Atheists take a rational view
To the editor:
Paul C. Campos' recent column, "Fundamentalist atheists show familiar arrogance," in the Aug. 29 Eagle-Tribune betrays an astounding lack of understanding of the idea of atheism. Words such as fundamentalist, zealot, Taliban, etc, are words that rightly describe those who believe in a god or philosophy or political point of view with such conviction that they are blinded to other reasonable points of view.
The fact one can believe in a god with greater or lesser conviction should raise some flags. The reason this is possible is simply this: There is insufficient evidence to allow objective statements about God upon which we can all agree. Nobody can substantiate the existence of his or her god without referring back to ancient and uncorroborated writings which tend to be self-validating. If there was sufficient objective evidence for a god's existence, that evidence would naturally form a part of our collective world view and hence, there would only be a single religion, not hundreds. The fact is, it is left up to individual believers to "reason" their way through a myriad of conflicting and unverifiable religious teachings to find those tenets and dogmas that "feel" right to them. Those who accept all or most of a particular faith's dogmas are considered fundamentalist.
An atheist, by definition, is one who does not believe in a god. Adding "fundamentalist" or "zealot" to it is meaningless. One non-believer can't "not believe" more than another non-believer. The minute an atheist allows for the slightest possibility of a deity, he simply ceases to be an atheist and falls, instead, somewhere on the spectrum of believer.
No doubt, there are atheists, myself included, who come across as arrogant. Mr. Campos says this is illustrated in the atheists' attitude toward such questions as "the ultimate nature of the universe," claiming that "fundamentalist" atheists find this "no more mysterious than the design of a bottle opener." What? The truth is that nobody understands the ultimate nature of the universe. Most atheists readily admit their ignorance on such subjects as the origins of the universe and life.
Mr. Campos claims that "non-fundamentalist atheists" recognize "that many religious beliefs are just as rationally defensible as his atheism" and that he might well hold these beliefs himself if his genes or upbringing were different. I don't know of any atheist who would consider religious belief of any kind "rationally defensible." Indeed, in every aspect of our lives except religion, society uses the term "delusional" to describe people who believe things in the absence of sufficient evidence. This is the polar opposite of rational. And what point is he making by saying an atheist might turn out to be a believer given a different upbringing? It doesn't make belief, in the absence of evidence, any more rational.
Lastly, Mr. Campos makes the statement, "the worst aspect of fundamentalism is the contempt it breeds for everyone who doesn't share the faith." I have certainly encountered a fair number of evangelical Christians and fundamental Islamists in recent years that bear this out. However, I don't see atheists shouting hateful slogans in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, or rioting in the streets when one of their patriarchs is maligned in the press, or systematically repressing women, or lobbying to deny fundamental rights to gays and lesbians, or lobbying to withhold funding for stem cell research, or working to withhold accurate information about AIDS and contraception, or anything else for that matter, based on their dogma. Why? Because atheism is the absence of dogma. As Sam Harris so aptly put it in his "Letter to a Christian Nation", "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of religious dogma."
ANDY SLADE
Chester, N.H.
Obama can restore the nation
To the editor:
I see in Barack what I see in myself: a man trying to make his life worth something, doing his part for his people, and his country. Look at the people around you, your friends and neighbors, apply all that you know about yourself to them, like your moments of triumph, along with your moments of pain. If we all took an extra minute to do this here and there, we'd begin to understand — everyone is equal, no one better then anyone else. No matter how adverse our life experience or easy our path to success.
Thinking back to the hard-working Americans who lived before us, I begin to wonder how generations will live after us. What road do we pave for them?
Opportunities arise for us to do our part, in taking care of future generations, just as the men did who came before us. Let us not just think of ourselves, but of one another. This is our duty as Americans. This is our contract with one another. It is why millions of men and women fought to protect this country — they gave us these opportunities to prosper. It would be inconsiderate to our mothers, fathers and grandparents if we didn't look at it that way.
The change this country demands is not just for us, it is to honor them. The more we ignore the challenges this country faces, and focus on ourselves alone, the worst this will get. Do we really want it to get to the point where we can only look back and wish we had done something sooner, the way so many Americans feel about our current administration?
It should never get that dire, it doesn't have to. We are being given an opportunity to set things right.
Barack Obama's candidacy represents this opportunity. By giving him a chance, we get a chance as well to become a unified country, to grow, and learn together. To help our fellow Americans. Let's not allow things to get any worse before they get better. This is our chance to take back what is rightfully ours: the America we believe in.
GREGORY HEAVEY
Salem, N.H.
Donahue owes city an apology
To the editor:
I find the recent behavior of Haverhill City Councilor James Donahue to be extremely disrespectful to the mayor with his statement regarding the cleaning of the parking garage "... he should grab a bucket ... and do it himself," to his fellow councilors through his refusal to cooperate during meetings, and to the citizens of the city. He also sets a terrible example to his students.
I wonder how he would respond if his students were to address him in the manner in which he has spoken to the mayor and the council. He owes an apology to the mayor, the City Council and to the citizens of Haverhill. If he is incapable of working cooperatively in a group to promote the greater good, then he should consider resigning his position on the City Council.
JUDITH SULLIVAN
Haverhill
