Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Brought to you by the letter "A"

In this case, the "A" is not a scarlet fabric representation of marital (or extra-marital) infidelity emblazoned upon my breast so that the world can read my shame and shun me accordingly. However, I am fairly convinced that in some parts of the country (and the world), the "A" to which I here refer would in fact earn me far worse treatment at the hands of the local population. Fortunately for me, however, I live in a liberal American city that permits my special brand of atrocity.

"A," as will come as no surprise to my few regular readers, is for "atheism." Over the last week or so I have been reading John Allen Paulos' irreligion (which, in a side note, has a "0" on the cover, not an "A" or even an "i"), and a few weeks past had my class discussing such hot-button topics as "evolution versus creationism," "science versus religion," and "eugenics."

Some of the results of this have been interesting. Paulos is one of the more rational, reasoned atheist writers out there (he is a mathematician and much less angry than, for instance, Richard Dawkins), since he refrains from disparaging comments about believers and uses logic and probability to make his points. This is not to say that he doesn't season his book with a good deal of snark - there's plenty of that in there - but he tries to be tongue-in-cheek rather than abrasive.

One of the more interesting points he raises that I haven't seen in before is this: "Embedding God in a holy book's detailed narrative and building an entire culture around this narrative seem by themselves to confer a kind of existence on Him" (62). In other words, we'd feel awfully stupid in following the deistic tenets of our societies if we didn't believe in a god because then there is absolutely no reason for some of our laws, idiosyncrasies, and habitual practices. In other words, we justify our belief through the traditions that have grown out of it. Like saying that "Mommy and Daddy wouldn't put out milk and cookies if Santa Claus weren't real." The act itself neither proves nor disproves the existence of Santa Claus, just as the presence of religion neither proves nor disproves the existence of god.

And from this also springs the idea that people now have come to believe because they were not capable - as children - of making the decision not to believe, since they had not yet developed an adult's incredulity. We tend, as a species, not to convert to a wholly new religion in adulthood (it DOES happen, certainly, but it is less common than a perpetuation of childhood belief) because we are creatures of habit. As Paulos continues, "Suspend disbelief for long enough and one can end up believing" (62).

No comments: