Responses to Emotional Atheism:

Regarding your article on Emotional Atheism and Thomas Nagel's angst-filled hope that there be no God. My immediate thought was how much he sounds like a petulant teen-ager who, in a moment of emotion at being denied a pleasure or given an order by a parent, lashes out, accompanied by door slamming and feet stomping, with "I hate you! I wish you were dead!" Boy, haven't we all been there! It is only with maturity that one comes to realize that our parents' intentions were for our own good and our reactions immature and self-centered. Parents, being human and fallible, however, make mistakes and miss the mark sometimes, but that does not make their intentions any less valid or honorable. Good parents will at times deny children what they want and enforce discipline for their children's own good. God, who is perfect and knows perfectly what is best for each of us, is our Heavenly Father. His morality and laws are for our own good. Atheists stomp their feet and slam doors because God doesn't want them to have sex with whomever whenever they want and expects from them some level of acknowledgement and compliance with His commands. It is my hope and prayer that they grow up and see that God's perfect plan for them is ultimately for their own good. Giving any child what he wants, when he wants it with no expectations or limits is a recipe for a lifetime of disaster whether it is a 12-year-old with his parents or an atheist to God. - C.L.

If you aren't familiar with him, David Robertson, from Dundee, Scotland, has written an excellent response to Dawkins, The Dawkins Letters. Borders Books has picked the book up in the UK and is promoting David and his book with signings at their various outlets. Check him out. - Richard Wiman

A brief review of the books by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchins and Daniel Dennett is used to support the generalization that atheism is based on emotion. Of course, one cannot use a few cases to support a general rule like this. It is up to believers to support their case, not non-believers, and obviously they have not entirely succeeded, for many people remain agnostic or disbelievers. I happen to be among them. My recalcitrance is not emotional, but more along the lines of "why bother?" Religious faith requires an ontological dualism that ignores Ockham's Razor, with nothing to show for it. While in principle it should bring people together, it has more often divided them, often tragically. While religion may sanction a set of moral values, I see little evidence that believers are actually morally superior to non-believers. While religion has been associated with some of the world's greatest cultural expressions, no one could say that today. While religious participation offers an opportunity for socialization, it appears to be a weak substitute for the kind of positive social relations we should be trying to build today. The list goes on, but it serves to illustrate my point that there's really nothing particularly appealing about religion. It tends to be a parochial distraction in a world that desperately cries for action that is constructive and universal. - Haines Brown

The fatal flaw in the argument between proponents of atheism and theism as offered by most, if not all, proponents, is that the human being is necessary to both arguments. Existence exists. There is an explanation for existence. The human being is not relevant to the explanation for existence. The human being is not the reason for or cause of existence. The human being, the dolphin, the ant, the flower, the rock, the earth, the sun, the galaxies, the universe, and all of existence, are parts of the design of the universe. The explanation of existence and the explanation for the design of existence is presently unknown. The sexuality, the mind, the morals, the fears (of Gods or anything else) of human beings are products of the explanation for existence, but human beings are not in the elevated place in existence that theists, and atheists, understandably, desire to place us. Wishing it were otherwise will not make it so. Neither will the arguments of theists and atheists. - Norman Henry Colchester, Vermont

I am a Catholic Webmaster who reads "To the Source" I am just curious, not that it matters, but is my hunch right that Dinesh D'Souza is also a Roman Catholic? Thanks for your time. Keep the articles coming. Great Stuff! - Rich Bedard

OUCH!!! Those side articles are just as irrational as the main commentary.Sir Isaac Newton was also into alchemy which by todays standards would make him a fool.Einstein didn't believe in a personal god.Very few would come close to their levels of genius.Intelligence and beliefs are two different things. - M.M Sherbrooke Que.