I find this article to be one of contradictions, Kent states those who do not believe or feel the presence of a god should be considered as a, “frog in a well who cannot fathom the sea”. Does Kent feel the same way about someone who is blind; can they not understand the conception and meaning of light without experiencing it? Or a person, who is deaf, is it pointless to describe the beauty and wonder of music, simply because they are unable to hear?
Later in the article Kent then states, “There are many paths, and the sea looks different from each of them. Your task is not to judge the paths of others…” Yet isn’t he judging those of us who although we may hear the call of the distant sea, hear not the clanging of church bells or the call of the adhan, but hear instead the constant crash of water on water, water on rock and sand, and the cries of the seagulls, and though we may be atheist or nonbelievers still stand in awe and amazement at this wonderful world around us?
As Carl Sagan said, “Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.”