Although the metaphor of “God” may be solely a matter of personal definition, consider the fact that Einstein was, by current definition, a Scientific Pantheist, and would likely be disturbed at the tone of current debate over atheism.

On a personal level, I don’t truly know if there’s a Creator God, and neither do you. People can have their personal faith-beliefs, whether that’s perceived as wishful thinking, intuitive connection, a product of peer pressure, a true feeling of oneness with the Universe, societal indoctrination, or blatant superstition is clearly open for interpretation.

We are on the verge of a new era in neuroscience, and promising developments will help us explain the need for transcendental experience. Increasingly, neuroscientists have found that so-called spiritual practices, like shamanic drumming, yoga, and meditation, have a profound effect on the brain’s structure and chemistry.

Thus, institutional religions are likely not just socio-cultural constructs, but may have an evolutionary role in social cohesion, tribal identity and the need for personal security for the social, human animal. At one time, they may have served as a form of pre-Freudian therapy; I would highly recommend reading the works of Andrew Newberg, Andrew Darling and Matthew Alper, all of whom consider biology in the birth of religious feelings.

Considering religion: Of course, the lethal down side is when these practices become an “us versus them” mentality, leading to a breakdown in cooperation among cultures, the universal story of war and conflict. The centuries-old conflict between Islam and Christianity is the most visible, but there are dozens of similar tribal disputes in locales across the globe.

In reality, the New Atheists are not scientific at all. They seemingly heap real and circumstantial evidence into an emotional public debate, and deal in absolutes. That’s pseudo-science, at best.

Lacking a better definition, science is a process of evolving hypotheses, based on a process of obtaining empirical evidence. From my personal experience as a Humanist, many atheists act as though they have all the answers (based on the books of Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and Chris Hitchens, three Brits with some personal issues). That arrogance, based on popular reading material, despite the relative limitations of current science.

In my lifetime, we’ve learned (through science) how the Earth’s biosphere evolved, how the Big Bang occurred, and how the dinosaurs became extinct. Just 15 years ago, we didn’t know if there were viable planets orbiting nearby stars — thanks for the Hubble Space Telescope, there are evidently some 500 planets within viewing range.

With open questions on Dark Matter and Energy, and the probability of multiple dimensions in a quantum reality, it appears that both monotheistic and atheistic opinions are being stated based on incomplete evidence. To assume that new science will prove, or disprove, a culturally defined concept of deity is bordering on outrageous.

Certainly, I believe in Darwinian evolution, but it has some flaws, particularly when you look to processes like Horizontal Gene Transfer. Increasingly, we are coming to a more complete model of the Earth’s development, piece by scientific piece.

Physics is making tremendous strides towards understanding the Universe. The FermiLab in Illinois is looking to research the possibility of a “Holographic Universe”, one that has been touted by quantum physicists and New Agers alike. If proven, this would just as paradigm shifting as early Darwinian naturalism.

The “New Atheism” is not new, as its roots go back to Thomas Hobbes, Arthur Schopenhaeur and Betrand Russell. Today, Americans Sam Harris and Michael Shermer are better latter day skeptics, and don’t seem to have the ego problems that evidently afflict the British atheists of popular discourse.

One observation: Distinctly, I remember that TIME magazine ran a cover asking “Is God Dead?” when I was a small child in the early 1960s. An interesting question, in that the Maoris of New Zealand believe that gods die when humans quit believing in them.

Regardless of what you think, it’s unlikely this question will be resolved in our lifetime, perhaps never by contemporary science or theism. The questions may exceed our abilities to comprehend an ultimate truth beyond the mechanics of the Universe.

On a cautionary note, atheism is one foundation of the “me first” ethos that drives Objectivist philosophy, which is increasingly creeping into Congressional debate. What’s the next step, Neo-Nazism? The individual should be rewarded for his/her talents, in my opinion, but the concept of “Enlightened Self Interest” would seemingly penetrate the obtuse arguments of narcissism.

Somewhere, there has to be compassion towards humanity, and an awareness of how intricately connected society and Nature truly are. Atheism, a ‘non-prophet’ belief system, just does not adequately fill the vacuum of a declining monotheistic culture in the West.

Predictably, a new cosmology will likely emerge in this century, based on Dark Green thinking, respecting life in all its forms — as Bron Taylor would call it, a Civil Earth Religion vs. Religious Nationalism (of the past). However, the very definition of “religion” will change, as it may imply more pantheistic, or egalitarian, thinking than the worship of anthropomorphic deities.

The persistent problem with militant atheism is that it tends to cut many of its adherents off from considering possibilities and ongoing scientific evidence, by advocating absolute doctrines. Tragically, as history has taught us with radical religious and secular philosophies, that only leads to catastrophe

An Atheist could say there is no Jesus, no Nazareth, or even an Adam-built Mecca; as there are Atheists who venerate the major religious founders because of their contribution to world history, be it terrific or terrible.

To maintain diversity only this should be an Atheist creed:
-that he disbelieve not just God, but all kinds of supernaturalism and superstition.
-that, if he’s an artist, he’s an aestheticist; if not, he must be very practical.
-that he’s a realist and a naturalist.
-he’s Epicurean.

I don’t thinks it’s possible to do as this author has done and simply postulate “existence” as an attribute to God (which Kant has kindly explained cannot be done) nor any other predicates. What Max seems to be saying is that any God you attempt to disprove God, through reason, will never be a direct reflection of the the God up there (if there is one) as God is simply a diverse concept (concept being a key issue here) and cultural relativism shows everyone has a different opinion as to what/who he, she or it is, and consequently atheism can’t take evidence and claim “this proves God is not omni benevolent” because who’s to say God is omni benevolent at all.

Personally i would suggest the only claim to theism, or knowledge of God, is direct contact with God, experience of him (but for it to be inductively concluded it would have to be STRONG evidence)

Furthermore, i would claim you can’t have ‘in experience of God’ (from an Atheist’s point of view) to claim he doesn’t exist, AT ALL, only that it’s unlikely he doesn’t. Consequently agnosticism (or Max (?)) seems to be suggesting that atheism is not possible, the question of God’s existence can’t be answered through reason, nor can it be completely disregarded through a lack of evidence.

I probably spurting crap at the moment. Most of this site seems WAY beyond anything i can comprehend. :/