National Public Radio show hosts are avid enthusiasts of the agnostic author. It must be at least once a week that another author is brought on to discuss their new book about science and afterlife. My problem with this reporting is that every story is the same… “G-d doesn’t exist… everything else is commentary.”
A short while ago, a story praising David Eagleman’s book, “Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives” was the first to really begin to bother me. Earlier this week Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s book, “36 Arguments for the Existence of G-d: A Work of Fiction” was featured. These books, and the radio shows that publicize them have the appearance of embracing consilience and intellectual freedom, but are actually vehemently anti-religious. Why is it so hard for show hosts and authors to accept that the existence of G-d does not need rational proof? For some people, rational proofs are important, but I’ve never understood the desire for a rational proof to demonstrate the existence of G-d. Would any of these same people want a rational proof to demonstrate the identity of their soul-mate? Would such rational proofs suffice to explain why a mother loves her son or daughter, or why we live and die?
“All things in creation are dependent on their creator for their continued existence, but He does not need any of them. Therefore, the reality of His existence is not like that of any creation.” Maimonides
So two goals remain: 1) to keep a closer watch on NPR programming to tell if there really is an anti-religious bias in their choice of authors and book reviews, and 2) to write the response book, “36 Arguments against the Existence of G-d: A work of fiction.”
I have a clue for you: In the Marxist-Leninist interpretation, communism was completely atheistic and explicitly antireligious. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.” Karl Marx
Work it out – it’s not quantum field theory.
hmmm… is anyone still here? I just want to say that what erks me about media discussions of religion and whether or not people believe in g-d is that nothing is ever said about the different concepts that people might have (i.e. what is g-d ??). The way I see it, it is not about believing or not believing but about how you define. The media talks about g-d as if it is something well defined. In Judaism g-d is ‘unknowable’. I’m satisfied to leave it at that.
Chem-nut, I really appreciate your response!