I went to Klein's religion symposium today. It wasn't an awful event, but I think some presentations could be better. The Jewish and Islamic programs were real sharp. I didn't really learn anything about Christianity, the Mormons, Sikhism, or Buddhism that I didn't already know, but I've gotta say that it was truly embarrassing to hear the deeply intriguing metaphysical lecture given by the Class of '08 Ambassadors of Atheism. Ugh.

I appreciated the distinction between agnosticism and the hard stuff. The fact that the kid knew Lucretius and Epicureus was cool too. And, granted, I didn't expect this debate to be an intellectual conference of the highest tier or anything ("why y'all gotta be all up on holy wars?" and "how can god exist if there's so much evil in the world?"), but I'm sorry--if you can't defend your beliefs, don't flaunt them. The two kids ran out of stuff after somebody asked them what kind of meaning life has if you look forward to no afterlife. I am actually really depressed that I hadn't known about this sooner, because I would've represented atheists had I the oppurtunity.

I would've mentioned that no two atheists are alike, or that there's not exactly a global coalition of antichristian militants that meets every Sunday afternoon to engage in sterile chitters over the origin of the electron. I might have said something about those who are genuine humanists and need no God to serve, divine purpose to fulfill, or promise of immortality to find meaning or passion in their life. I work to better myself and to just enjoy my life, after all. The speakers mentioned that atheists aren't necessarily immoral people but the language they used made it seem as though they were being self-contradictory. They didn't delve further into why you don't need religion to be a decent human being and thus made us look pretty freaking lame.

It's not that I pretend to know the origin of the universe. It's not even that I believe all the logical speculation that's out there (though I admit, it fascinates me and a lot of it is plausible given obvious astrophysical evidence). It's just that I'm one of those guys that, if he doesn't know what the hell answer to bubble in on the test, chooses the simplest one. I'd rather blame the whole thing on pure reason than attribute all of existence to some divine consciousness. It's like that Joan of Arc movie--of all the possible likely explanations for there to be a sword lying in a field, that nutcase decided it had descended from the heavens, awash with the light of God, intended by His Divine Will to be a symbol of justice. You know what I mean? It's not that I know where it all comes from. No one does, not really. Not even the most fervent Creationists. It's just that you can pretty much rule out the most outlandish ideas and look at the simpler explanations.

I am angry because I had a really nice paragraph here and I pushed the hyperlink button and it was deleted. I will attempt to reconstruct it.

Someone asked me today why I would adhere to a philosophy so guaranteed to leave me with nothing at the end of my life. I thought about it, and, well, of course it would be more cheerful if I held the belief that I'll be taken care of after I die, that I am an immortal part of a Creation so grand that our petty civilization is utterly incapable of fathoming its eternal glory. But I don't buy it. I can't. It's an antiquated and romantic conclusion left over from when we hadn't the ability to look further than our own little speck of dust. Even if it looks worse in the big picture for myself, I can't just believe something because the advertisements look nice. More likely, the simpler explanation that we're just here and nobody's in charge is what I'd bubble in on my scantron. And really, I think it's my duty as a sentient being to acknowledge the fact that it's probably true. It would be mockery in the face of the universe if I deluded myself to feel better about death. To be honest, that's easier for me to accept anyway. I'm more in awe of the place knowing there's nobody behind it.