As Dogbert once said in Dilbert, "I like the concept of Karma, it means I can treat people like crap and assume they deserve it."
Excellent. And, okay, that gives me the opportunity to at long last discuss the Internet foofaraw about Scott Adams.
Several weeks ago, Adams pulled from his website a rant he had written that many people felt was rank misogyny. The reason he pulled it, he said, was that portions of it were being lifted out of context by people trying to demonize him.
One of the smartest people I know is a devout Christian. She explains it this way: "I feel deeply loved by someone or something." Can't argue with that. It's literally inarguable, and therefor unassailable. It is the illogical logic of religion, and I buy it.
You seem different, though. You say you believe these things on faith, but then you seem to make it clear that your faith is an invention of your own mind, to meet a "need." This seems very self-aware, but also not particularly spiritual or faithful.
My disbelief is basically an offshoot of Occam's Razor. To me, the assumption of a deity requires all manners of bizarre assumptions, and turning a blind eye to the most likely explanation of all. An example is the endless, multi-millennia long theological angushes and agonies and discussions over how God could permit such suffering, without ever really daring to say, "Um, wait. There is one other possibility..."
I also keep coming back to the fact that it is completely logical that man invented God out of terror, and a need for hope in terrifying times. It's inconceivable that primitive man would NOT have created the idea of a God to pray to, to stave off disaster. You know?
Which brings us back to you.
Perhaps I'm naive, but how could the Post publish a column so obviously not written by its supposed author?
Newspapers do that all the time. I think it's bad. But whenever you see a piece by a U.S. Senator or congressman or CEO, chances are it was written by a staffer.
Did you ever read his op-ed piece in the NYT on why he is an atheist? In it, he addresses the "how do you know there is not a god" question. He states that the burden is on the believer who questions the non-believer to prove there is a god since they are the ones so intent on there being a god.
Hmm. I started hating it because the author named her daughter "Mulan."
Then I fell in love with it because it got really funny and I laughed out loud when I hit this line "
At the end, I found myself really hoping it was all true, but suspecting some chicanery. It seemed too well tied up.
But all in all: Great read.