needs to look to the arts – the indescribable beauty of a painting, the experience of listening to a great symphony, or the intellectual joy from a poem or a novel – where does all that come from? How could these just be consequent urges from our survival instincts? What about the heroism and selfless sacrifice that we have witnessed in great figures of history as well as in the ordinary people who ran the Underground Railroads of history – helping pre-Civil War slaves as well as Nazi-era Jews. I personally could not dismiss these as a simple consequence of our instinct to keep the human species going, any more than I could dismiss my love for my wife and kids as an unconscious impulse to perpetuate my particular genes.

The point is, we humans are so much MORE than the sum or our parts. Since I could not deny this fact, neither could I deny that the natural universe is so much more than the one that we humans could perceive.

Just how this crossed over to Roman Catholicism – that’s another story.