The most recent New York Review of Books features one of the most heartfelt, sensitive, open-minded and thought-provoking pieces I have seen on the possibility/advisability of meaningful atheism, of what the author describes as living without God. I happen to think that Professor Steven Weinberg comes to the wrong conclusion, but he has much to teach us and the article is not to be missed.
Weinberg’s insight about humor and beauty, especially in so-called mundane places and experiences is crucial. Of course, for me, to be aware of God means being aware that no place or experience is mundane. But that’s just another way of saying that the piece demonstrates how deeply religious one can be without believing in God.
I wonder, since religiosity is not his concern, why then he needs to jettison God. Unless he is simply getting rid of the God invoked by those who believe in a small-minded, ethnocentric, power-grabbing old man in the sky. In which case, Weinberg is a modern-day Abraham shattering the idolatry of his own era, much as Abraham shattered those of his. If that is so, then he should argue not against the existence of God, but for a better definition of God.

Or he may just be as deeply committed to God’s non-existence, as some of us are to God’s actually existing. Some of his words point in this direction.

I do not think we have to worry that giving up religion will lead to a moral decline. There are plenty of people without religious faith who live exemplary moral lives (as for example, me), and though religion has sometimes inspired admirable ethical standards, it has also often fostered the most hideous crimes.

Precisely the same could be said for science, Professor Weinberg!
Or this one:

Living without God isn’t easy. But its very difficulty offers one other consolation–that there is a certain honor, or perhaps just a grim satisfaction, in facing up to our condition without despair and without wishful thinking–with good humor, but without God.

Again, the same words are regularly said by honest believers who wrestle with their own faith and the world in which we find ourselves. They would simply change his “without” to “with”, and substitute an “and” where he puts “but”.
I guess the real challenge is living with whatever you believe and doing so in a way that provides both smart questions and meaningful comfort — that nurtures hope, without making us naïve. Whatever we call that, I’m in favor of it.