I'm afraid I must Rant about the article by Gary Wolf on the new atheism. Before I lay into his article, I would like to say that I appreciate his willingness to admit his bias. In the article, he admits to being an atheist himself. It is such a relief to see that after watching so many programs on TV and reading so many articles where the presenter pretends to be impartial to one side or the other yet through the course of the presentation, their bias becomes evident. I was also relieved to see, at the end of the article, that Gary does not agree with the radical atheists he interviewed and is willing to continue to have "respectful conversations even about things we find rediculous" and that he still has the "bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong."
Having said that, I find the lack of balance in the article disturbing. I realize that Wired is not a strictly scientific magazine and that it also covers pop culture and opinion. However, when it comes to a subject as fundamental to the reader's sense of who they are, what existence means and what there hope is for the future, like this; I really think one needs to be more careful. Gary does a good job of expressing his own doubts about the validity of his subjects claims if you read the entire article. But if you just skim through it like many magazine readers do, you get the impression that he and Wired Magazine are on the side of these atheists. These aren't just interesting people with provocative ideas, these are dangerous men in this article. When I read what the article has to say about them and especially the quotes from the interviews, I find it truly chilling. It's scary to realize that there are a lot of people, some of whom are in positions of influence and power, who agree with these guys.
The article would have benefitted greatly from having equally developed profiles of people who disagree with these people. A few are mentioned in passing and strictly through the eyes of the atheists. There are a few paragraphs devoted to religion all of which are very negative. Even Gary throws some barbs. His choice to illustrate his view of religion is a very poor one. Only a biased writer would choose to describe a church that is in actuallity on the fringe of true Christiantiy like the Angelus Temple is and then suggest that the rest of Christianity is like that. Or to point out the problems and flaws of the Catholic Church (which it does have) to the exclusion of mentioning anything positive about it.
If the intention of the article is just to give the reader a glimpse into the minds of the atheists, then it succeeds. If, indeed, that was the intention, it should have been spelled out better in the beginning of the article.
I am both a Christian and a natural scientist and have no trouble coming to terms with that. I dismiss the theories of evolution as unproven as they are based on biased examination of physical observations using flawed techniques and technologies. I see the fossil bone just a clearly as the evolutionist does, I just disagree with him/her on how old it is and how it got to be where it is. I have a different interpretation of the world around me. That doesn't make me stupid, delusional or crazy. I just have a different theory than the atheists. I hope they all find out how wrong they are before they die.
John EnfieldLas Vegas, Nevada
