Atheists vs Believers: The Third Period

So Who will it be? Weeks have gone by with no clear resolution, but tonight the metaphysical hockey game will come to a close and we will finally know the truth.

As the players start their march from their dressing rooms, the fans in the stadium are out of their minds with excitement. The arena has become possessed by the game at hand and the enormity of the stake.

The players are also clearly affected by the atmosphere and the animosity between the teams is palpable. Dawkins in jawing with Aquinas while St. Anselm stares down Phillip Pullman. Yet there is one player who stands outside the fever pitch. As goaltenders usually are, the Believers goalie is quieter and more reserved than the other players. As the others head out to the ice, he remains in the dressing room focussing on the game at hand.

After a peaceful moment he pulls on his glove and blocker, picks up his stick and walks into the electric arena.

At puck drop the players stare each other down like and line up like soldiers on a battlefield. The sounds is deafening, yet the lonely Believer's goalie crouches quietly in his crease.

Referee Kant drops the puck and the players spring into action. Play moves into the Believers end and the puck rolls into the corner. It's hard to say exactly what happened next but an agressive Pullman collided with an equally spirited Anselm while battling over whether religion was important or not. Both players ended up lying on the ice, intertwined and unable to get up. The other players immediatly forgot about the puck and began pushing and shoving in the corner. Quickly things escalated from a normal hockey scrum to a full-out Donniebrook as the benches emptied and even Atheist goalie Karl Marx skated the length of the ice to join in.

Yet while the players on both sides tried to decapitate one another, the Believers goaltender remained an outside, watching what had been a good hockey game deteriorate into chaos. He knew right then there was only one thing to do.

He turned and skated towards the fighting players and threw down his gloves and stick, tossed his hemet away and skated into the crowd of swinging saints and dualing deniers, yet instead of joining in the battle he skated past them and knelt down beside the injured players on the ice. He asked them questions to find out how badly they were hurt and listened to what they had to say.

Meanwhile, the other players slowly stopped fighting, turned towards the 3 men on the ice and for the first time realized Pullman and Anselm had been hurt. But they were puzzled by what they saw. Of all they had heard about Jesus, Believers and Atheists alike, they expected to see something miraculous...an instant healing or divine intervention. Instead what they saw was the image of a man on his knees, listening intently to what both the Atheist and Believer had to say. What they saw was nothing other-worldly but something each and every one of them would have been cabable of doing if they hadn't been too busy fighting and arguing about who was right and who was to blame.

Now, at this moment the entire arena had become silent, with all eyes pointing at Jesus. With all the flashy plays, big saves and uppercuts thrown, it was a simple act of kindness that had captivated the audience and put the spotlight on the Believers goaltender who, given this opportunity, delivered a message as simple as the act that had stopped the fighting:

"For those of you that care to hear, God is here for God is love alone. To love one another as I have loved you was, and still is, the only truth there is. Your life is yours to live, and life is so important, but nothing is more important than being ready when you are called to be of service. Love is not religious, or scientific, but life itself and being open to living and loving is the only way true life can ever be experienced, otherwise you are only fighters, battling your way throuh life, blind to both the needs of others and yourselves."

With that, Jesus turned and skated towards centre ice. For a moment, the other players stood still, and then followed suit. When the players had lined up at centre ice, the shook hands and congratulated each other on a game well played and then headed for their respective dressing rooms with 19 minutes still left on the clock.

And so with that, the game ends decidedly undecided, ready perhaps to be continued a different day in a different place, but not here, not now. Although it may not feel as if anything has been resolved, the general feeling is that the premise for the game was all wrong anyways; that the question of God's existence was somehow less important than the result; that the message of peace and love delivered by Jesus was more important than anything else.

Will Grassby

The Atheists vs The Believers - 2nd Period (Part 3 of 5)

After a short delay the 2nd period is ready to be played with part three of our five-part metaphysical hockey game blog series. This week the key players shift and the topics of discussion are markedly different, but the goal remains the same. Cementing once and for all the greatest question of all. Is there a God?

With the players back on the since re-frozen ice everything is set to go for the 2nd period of the metaphysical hockey game.

Referee Immanuel Kant skates to centre ice and drops the puck. We are underway. Off the draw the Atheists take the puck and dump it into the Believers zone and give chase furiously. They look like a team on a mission and the first one to the puck is Greek star Epicurus who grabs the puck in the corner and barges his way unstoppably to the front of the net. His argument is simple. He says “"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (from 2000 years of disbelief) He fires this quick shot and scores the first goal of the game, less than 1 minute into the period.

It is to be noted that Epicurus was originally reluctant to join the ranks of the Atheists because he himself is a deist, meaning his answer to this problem is that Gods, although they exist, do not involve themselves with the world and therefore allow evil to occur.
Epicurus joined the Atheists due to his allegiance to skepticism and the scientific method, something he felt was incompatible with the faithers on the other side.

With the ever troubling “Problem of Evil” on the table and the Believers already down by a goal, they look disorganized on the ice and Richard Dawkins seems very interested in sealing the deal by throwing several hard, but mis-guided shots on the Believers’ goal.

Yet there seems to be a bit of conflict growing amongst the Atheists. A team composed mostly of educated philosophers and thinkers, they see Dawkins as out of his league; a try-hard if you will. A few of the Atheists are fed up with him hogging to puck and missing shots that they would no doubt bury into the back of the net. This frustration comes to a head when Dawkins decides to try to go end-to-end with the argument that religion itself is the source of evil.

After stick-handling through a couple of checks with religious fundamentalism as his cause, he gets blindsided by an almost 1700 year old St. Augustine of Hippo. A figure almost completely cut out of The God Delusion, Dawkins is completely surprised by the surprisingly spry Augustine and is sent sprawling into the boards.

Augustine subsequently grabs the puck and shows great dexterity in maneuvering around the Atheist defense whose insistence that evil and God cannot co-exist was exposed by a quick suggestion from Augustine the evil itself does not exist. When pressed by the back-checking Dawkins to elaborate on this blasphemous claim Augustine puts it in scientific terms for the Oxonian. What is cold but lack of heat, he said, and with that, what is evil but lack of good? What Augustine is establishing is evil as a perversion of the good and a by-product of free will. With that he left Dawkins with this quote:

“For the almighty God…would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? …in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil.”

On that note Augustine fired the puck between the Atheists’ goaltender Karl Marx's legs. Game tied.
1-1. Augustine had effectively shown the Atheists the possibility of an omnipotent, all-benevolent God in a world with things that seem evil.

However the battle has just begun. The Atheists come back hard arguing that the world would be infinitely better without any “perversion of good” and that Augustine’s had his foot in the crease on the goal by effectively playing with words instead of presenting a valid argument goal. “Go upstairs” they all yelled in chorus.

Kant skates over to the penalty box area and takes hold of the phone receiver. He calls up to the official goal judge Henry Huxley. Known for his fair judgements Huxley is quick to make his decision. Although Augustine’s foot was in the crease, he says, the rule states he must interfere with the goalie to disallow the goal. Since his argument does provide a valid analogy of a world with both an all-powerful, all-benevolent God and evil, or however you want to phrase it, the goal stands. 1-1

With that the Believers’ bench shout out for joy as the Atheists look seething.

2 minutes to go in the period and they are indeed a chippy 2 minutes. Numerous high-sticks are seen as well as a couple of “charges” against Augustine by Atheists who were not at all pleased with the sneaky move on his goal.

Despite the jeers, the period ends with the score tied.

Headed to the dressing room is one cheery group of believers and one grouchy looking group of atheists (although it's hard to tell whether Dawkins is grouchy or if it is just his usual demenour.)

It looks like the 3rd period will be one for the ages. The Atheists are chomping at the bit to get back on the ice and throw their best arguments at the rather annoying Believers squad while the Believers are looking to ride the wave of their late goal to victory. With both teams motivated and anxious to get back out there, even the Atheist fans cannot doubt it will be an electrifying finish.

Please check back next week on Wednesday at 5pm EST for the 3rd period.

Will Grassby

The Atheists vs The Believers: 1st Period (Part 2 of 5)

This blog is a contiuation of a five-part series dealing with the argument between atheism and belief in God. Today we begin with the First Period of the metaphysical hockey game introduced last week in the "pre-game show."

The crowd has been anxiously filing into their seats and everyone is finally ready to go, so with no further ado: The opening face-off.

Lining up to take the draw are esteemed philosopher and Saint, Thomas Aquinas and renowned evolutionary biologist, and outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins. Aquinas is known for his attempts to reconcile faith and reason and is most known for his "Summa Theologica", a massive work that includes the well known "quinquae viae", or the "Five Ways." Dawkins is a prominant anti-creationist who in his book "The God Delusion" argues for the non-existence of God and points out religion as a major source of evil in the world. He discusses the "Five Ways" directly in "The God Delusion" and dismisses them saying: "The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas don't proove anything...". Dawkins also argues that it is unimportant to study theology in order to disprove it in the same way "most of us disavow...the Flying spaghetti monster, without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology..." With this in mind, it is clear that right from the opening face-off, this is truly going to be one hell of a match (figuratively speaking of course).

With the players ready to go referee Immanuel Kant skates to centre ice to drop the puck. The animosity in the air is palpable.

Dawkins looks ready, but Aquinas knows exactly what he wants to do. Years of research and philosophical training have prepared him for people like Dawkins who are willing to refute his arguments without even understanding them. Just as the puck is about to be dropped Aquinas looks out from under his helmet and says "If you don't believe theology is worth studying, why do you systematically try to refute the"quinquae viae" in your book?" With that said, and Dawkins slightly unsure how he should answer, the puck is dropped and Aquinas wins the draw back to McGrath. As he skates away Aquinas politely mentions that at no time did he ever call the "quinquae viae" proofs of God's existence but that it was rather people like Dawkins who gave it that appellation many years later.

Although there is no goal scoring yet, momentum seems to have shifted to the Believers after Dawkin's philosophical weakness being exposed early. As expected, the Believers have started out with a tight-checking style mainly stating their belief as they dump the puck in while waiting to pounce on a mistake by the Atheists.

The Atheists however play with scientific precision. Dawkins recovers from his early blunder, firing several well-aimed shots on goal, including the dangerous "flexibly definable God" argument. This shot implies that God can be seen as a "filler" in the increasingly few gaps in our knowledge left unexplained by science. With this promise of religion soon being rendered history by scientific progress, the Atheists gain new life. They are beginning to overwhelm to Believer's defence who are only able to try and deflect these shots wide of the target in the hope of making it to the end of the period unscathed.

Unfortunatly for the Believers, with a few minutes left on the clock, young Oxonian defenceman Alistair McGrath admits the validity of Dawkins refutation of the long-treasured Christian belief of "intelligent design", leaving him all alone on a break-away. At the last second McGrath reaches out and trips up Dawkins by saying intelligent design and William Paley's "The watchmaker" (which is a 19th century argument that argues that if one were to find a watch on a beach that would not assume it came to be on its own, but rather that there was a watchmaker who designed it; Paley goes on to infer that the world is the same and that it is too sophisticated and "intelligently designed" to occur on its own) is a 19th century argument that it is not representative of contemporary Christianity, but it is too late. The whistle blows and Immanuel Kant crosses his arms over his head. Penalty Shot!

The crowd is on their feet as Dawkins starts in. He skates out wide to the right side and cuts back in across the top of the circle, gaining speed and hoping to catch the Believers goaltender out of position with his favourite "there almost certainly is no God" manoeuver. It appears to work as the goaltender starts to follow Dawkins across exposing the bottom right-hand corner of the net. Dawkins fires and already has his arms in the air when out of nowhere a big, "Christian" goal stick slides along the ice and deflects the puck up over the net into the crowd. No goal!

Dawkins looks back, wondering how he missed a sure goal and sees Jesus standing in the crease, staring right at him as if to say: "you're going to have to do better than that."

Indeed it appears as if saying there almost certainly is no God proves nothing but the improbability of God, which Jesus defeated with an equally inprobable save.

After two more minutes or spirited (or perhaps "lively" would be a more appropriate term) but goal-less play the buzzer sounds and the first period is done.

0-0. A scoreless, but extremely entertaining period of metaphysical hockey leaves nothing resolved, but many interesting ideas to think about over the next week leading up to next Wednesday's 2nd period.

The Atheists hold a clear advantage in shots, outshooting the Believers 9-2 and were the stronger of the two teams over the 20 minutes. It looks like they may have to change their tactics a little bit to get through the tight checking of the believers and get their shots through to the net. Faith is proving a difficult defensive tool to get around and the experts are saying that if they want to break through with some goals they will have to stick to their strength of using fact based evidence instead of probabilities. In an interview with Athiest coach Jean-Paul Sartre, he suggested that perhaps the Atheists will be looking more towards their experience in the 2nd frame to try and get back to the "essence" of their ideology.

On the other side the Believers are not overly pleased or disappointed with the 1st period. They played to their strength and it didn't fail them, the score is still even. Believer coach Karol Józef Wojtyła commented that his team needs at some point to find some offence and emphasized the importance of the defence stepping up into the attack. Only time will tell if these coaches make good prophets or whether their words fall on deaf ears.

Either way, the 2nd period promises to be evilly exciting.

Check back next week for period 2 and the continuation of "The Atheists vs The Believers" at 5pm EST on Wednesday April 8th.

The Atheists vs The Believers - Pre-Game Show (Part 1 of 5)

Alright, here it is. The gauntlet has been thrown down. The debate between believers and atheists has gone on, unresolved, for so long that we here at The Blog Journalists have decided it’s time for a final showdown.

One game, winner takes all, losers are converted.

Hold on, one “game”? Isn’t this a several thousand year old metaphysical question? How will it be solved?

The answer is on the ice.

Over the next four weeks The Blog Journalists will be simulating the first ever (I am going out on a limb here to say I am very sure this has never been done before) metaphysical hockey game. Our worthy opponents are “The Atheists” who will face-off against “The Believers” for eternal glory (or, should we say in light of the unresolvedness of the competition at the current time, mortal glory….but with a chance of eternal glory!)

The match will theoretically be played at the centre of the hockey universe, The Air Canada Centre in Toronto (emphasis on “theoretically”; please don’t show up at the gates an hour and a half prior to game-time) and is being dubbed the most meaningful hockey game to be played in Toronto in a long, long….long time.

This game will differ from your ordinary hockey game as organizers (namely myself) have agreed to play the game one period at a time over the next several Wednesdays in order to fit The Blog Journalist’s schedule.

This week we will be providing a bit of expert analysis as well as revealing the tentative starting line-ups for each ideology. Next week it’s “Game-On!”

First things first, let’s meet the competitors, starting with the high-powered Atheists. The present team captain Richard Dawkins, authour of The God Delusion will play forward, a position that The Believers have called fitting, as they find him quite offensive. Dawkins will be flanked by a couple of Europeans (as if The Atheists needed anything else to get on Don Cherry’s hit-list), one who has earned the nickname “The Greek”, Epicurus, and grinder from Germany, Ludwig Feuerbach. On defence the Atheists had been hoping to secure a pair of top-scientists, but were unable to convince either Charles Darwin or Einstein to join their ranks, as they decided to take this one in from the stands along with the rest of the agnostics. Instead the Atheists will have to settle for the relatively green defender, authour Philip Pullman whose inexperience will be made up for by veteran Sigmund Freud. Rounding out the atheist squad is goaltender Karl Marx, who although is in theory is one of the best goaltenders around, to this point has been ineffective in putting this into practice. One more interesting news-tidbit surrounding Marx, he has also been quoted in the papers saying something about the need for drug-testing and rampant opium-use amongst The Believers, although there has, to this point, been no evidence to support these claims.

Now to take a quick run-through The Believers’ starting lineup.

On forward The Believers will be sending out a line being dubbed the “All-Saints” unit, composed of St. Thomas Aquinas up the middle with St. Anslem of Canterbury on the left and St. Augustine of Hippo on the right. The expectation is that this line will maintain a defensive, dump and chase style to try and neutralize the powerful Atheistic attack. The defense for The Believers will be the more contemporary pair of Oxfordians, Professor of Historical Theology Alistair McGrath, authour of The Dawkins Delusion, and Systems Biologist Denis Noble. This pairing has been known to work very well together historically and give The Believers a much needed youth movement on the blueline. If they prove to be too green, The Believers have “The Rock”, otherwise known as St. Peter, waiting in the wings. Finally, the easiest position of all for The Believers to fill was goaltender as it is well know amongst believers that Jesus saves.

Overall, The Believers have a more experienced team, with a number of their players being several hundred years old. Only time will tell whether this will prove to be a disadvantage and if their metaphysical stick-handling will defeated by the younger, more contemporary Atheists. Either way, their play is regarded by experts as philosophically sound.

There is no doubt in my mind (especially since I am writing this stuff) that this will be a tight game and that it will go down to the wire. If needed, there will be “sudden death” overtime, which as ominous as that sounds in a metaphysical debate, I promise you it does not imply any sort of death, but rather “next goal wins.” But you already knew that…

That about sums up this week’s pre-game festivities here at The Blog Journalists. Please don’t forget to return at 5pm next Wednesday for the first period.

Note: Two things I would like to mention. Number 1: this blog series is intended to work as a fresh look at a subject that is all to often bogged down by reactionaryism. My goal in this work is to present popular arguments, new and old, in an interesting to read format with a neutral view. I do not intend to offend anyone through this series and am in no way trivializing the philosophical importance of the debate or the belief or non-belief of any individual. In fact, I am trying to do quite the opposite. I am trying to promote the subject matter and the validity of both “ideologies.” I realize that I have taken a very Western/Christian approach to the debate and I must say that I regret this as I would have liked to have taken a broader approach, however I choose to stick within my realm of experience so as to not misrepresent any facts or groups of people due to my ignorance of the subject. If you have any questions, please either leave comments on the forum to promote discussion, or for private inquiries, please email: theblogjournalists@gmail.com

Exciting New Developments with The Blog Journalists

Instead of the usual Wednesday blog, this evening we will be introducing some of the topics and events that are percolating in The Blog Journalists newsroom and will be produced for the public over the coming weeks.

Starting this Friday Blog Journalist Brent Densmore will be beginning a 4 piece blog series, appearing over the next 4 Fridays, delving into the ever more pertinent issue of sustainable development. Brent, a graduating student at Ryerson University, has spent hours preparing for this in-depth and concentrated look at how to combat issues such as urban sprawl and find cost-efficient and environmentally friendly ways of improving public transit.

Also, beginning next week, co-founding Blog Journalist Will Grassby will beginning an extended and provocative 10 part series looking at religion, faith and atheism from a number of different perspectives. This series will include snippets from current events as well as references to both contemporary and historical thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, Alister McGrath and even Jesus himself. Will endevours through this series to break down the of the barriers that exist between believers and non-believers as well as to take a new and refreshing angle on a topic that is all to often dragged down (from both sides) by a monotony of worn-out arguments.

In addition to these new developments, Russ MacDonald will be continuing with his usual weekly column which we all look forward to with baited breath. There is no doubt he has some pots on the burners that are boiling over with stories to satiate our intelligent readers' appetites.

That's what is cooking right now with The Blog Journalists. Please be sure to check back at 5pm Eastern time on Friday, armed with your comments, for the premiere of Brent Densmores first major blog series.

That's all for now!

Ciao

Will Grassby and The Blog Journalists

Another One About Buses

Apparently I like to write blogs about buses, with this one following previous discussions on increased safety on the Greyhound and the OC Transpo strike in Ottawa. I think there’s something simple and communal about the bus. Driving from A to B with an evolving flow of strangers getting where they need to be. I haven’t actually taken a bus in months, which had nothing to do with the transit strike, but I guess I just like the idea of them. But I digress.

Today’s post is about the atheist bus ads which have been taking the country by storm (or at least a discussion or two on CBC radio and the odd newspaper article…). For those who haven’t heard, the Freethought Association of Canada has decided to bring an ad campaign that started in Britain over to Canada. They plan to plaster the message: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” on buses across the country. The ads have been approved in Toronto and Calgary, and have begun to appear on TTC vehicles. They have, however, been rejected by Halifax, Ottawa, London, Vancouver, Victoria, and Kelowna. The Halifax Metro has refused to meet with the organization, and London and the British Columbia three have quoted general policy guidelines rejecting ads that “promote or oppose a specific theology or religious ethic, point of view, policy or action.”

In Ottawa it’s a little bit stickier. They have said: “The Advertising Standards section of our contract specifically excludes religious advertising which might be offensive to transit users, so we cannot approve this ad.” This has not stopped them from approving not-yet-released ads for Bus Stop Bible Studies, which quotes scripture and asks ‘big questions.’ It has also not stopped them from plastering pictures of glum pregnant young women ironing, with a slogan suggesting fathers should lock up their daughters because a certain radio station is bringing back the Gods of Rock. (I do not believe in God, therefore I do not believe in Gods of Rock. I find this offensive.)
By including the intangible phrase ‘offensive,’ OC Transpo has left itself room for criticism. Not that the decision in the end is any better than in London or Kelowna, but at least there the intolerance is all-encompassing, and maintains ad space as a way to hock unnecessary junk. Even the founder of Bus Stop Bible Studies is dumbfounded, asking with an Obama-y level cooperation why OC Transpo approved his ads but not the atheist ones. David Harrison asked: “Why would they approve ours and not theirs? If we don’t stand up for (the atheists’) rights, ours will be trampled too.”

I am not going to sit here and spew outrage at OC Transpo’s decision. It was clearly a misguided decision, and likely one that will be overturned. Maybe they’ll even make it a two-fer, and cover up misogyny with discourse. I suspect the Freethought Association would even have been disappointed had the ads not been barred in some cities. Much like PETA’s naked broccoli banned Superbowl ads, they get lots of sympathy and free publicity this way, and will still likely see their message on a number of buses.

Whether or not the ads will strike somebody and make them realize that they don’t actually believe in God and therefore they are atheists (it’s true), the ads have still already accomplished much of what they were attempting to do, which is stir up healthy debate. Most ads are aimed at exploiting people and subtly maintaining a culture of consumerism anyways, so let’s not hold them with too high an esteem. Had the slogan read something like: “God doesn’t exist, you moron,” then I could see some people being upset. But as they stand, they are nothing but an attempt to open debate, and get a rise out of people who take life too seriously. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

Russel MacDonald

To the Glory of...Reason? Response to "To Reason"

Interesting post Russ. I have now read Ms. Lakritz's original article and agree with your assessment. It is a one-sided article that simply breaths of reactionaryism.

Her attack on reason is of course laugable. Ironically it is her own reason (even if one disagrees with this reason) that motivates her to respond to the athiest students of the University of Alberta. The way she tries to make her point would be unacceptable in an elementary school.

All knee-jerk reactions aside, I think the place where she truly went wrong was where she decided to seperate God and reason from one another (despite her misinformed attempt to reference him, St. Thomas Aquinas would be spinning in his grave.)

In fact her characterization of reason as 'malleable' and a source of entitlement is a claim that, if taken seriously, would set the world of philosophy back somewhere in the neighbourhood of several thousand years.God is a concept that, despite what Christians, Jews, Hinduists or probably even the Scientologists would say, is itself malleable. The word God is merely a word and depending on who is doing the defining, it could mean any number of things. To one person God could be the creator of all things but to another it could be a less definable concept, something more abstract such as a code of morals the idea of perfection. Even the athiest must admit they have some sort of concept of God; after all, how could an athiest deny God without first having some sort of idea of what they are denying?

As a final note, I went to the University of Alberta website and stumbled across the university's motto which is proudly displayed on the university's crest. The Latin reads 'Quaecumque Vera' or 'whatsoever things true.' Personal beliefs aside, truth is the main goal. Reason is the tool we have to reach this goal. No matter what truths we come to as individuals, reason is the road there. Lakritz undermines the truth of her own article by ripping up this road.

Will Grassby

To Reason

A controversy has been brewing at the secular University of Alberta regarding their convocation speech, in which graduates were urged to use their degrees "for the glory of God and country."

This, of course, worked the university's Atheists and Agnostics society into a tizzy (what those Atheists are doing hanging out with the wishy-washy Agnostics in the first place I'm not sure). Rightly or wrongly, that debate has raged on.

This prompted input for Calgary Herald writer Naomi Lakritz, which was reprinted in today's Ottawa Citizen. [Oct 29] She defends the institution's inclusion of God by asking how atheists would prefer the line be rewritten, mockingly suggesting 'for the glory of reason.' (How about 'for the betterment of humanity', or some other relatively inclusive, happy-Utopian phrase?)

Ms. Lakritz goes on to mock reason (I kid you not), saying: "Reason is the altar on which (atheists) worship -- a narcissistic, no-stress, do-it-yourself approach, since everyone is free to put his or her own spin on how reason is defined. Reason is, in fact, so malleable that it's the ideal religion for these members of the Entitlement Generation who think the world ought to be rewritten in their own images."I may be wrong, but doesn't Christianity teach us that God created humans in His own self-image? That in the entire Universe, amongst all the stars and planets and lifeforms, human beings are the chosen ones by the Supreme Creator?

That to me seems more narcissistic than worshiping at the altar of Reason (Reason, I know! "The ability to think and understand and draw conclusions;" "Sanity;" "Good sense or judgement; what is right, practical, or possible!")I realize and fully appreciate that none of you may share Ms. Lakritz's views on narcissistic atheists or the Entitlement Generation, or her disregard for Reason (does that make her unreasonable?), regardless of your varying religious leanings, and for that I am grateful. I don't mean for this to be an attack on any one religion or expression thereof, or even the University of Alberta's speech, but rather just me venting about one individual's inflammatory bigotry, which I thought I'd share. Thanks for reading.

Russ MacDonald