...the day of the philosopher as isolated thinker--the talented amateur with an idiosyncratic message--is effectively gone. | ” | —Nicholas Rescher, "American Philosophy Today," 'Review of Metaphysics' 46 (4 |

It is possible to believe at something which could or couldn’t be true. Atheism is an example of this something. Atheists claim that there is no God because the evidence they experience shows that God is not real; however, to have a static claim as strong as atheism is anti-scientific: because the belief itself lacks foundation associated with our ‘natural laws’ and thus, having a set belief that is static is counter scientific spirit which contradicts that base of atheistic claim.

Thus, to be an atheist using scientific claims as basis is illogical; however, this doesn’t mean that a person cant be an atheist; but only that person who claims to be an atheist because of scientific reasoning is wrong in his assumptions.

atheists say there is no God, but before you can deny something, you must first affirm its existence, as a rule... in saying there is NO God, you actually affirm there is one.

Hence I must conclude that the answer to our openeng question is a simple and flat no. No, it is not necessary for a truly contemporary person to be an atheist or to disbelieve in the existence of God. And I find no arguments, no reasons, no evidence or facts, not in Bishop Robinson's writings, nor in Bishop Pike's, nor in the writings of Tillich, Bultmann, and Bonhoeffer, or in the lesser breed of new theologians, which support the opposite answer.
The new theologians are impressed by the secularism of our society, by the spread of irreligion and of atheism or disbelief in God. It is this which leads them to propose a religionless Christianity, or an atheistic Christianity, a secularized religion to meet the needs or fit the condition of present life. All this is justified on the ground that the church is absolutely out of touch with contemporary life, and that this is no connection between what goes on in the church and contemporary life, and soon. I am sure that a religionless or secularized Christianity is as much a self-contradiction as an atheistic theology.
I would like to make two points about secularism and religion. One is to question the claim that secularism and irreligion are on the increase. The other is to raise the question about the meaning of religion itself -- a question that will affect the view we take of religion in the West and in the East.
With regard to the apparent increase of secularism or irreligion in our Western society, I suggest that the men and women who have given up religion because of the impact on their minds of modern science and philosophy were never truly religious in the first place, but only superstitious. The prevalence and predominance of science in our culture has cured a great many of the superstitious beliefs that constituted their false religiosity. Bishop Robinson is right if what he means is that a truly contemporary person cannot be superstitious in the way that countless human beings were in the past. The increase of secularism and irreligion in our society does not reflect a decrease in the number of persons who are truly religious, but a decrease in the number of those who are falsely religious; that is, merely superstitious.
There is no question but that science is the cure for superstition, and, if given half the chance with education, it will reduce the amount that exists.
The truths of religion must be compatible with the truths of science and the truths of philosophy. As scientific knowledge advances, and as philosophical analysis improves, religion is progressively purified of the superstitions that accidentally attach themselves to it as parasites. That being so, it is easier in fact to be more truly religious today than ever before, precisely because of the advances that have been made in science and philosophy. That is to say, it is easier for those who will make the effort to think clearly in and about religion, not for those whose addiction to religion is nothing more than a slavish adherence to inherited superstition. Throughout the whole of the past, only a small number of men were ever truly religious. The vast majority who gave their epochs and their societies the appearance of being religious were primarily and essentially superstitious.
What I have just said goes a long way, I think, toward explaining the increase of atheism. The growing number of new atheists consists of those who never did understand the conception of God, and whose mistaken conceptions of God have been shaken, as well they should, by modern science and philosophy.

My Position: Beyond Faith is a Loving God

It should come as no surprise that the human condition is the common ground in all three essays. This theme puts forward the problem of religion as an existential problem. As Fyodor Dostoyevsky puts it, “Realism, indeed, Dmitri. I am for realism. I’ve seen too much miracles.” (Dostoyevsky 1957, 359) We have to keep our feet on the ground in understanding these things, for otherwise, faith would have no meaning if man does not find it fully grounded. Thus, the essays focus on the human side of the story, and all criticisms against God simply indicate the lack of recognition of the role of religion as a special domain in human affairs. Paul Tillich, obviously, comes to mind here, for he argues that religion is that special dimension in human life that is irreducible to any of the human categories expressed above.

The essays also exhibit the distinction between negative and positive atheism. Negative atheism rejects the idea of God outright, with no intention to elaborate on the role of human reason in coming to terms with the foundations of our faith. Positive atheism, on the one hand, tries to justify the importance and value of some religious principles, although these maxims all point to the triumph of man in meaningfully finding the essence of his faith. While negative atheism distorts human freedom as a positive attribute, positive atheism acknowledges its value.

Indeed, it is difficult to see God in a world entrenched in evil, greed and manipulation. It is highly unthinkable how a good father can allow His children to suffer when in fact He should be protecting them instead. Such also raises the question on the role and value of human freedom. While it is possible that man is simply free – free to decide which values he must create for himself, what kind of life he must live or how he desires to pursue the meaning of life, a good God in the background offers no danger to his freedom. The idea of a just and loving God is not ultimately incompatible with human freedom, for this loving God decides, rather than dictates, that happiness is without meaning if it does not proceed from the will of each person.

Faith is about believing in something that goes beyond science. Precisely, no proof or evidence links man and God, and so the only viable rational thing to say is that belief in God is a matter of faith. To suggest that it is stupidity to have faith in something that one has no evidence of existence suggests that there is only one way of looking at the world. Following this point of view means that we can only see the world in an empirical and scientific way. Human intelligence dictates that it is by means of a careful and methodical study that things come into light. Martin Buber, in I and Thou, explicates this:

What has been said earlier of love is ever more clearly true at this point: feelings merely accompany the fact of the relationship after which all is established not in the soul but in an I and a You. (Buber 1998, in Palmer, et al, 665)

There are things that come into light although there is no proof that suggests their ontological status. For instance, we can say that a father is only doing his moral obligation by paying for the education of his daughter. We can also say that not all parents feel that way, and in fact, not all parents believe that such moral obligation exists. However, there are parents who send their kids to school not because they feel obliged to, but because they find joy and fulfillment in doing so.

Some transcendent value comes with the effort of having done something for someone. We call this many things, but nothing explains the fact that it is something special and something that you do not simply do for the sake of doing it. It comes directly from the wonder of our humanity, from the power of our person. As Abdala the Saracen says, “There is nothing to be seen more wonderful than man” (Perry, et al, 2003, 10). We can also take as an example the case of a Good Samaritan who does something to a stranger. There are no rules and any individual who goes beyond himself does something not in view of some interest but simply because there is joy in extending oneself and reaching out to others who are in need. The point is that this act proceeds from an inner feeling and its practical good effects we cannot consider as its evidence. People feel its power and it moves people into doing what is good for others.

Thus, while we walk upon this earth and might not find God in any of the things we see, still, there is that element in us that makes us transcend ourselves, realizing that there are values that are greater than us, moments that take us further in terms of understanding what it means to live. The poverty of the human imagination should not be an excuse for refusing to acknowledge the divine in as much as the power of the human mind cannot be justification for the rejection of that inner force that operates within us. Precisely, God is nowhere out there, not even in outer space. We find God when we search within us the inner strengths of our soul, of our humanity.

Beyond faith, the true nature of human transcendence is that one goes beyond the mere practicalities of human existence. While a poor mind sees only bats and owls in the night, an open mind sees stars and the future of our children shining in the deep and dark sky. This is what authentic freedom is. It is not based on a doctrine or some abstract moral principle. Beyond belief, there's the truth of a loving God in a world that is actually free.

It does not really matter whether or not the glass is half-full or half-empty. What matters really is for people to believe we live to fill in the glass. Rising above self tells us that one lives for something greater, for some cause that is bigger. This is what faith is all about. It is beyond you. Martin Luther writes, “This faith can only rule in the inner man” (Perry et al, 10). For instance, to suggest that the death of someone is the merely end of an earthly existence is a poor judgment. Precisely, death diminishes us in a huge way for each human life is a huge treasure that is irreducible to any practical end – unique and irreplaceable.