Rants + Raves
__We would have sworn on a stack of __Bibles that our cover story on the New Atheism would bring the wackos out of the woodwork. Religion tends to have that effect. But not on our readers. Y’all just started calmly talking. And talking. And talking. We got more responses to that story than to any other piece in memory (read them all at blog.wired.com/letters). Craziness level: Low. You invoked Nietzsche, C. S. Lewis, Plato, and Einstein. Ayn Rand, too. You were very clear about where you fell on the God/no God issue, and many of you also worked hard to understand the other side of the aisle. “It is a vast and painful sacrifice to give up one’s faith,” one atheist wrote. Believers simply reaffirmed their commitment to a higher power: “The heart of the universe is a mystery. My bet is on God.” Our faith in our audience thus renewed, we are left to wonder about reasoned debate in the world’s academic institutions. One writer recounted the time a professor told him “my belief in God was so infuriating that he wanted to ‘put a chair through my head.’” So religion does still polarize people and spur them to violence. Phew.
The God Deluge
Your article on atheism handled a complex jungle without cutting everything down – continuing into it without getting any more lost than the rest of us (“The Church of the Non-Believers,” issue 14.11). Of all the arguments in the piece, the most strikingly powerful one was not a rational argument at all, but a rational act: the statement of humility at the end.
Michael S. Woodson
Denver, Colorado
Atheism is the only rational answer to the question of the existence of God. But that’s the wrong question. Some researchers make a strong case that evolution may have predisposed humans to perceive “God” as real, and our relationship with God as personal. The nexus of religious experience and artistic expression through the millennia, coupled with the behavior of our contemporaries, suggests that the pleasure of this per-ception is as potent, satisfying, and addictive as sex or meth, and as ordinary and necessary as breathing. We may have a hardwired need to believe. The question is, what comes after God? Until atheists find another way to trigger the comforting cascade of neurochemicals that Homo sapiens has evolved to need, it would be irrational to expect the God-dependent to believe them.
Steve Davis
Harrison, Arkansas
I was surprised by Daniel Dennett’s suggestion that our defaults (moral codes) are arbitrary. One could argue that our moral codes ensure the continued existence of the human species by balancing the need for individual survival with the need for functional societies. Until the atheists are willing and able to defend sacred values as being biologically necessary, regardless of the existence of God, they might as well just give up.
__Vicky Budinger
Loveland, Ohio __
Gary Wolf describes the disdain that the New Atheists have for believers. One could argue that religious fervor has caused more grief than any other motivator (see the Crusades, the Inquisition, ongoing Middle East unrest). But the root cause of such strife is not belief in God – it’s intolerance of the beliefs of others. The conviction that one’s chosen religion is the only path to salvation and that other religions are populated with infidels deserving of conversion or slaughter is at the crux of almost every struggle on the planet today. Sadly, since atheists exhibit the same dismissive intolerance, they are no different from or better than any of these groups.
Phil Hegedusich
Clarence, New York
The irrational argument that I hear so often in support of atheism makes my blood boil. Saying that religion is somehow the cause of all fighting in the world and that getting rid of it will bring about peace is to be completely blind to history. The greatest destruction of human life and freedom in the past century was caused by atheist countries. If atheism is adopted by governments and humanity, it will lead to nothing more than dictatorship (survival of the fittest) and mass murder (extermination of opposing or unwanted biological masses).
Ludmila Drake
Pomona, California
I am a youth pastor at a Presbyterian church. I just wanted to say I enjoyed your article. There are those of us in the Christian community who aren’t freaky, dogmatic, or intellectually anemic. I am overwhelmed by the complexity of our world, and my “default settings” turn my heart and mind toward God. I will continue to pray for you in your search for truth, and that you may see that the Bible is not a man-made story but the story of God chasing after a mankind He wildly loves.
Matthew Rings
Columbia, South Carolina
Religion is to atheism as English is to Esperanto … or better yet, as English is to Lojban. To communicate with others, we are “bright” enough to use a language that’s an illogical, idiosyncratic, and biased legacy system. It seems to me that the evolved (ahem) religions of today offer something richer and more effective than the thought system created ex nihilo offered by Dawkins and company.
Daniel Spira
Sharon, Massachusetts
You wrongly portray agnostics as weak or “polite” atheists and imply that atheism is the belief more closely associated with science. You are wrong on the first point because agnostics are as distant from atheists as from any belief that claims knowledge of the “truth,” be it the existence or nonexistence of a deity. Moreover, since we cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of such a deity, atheists are no more (or less) scientific than believers. Science should be orthogonal with religion, which is why agnosticism is actually the only belief that is consistent with it.
Luis Tejerina
Washington, D.C.
I can’t help but think that a lot of people are embracing only the rational or only the spiritual. But by reducing themselves to one or the other, they neglect half of their existence and cause division in the world. I’m not promoting moderate wishy-washiness; instead, I believe that every man should pursue truth with his rational mind and explore the depths of his spiritual and emotional core, without fear that they cannot coexist. Perhaps by embracing the totality of ourselves, we can have faith without fanaticism, and reason without skepticism. The theist and the atheist could have a mutual respect for one another based on the courage necessary to take a stand, knowing that life is fleeting and the evidence we have isn’t sufficient to unanimously persuade us in one direction or the other.
__Craig Haiss
Burton, Michigan __
It is encouraging to know that a number of outspoken people are verbally expressing opposition to the madness of the entire God business. J. D. Newman San Antonio, Texas
Very Short Stories (Some About God)
In the spirit of your November cover story, I submit the following six-word story (“Very Short Stories,” issue 14.11) for your consideration: “Found no God the hard way.”
__Chris Lampe
Plattsmouth, Nebraska __
I’d like to submit a six-word sci-fi story: “The singularity stops here! I, Robot.”
Stephen L. Antczak
Decatur, Georgia
Loved your very short stories! Delightful, delectable, more pleeease! Here’s my pathetic, yet surely length--record--breaking attempt at a six-word retelling of the Watergate scandal adapted for German speakers: “Pflichtbewusste Kanzleramtsberichterstattung gewaehrleistete Wiederinstandsetzung verwahrloster Rechtsstaatsstrukturen.” The literal English translation is, “Dutiful White House press coverage allowed for the reconditioning of the bedraggled structures of the constitutional state.” This is easily improved with just a few edits: “Woodward explored, Nixon floored, government restored.”
Daniel Kiecza
Arlington, Massachusetts
Flawed Analysis
In your November issue, you use a small table of data to conclude that physics is the best science (Start, “Coolest Lingo,” issue 14.11). However, I object to the selections chosen to represent mathematics: Under “Tools of the trade” you listed calculators, protractors, and slide rules … ancient history! I don’t know a mathematician today who makes use of any of these. You should have mentioned things like infinite dimensional Grassmannian manifolds, singularities, Reimann zeta functions, and vertex operator algebras. Also, under “Famous practitioners,” you list some great mathematicians. But the dominance of mathematics would have been more obvious if you had selected Isaac Newton (a mathematician who invented physics), Alan Turing (a mathematician who invented computer science), and Grigori Perelman (whose recent refusal of a Fields Medal demonstrates that mathematicians are too cool to care about prizes or recognition). So, in honor of Perelman, I will mag-nanimously allow physics to keep its Wired prize, even though it is clear that your judges were bribed by the vast antimath conspiracy!
__Alex Kasman
Charleston, South Carolina __
Have We Met?
I think I may have some form of prosopagnosia myself (“Face Blind,” issue 14.11). I can usually tell faces apart, but I have a very hard time putting a name with a face until I’ve seen the two associated together many times. It also seems to help if I can talk to the person face to face and hear their voice.
John Enfield
Las Vegas, Nevada
Skipped Smashing Stick
In your list of “The Best: Supercool Movie Weapons” (Start, issue 14.11), how could you overlook the 4-foot-long hickory club used by Sheriff Buford Pusser to wreak havoc on the bad guys in Walking Tall? (And I am talking about the 1973 original!) It may be low tech, but it sure got the job done.
Jim Nelson
Eureka, California
Happiness Is an Empty Multiplex
Oh, dear (Start, “Cue the Crackdown,” issue 14.11). One gets the feeling that the Motion Picture Association of America won’t be happy until it’s showing movies to totally empty theaters.
__Kate Adams
Loveland, Ohio __
Faith-Based Offense
To illustrate “Rocket’s Red Glare” (Posts, issue 14.11), you ran a drawing of a Hindu deity, Goddess Swarswati, holding two rockets. It’s rude and disgusting that you would allow such a picture to be printed in your magazine. To alter her picture in that way is demeaning to the people who practice the Hindu faith. Were there no other pictures that Wired could have used?
Div Patel
Lebanon, Tennessee
Nuclear Fallout
I followed the instructions in “How To: Dismantle an Atomic Bomb” (Start, issue 14.10), and all went well. Unfortunately, you failed to mention in step 4 that, when the authorities arrive to take away the separated U-235 masses, they won’t return the metal boxes. Now where do I put my tools?
J. R. (Sydd) Souza
Ellicott City, Maryland
