A friendly acquaintance of mine has published a letter to our local paper criticizing NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof for describing Atheists as "obnoxious." In her opinion, they have been unfairly maligned by their associations with communism particularly in Russia, and are actually brave.
Here is my response to her letter:
In her thought-provoking letter of December 12, [name withheld]’s last sentence makes her salient point particularly effective: actually, Atheism is quite brave.
While the knee-jerk reflex is to scoff at such a notion, that reaction only supports Ms. [name withheld]’s assertion. Faith in God (or some higher symbol or power) emanates from the more emotional, less analytical, more needy, less independent, more primitive, less sophisticated, more instinctive, less intellectual portion of the brain that never matured beyond reliance upon an Other for comfort and nurture. In that sense, dependence on God, and on a one-size-fits-all structure of concepts, beliefs, and rituals, to please one’s way into God’s good graces, is anything but brave. Therefore, its opposite – Atheism – is courageous.
Furthermore, Atheism gets its nefarious reputation not through its inherent nature but from those who cling to religion like fortunate infants suckle their mothers’ breasts. When the redundant "Godless" attaches, that negative adjective unleashes the threat of hell (to borrow from Christian parlance) to punish the infidels (to borrow from Islam) who had their chance – but sadly rejected it - during the stage of our human continuum known as earthly life.
Other religions get their revenge as well. How they do so is beyond both the scope of this letter and my expertise. The scorn heaped upon the intrepid non-believer – whether the refutation of God derives from careful consideration or a culmination of faith-exasperating experiences – comprises the dress rehearsal for the grand performance of our alleged ultimate fate. Bluntly stated, the price of not believing in God, and adhering to the "true" religion, is designed to be not worth one’s trouble.
Here, in the remainder of my word allotment, enters Agnosticism, that hybrid of faith and non-faith. As skeptical Agnosticism ponders the gap between allegiance to God and confidence in oneself for moral rectitude, it is not merely a tribute to hedging one’s bets. Agnosticism is also the opposite of Atheism in one important respect: it is as cowardly as Atheism is brave.