Hey Natty Batty,
Thanks for the good words.
Western religion provided the resources for an unprecedented outpouring of sacred music and majestic cathedral building projects. In fact, my favorite tune at this moment is Aria #47 from J.S. Bach’s St. Matthew Passion. I’ve been walking around for some weeks now singing,
“Erbarme dich, mein Gott,
Und meiner Zahren willen;
Schaue hier, Herz und Auge
Weint vor dir bitterlich
Erbarme dich.”
Strange behavior for a devout atheist, eh? Well, I wish Bach had composed strictly for the love of his Anna Magdelana, or for the joys of mathematics, etc… Anything would be better than all the weepiness and begging for mercy we find in his Cantatas. Of course Bach had to feed his Kindern, and it was the hand that signed his paycheck that wanted all that weepy, begging. In fact, the music he wrote for Anna Magdelana was no less wonderful than his sacred compositions. This isn’t to deny that Bach wasn’t moved by his religion, but I suspect J.S. Bach would have composed beautifully even if Brittney Spears had been signing his paycheck.
I’ve no doubt that some goodness has been derived from man’s most irrational beliefs (though I can’t think of any at the moment). I’ve equally little doubt that man would have saved himself a heap of suffering had he managed to stumble upon secular humanism directly, instead of via the circuitous route of mysticism.
One criticism heard repeatedly is that rational philosophy and science have deprived us from a sense of the magnificent. In his book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan eloquently wrote of this:
…science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our oun prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be greater than we dreamed?’ Instead they say, 'No! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
Not atypically, I used to often stand under the stars and marvel at their vastness. However, since I learned that our universe extends millions of times beyond the remotest star we can see, I don’t much stand in awe under the night stars these days. The 3,000 or so visible stars are only our parochial neighbors. I feel more wonder these days looking in a mirror to find an eye looking back at itself. The eye that perceives itself is far more cause for wonder than a galaxy of stellar nuclear furnaces. This inward gaze has rekindled my interest in philosophy.
Natsili, I don’t think an atheist has to falsify any religion. Instead, the onus is upon religion to prove its extraordinary claims to rational men. If I told you that my right arm was made of cheese only whenever no one else looked at it, the burden would not be upon you to prove me wrong.
In another sense, I wonder if it matters that we ever “get it right.” I wonder how much our knowing the “truth” would change our lives. Children would be continue to be born and old men would continue to die just the same as before we knew the truth. The difference might be in what we did between those two occurances. If we should find the truth, it obviously would render useless our search for the truth. Life might seem less an advanture than a chore. A joke isn’t a joke if you already know the punch-line. It seems strange to think that I might prefer a life searching for the truth rather than already possessing the truth; but this appears to be my sentiment. The moment I solve a problem in mathematics I quickly search for another one. As soon as I have the answer, the problem ceases to interest me. Well, luckily, I don’t think we’re in danger of finding the “truth” just yet.
Again, thanks Natsili, I look forward to reading the continuation of your reply.
Michael