In last Wednesday's op-ed submission, Sharon Neely wrote that she was "troubled and saddened by the assumptions made about faith and its role in people's lives" in a Nov. 8 op-ed that I authored entitled, "Not a belief system, but a reason-based alternative to religion."
From this starting point, Neely stated that she was "going to use [her] own experiences and thoughts as an active believer in God" to refute the claims I had made about faith.
Neely's concern seemed to focus primarily on the minimalist definition of faith that I provided. Unfortunately, while decrying as "almost laughably absurd" any definition of faith put forth by an atheist, she failed to provide one herself.
Instead, Neely's piece focused on an emotion-laden delineation of the "proof for [her] faith" and statements of the vapid variety such as "faith is about going on a journey" and "part of the journey is finding what the truth is for yourself."
It is unfortunate that Neely neither clarified nor presented an actual case for the validity or worth of faith in any sense.
I will first apologize for the extremely brief definition of faith that I provided in Thursday's op-ed. Unfortunately, this section of the Daily only provides for pieces of a length of no more than 1,200 words, and I had to be succinct for the purpose of clarity.
While I am more than willing to accept a more comprehensive meaning of faith, I feel that the type of faith Neely refers to evades all attempts at definition.
It is interesting to me that for Neely, God lies in all things unknown. "We've delved into the brain, found the dendrite and the axon, but still haven't figured out how memory really works. But my answer to that is God," writes Neely.
Neely's reasoning seems to follow this pattern: Neuroscientists have yet to detail a working map of the intricacies of human memory; therefore, a supernatural being, dubbed God, exists and created the universe.
Does no one see the flaws in this mode of thinking? Need I really go through the excruciating pain of pointing out the absurdity of that conclusion? If I find presents under my Christmas tree, does that imply the existence of a large, jolly, bearded man who wears red, has a fondness for flying reindeer and commands a large slave workforce of small people?
I think not.
Furthermore, I wonder: If scientists did "figure out how memory really works" would Neely lose a smidgen of faith in God's existence? I can only imagine that answer to be in the negative (even though it seems to be what her reasoning would logically yield).
When we didn't know of the existence of dendrites and axons, was God also the answer to the question, "How does the brain work?" It seems that Neely's God lies in all yet-to-be-answered questions, all yet-to-be-made discoveries.
Suddenly God becomes synonymous with "What we don't yet know" and therefore holds little meaning, if any. There is much we have yet to discover, understand and systematize: This does not mean that a supernatural being is at work.
Neely also writes that "even prominent scientists, in the course of their reasoned studies, have seen the brilliance of the stars in the galaxy and have come away knowing there must be a Creator behind it."
As the son of an astronomer, I can guarantee you that any self-described scientist who has interpreted "the brilliance of stars" as evidence of a supernatural creator of the universe is unworthy of that title.
Based on that observation no logical leap, large or small, could lead to Neely's proposed conclusion.
In fact, the vast majority of scientists view the universe as the result of a natural event (the Big Bang), one absent of all supernatural presence or intervention. (I might add that they see no need to insert one.)
After the accruing of this ball of dirt we call home, and the billions of years since it's inception, the natural phenomena known as evolution has given rise to a variety of living beings, including the trees and penguins that Neely sees as evidence for God.
While the "ability of a penguin to hear the call of her child amongst thousands" is remarkable, evolution adequately accounts for how that came to be, without reference the existence of a supernatural being. As such, no such examples can be considered intelligible evidence of God.
We have only been able to research the properties of neuronal interactions and subatomic particles, as in the case of the quarks that Neely mentions, for mere decades. Many important studies are still currently underway in those fields. Larger discoveries, such as the composition and structure of our universe, have taken far longer; indeed the study of the universe is some thousands of years old.
We do not yet have all the answers. But that does not mean that they will not come or that their origins will be supernatural. While there is much we have yet to discover and much we have yet to ask, I would like to assure Neely and all likeminded souls that the answers are on their way.
I await them eagerly.
Xavier Malina is a sophomore majoring in international relations and political science. He is also the treasurer and public relations director for the Tufts Freethought Society.
