Atheists Respectable or Not

Are Atheists respectable or not?

I commented this (see below) on a First Things On the Square article with no response (on many sites, I am just ignored: no one will be ignored on this blog).

(1) From the On the Square article the day before this article was posted ("Cogito and Christ" by Mr. Carter)
"Over the past few decades, many Christians—particularly those intrigued by postmodernism—have rightly questioned Descartes’ reversal. They have attempted to dethrone the idol of reason by pointing out the limits of rationality and questioning the human ability to achieve epistemic certainty, particularly about matters of theology. Unfortunately, in trimming away the underbrush they have failed to cut away the root of Descartes error: the faith in doubt.

"Among these Christians, as well as among secular intellectuals, doubt about metaphysical truths—such as the existence and creative actions of God—has become viewed as a form of intellectual humility. Once considered evidence of a poor intellect, agnosticism and atheism are now treated as evidence of intellectual virtue.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. This reliance on doubt requires that the doubter be the supreme judge of what can or cannot be known. Rejecting a dogmatic certitude about what is known in favor of a questioning attitude of whether something can be known with certainty merely shifts the idol of reason to a new location and gives it a more palatable, humble-sounding name. The doubters accept the limits of the human mind, embrace pluralism, and do not impose any one idea of truth upon others.

"However when we put our trust solely in our own reason we either become dogmatic or skeptical, and even dogmatic in our skepticism. But when we set aside our self-idolatry and seek true epistemic humility we can discover that the only reliable foundation for reason is found in special revelation."

(2) From this article:
"There are two answers to the question: 'Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?' The atheist answers, 'There is no explanation.' The theist replies, God. An intelligent case can be made for either answer. But to say that the laws of physics alone answer it is the purest nonsense—as Hawking himself once realized."

I find the two passages above conflicting.

I talked to an in-law who claims to be an Atheist. I basically said that one of us has to be right (there is God or not), but that I respected my in-law's belief. My in-law has reasons, and I have my own.

From the first passage, it seems that the in-law's reasons contra-God's existence are directed to "self-idolatry", and from the second passage, the reasons derive an "intelligent case".

Which one is it? Can it be both at the same time like it is in so many philosophical/religious topics?

So what is it?

All One Needs to Know About Politics

All one needs to know about politics can be thought to come from A Man for All Seasons (it's one of my favorite movies; I don't do favorites lightly). St. Thomas More, the patron of statesmen, knew that no one was above the law. He also knew that law was imperfect since it was written by men, especially if the law was disregarded or interpreted away.

If a law seems to be or is in fact wrong, it must be changed, not trampled underfoot alone or in the company of other laws.


The precedence of previous laws must be obliged. However, natural law must be upheld as its underpinning.


Finally, the oath that public officials take are not merely words but binding tethers to the path of an official's destination for the benefit of society and its tradition.


Officials cannot function on the will-to-power but must be grounded in the path toward the common good: otherwise moral, political, and ethical chaos ensues.

For the U.S., "And for the support of this Declaration [of Independence of the USA], with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."