feminist blogs

Abortion seems to be the topic of the month at The New York Times. There was the June 20th article about aborting fetuses with disabilities, the July 18th article about Amy Richard's selective abortion, the article about the "abortion taboo" on television (also from July 18), and then there was the most recent one (July 22), by Barbara Ehrenreich. Ehrenreich's article is, IMO, a good follow up

Heard of The Left Behind series? The one that is like the story of how the book of Revelations in the bible comes true? Here’s an interesting take on it:

Yay for someone else thinking the whole thing is scary and dangerous. Now, I’m not saying that the whole idea doesn’t make good entertainment; it probably does. And maybe some people watch it for the entertainment value alone. Except it sure doesn’t seem like it. Try leftbehind.com and notice all the religious stuff that’s there in addition to information about the books themselves. And who starred in the Left Behind movie? Kirk Cameron. Remember lovable troublemaking Mike Seaver on growing pains? Well his portrayer is anything but. Check out this site.

Here’s a quote that had me cracking up: “Who is God to you? Is he only a god of love and mercy who would never cast anyone into hell? If that’s your god, then you’re right. Your god couldn’t cast anyone into Hell because he doesn’t exist. He’s a figment of your imagination. You’ve created a god in your own mind that you’re more comfortable with. You may call it your “personal belief,” but God calls it idolatry. It’s the oldest sin in the Book, and the Bible warns that idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

That’s right. According to these people believing that god might actually be a nice person is the oldest sin in the Bible and one that brings with it damnation! Let’s ignore for the minute the interesting logical implications of such a belief and the argument against it (if I truly belief that God doesn’t cast people into hell, then it is not a good argument against this belief to say, “but God will cast you to hell for believing that.” I just said I don’t believe that God sends anyone to hell!).

More importantly, I think this type of thinking explains a feeling among some atheists that believers often can’t understand. Philosopher Thomas Nagel is an atheist in that he does not see evidence which would prompt him to believe that a God exists. But he doesn’t only believe that there is no God, he in fact, hopes that there isn’t one. He claims, “I don’t want the universe to be like that [one in which there is a God].”

I have to say I agree with Nagel. But first some clarification. Some writers have argued that Nagel’s admission that he hopes there is no God shows that atheists 1) hate God or 2) fear God or 3) base their non-belief on preferences, not evidence. But of course, not all atheists agree with Nagel, so at most these things can be true only of the small portion of atheists who do agree with Nagel. Secondly, the fact that one believes something to be the case and also hopes that that something is the case, does not show that the belief is a result of the hope or vice versa. I believe that in six years I will have a PhD and I hope that in six years I will have a PhD. I don’t believe it just because I hope it. For I also hope that tomorrow there will be world peace, yet, I don’t for a second believe that will happen. I also don’t hope I will have a PhD just because I think it will happen. I think, for instance, that in the next few years older relatives of mine will probably die. I certainly don’t hope this will happen! There is no necessary connection between believing something and hoping something.

For evidentiary reasons I (and Nagel) don’t believe that there is a God. But in terms of our preferences about the universe, we prefer that there not be one. I can’t speak for Nagel anymore than what I’ve just said (because he’s written and published the same opinion). As for me, though, there are a number of levels on which I hope atheism is true.

On one level I hope atheism is true because I don’t want the religion I’ve most often been taught (or exposed to) to actually be true. I don’t want it to be the case that the stories in the Bible are true. I don’t want catholic dogma to be true. I don’t want it to be the case that there is a God who will cast all non-Christians into hell. I don’t want the horrible suffering and death discussed in the Left Behind series to be true. In fact, I don’t see how anyone who actually believes that if there is a God, s/he is the Left Behind kind could not hope that isn’t a God. How could anyone hope that there exists a being who will one day reign down death upon all of the earth and cast most of its inhabitants into eternal torment? You need to ask why I hope that this kind of God doesn’t exist?

But, you might, ask what about a nice Jesus-like God. You know, love your neighbors, turn the other cheek. I agree that in many ways it would in fact be nice if such a being existed. I have trouble, however, understanding how such a being could possibly exist. If there were such a being, how could there be evil in the world? How could there be suffering? Now you might think that I could still hope for something I can’t understand, something I don’t think is possible. But I don’t often—actually ever—hope for things I don’t think are possible. I don’t, for instance, hope for round squares to pop into existence or for 2 + 2 = 4. The question, then, is would I be acting irrationally to hope for something I believe is not possible? I think the answer may be yes. It doesn’t make sense to hope for something which by its very existence would make existence as I know it non-sensical, and this is exactly what I think a “buddy Christ” God would do.