The God question

I’m convinced a great many atheists are excellent specimens of human character—as Cory Keleher’s recent letter so admirably shows [“Atheist angle,” March 1]. However, the issue being sidestepped regards the existence of God. Yes, we should always be accepting facts, but can’t we also have the skepticism to challenge our infallible scientists?

The bigger question is, as humans, how much can we know? The prize claim of someone like Richard Dawkins is that there’s no scientific proof for the existence of a supreme being.

On second thought, can there be? Because of such a being does exist, isn’t that what makes it supreme—the fact the humans would be too inferior or incapable to conceive of proofs?

This may not sound very enlightening, but shouldn’t we be concerned less with narrow rationalism and more with whole truth—however elusive that may be? Perhaps Wendell Berry put it best when he wrote, “Religion deals with a reality beyond the reach of empiricism.”

>> L.S. Cattarini

Cory Keleher’s letter rejecting religions in favour of atheism is one of the most enjoyable, intelligent and human that I have seen on that subject.

The quote in it that “not believing is a belief in itself” could be reworded as “a religion in itself.”

One might not share that point of view, but nobody can offer a provable explanation of the origin of the universe or life itself. Science goes a way, and contradicts some of the details of established religions, but does not disprove their basic tenets nor explain the above.

In the end, as stated in that letter, the only thing that counts is how we treat each other and live the life we have.

If we do that humanely, then what we do or don’t believe is of no concern to anyone else.

>> Ken Frankel

Tired of Canadian condescension

Racism is bad in Canada. Multiculturalism is good. Except for when it comes to Americans, as Raf Katigbak so plainly put it “Secretly Canadian [“Riff-Raff,” March 1].

He invokes his university-educated “uniquely Canadian” condescension upon working-class Americans that, were they Canadian, would not even figure into his Montreal sphere... save occasional croisements au dépanneur.

Perhaps it’s because I am sick of being polite. Although most of my time in la belle province has been spent ensconced in the phallic-shaped ivory towers of UdeM, I cannot help but break the silence. Je suis americaine. I am proud to be here. But I am also proud of my roots.

Shhh... don’t tell, but there are more of us all around you. Except you don’t notice us. Because most of us here are not the obese tourists you can so clearly point-and-laugh at during the summer months. Some of us even speak French, câlisse.

We blend. We might even be your friend. Except with pronounced bite marks on our tongues.

>> Laura O’Laughlin

Everyone is to blame

John Dirlik thinks the Palestinians share no responsibility for their actions nor their future, as he writes in the March 1 issue [Letters, “Palestinians not to blame”], alleging that the “basics” of the situation are that one side, Israel, is usurping the Palestinians’ homeland in the “forceful implantation of a foreign colony.”

That isn’t so. A small number of Jews always lived there, and in the 1800s, many more began to migrate there. In counter to this, more Arabs began to migrate there. After World War I, the Ottoman Empire fell and the British divided up the Middle East, creating “Palestine”—the British even made up the name. After Jewish and Muslim tensions they quickly divided it into two: “Palestine” and “Transjordan.” The PLO actually started in the Transjordan side, and was kicked out by the Jordanian king for their terrorism. Where did they go? Palestine.

After the second World War, the UN decided to split “Palestine” in half (again) and give one half to the Jews, the other to the Arabs, creating “Israel” and “Palestine.” What happened next? The Egyptians invaded Gaza, the Jordanians invaded the West Bank, and then with the help of Syria, the three countries invaded Israel.

The “Palestinian” presence in Israel is no less artificial than the Jewish presence, and the whole situation was messed up by foreign powers that neither side had control over. If Mr. Dirlik were to actually study the history of the situation more closely, he might discover that it is far more ambiguous than he would have us believe.

>> Christopher Khan