Doubting God’s Existence, But Angry Nevertheless

[rug]

How is it possible to at once be furious with God and not believe in Him at all?

The Book Against God chips away at old-fashioned religious identity politics. In doing so, it suggests that we are activating different parts of our identity, especially our religious identity, depending on the context.

For example, in his “public” statements, Wood’s hero, Tom Bunting, comes across as around 80% atheist and 20% agnostic. In his private musings he admits to being “against inherited religion”—a kind of anti-theism. But when it comes to his “Book Against God,” his book-within-the-book, he comes across as stridently God-hating.

Now, some of these positions are not all that incompatible. Many atheists are also enemies of religion (hence, anti-theists)—Christopher Hitchens has identified himself as just such a rebel. It also makes sense to waver between atheism and agnosticism, as Philip Pullman sometimes does in his public statements. But there are less likely combinations of religious non-conformism. It would be incompatible to be, say, an atheist and a Unitarian at the same time. Similarly, the combination of atheism (non-belief) and misotheism (God-hatred) would seem be a very odd couple of religious dissent. To combine both stances simply violates logic.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheologies/4643/devil%E2%80%99s_bookmark%3A_doubting_god%E2%80%99s_existence,_but_angry_nevertheless/

Interesting graphic at the link.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_b4j88WZj9i8LfWJaXwpPEZdgIPCG6vYDN07ZeWBObapQ8iOJwi7AwjSnZGVsJTpa7p6ujnF3W-mWikm5zhEaBY41P-PkWzE0GUl1mrUDpg6fHgMgIo

[marew]

1. Excuse me but...

This is a novel- that means it is a work of fiction! However, I do agree with Schopenhauer who so correctly said, “Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think.”

[darkstar3]

6. Mediocre fiction, at that.

[dtexdem]

2. Hey, an atheist could presumably be angry at God for not existing.

;-)

But as for me, I just thank God that I'm an agnostic.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

3. Since UU isn't primarily about "belief"...

...why would you say that "It would be incompatible to be, say, an atheist and a Unitarian at the same time", rug?

[rug]

7. Since unitarian has meaning in contrast with trintarian, a name change is overdue.

I understand the historical antecedents of the UU, but I don't believe an atheist would espouse either universal salvation or a unitarian god.

While UU doesn't recite a creed, I expect there are core shared values.

What's wrong with simply merging into the Ethical Culture Society?

[cleanhippie]

8. UU's do share core values. Here they are.

http://www.uua.org/beliefs/6798.shtml


And I am an Atheist and a UU. My congregation is made up of about 70% atheists/humanists, and the rest are a smattering of wiccan, pagan, Buddhist, etc.

From what I am told, this is indicative (albeit a bit high) of most UU congregations.

[rug]

9. There is nary a word of universalism or unitarianism in there.

Admirable core values nervertheless.

[Jim__]

4. It sounds like an interesting novel.

It seems to deal with the complexity of these questions of belief, as noted in this excerpt from the first part of the review:

This raises the question (and it is a crucial one) of whether labels such as atheist or Unitarian or Catholic or misotheist really capture a religious identity as an essence: something stable that defines the whole person. Or, alternatively, is it really possible to shuttle between different religious or anti-religious positions without abandoning the notion of identity altogether or doing away with (theo-)logical consistency?

I believe that fiction has the unique ability to put our noses squarely on such big questions, and that it does so in a way that seems merely the by-product of a story rather than its declared purpose. Indeed, works of literature like The Book Against God are uniquely positioned to get us involved in the conundrums of human belief and to make us ask critical and deeply relevant questions about matters of spirituality, faith, the mind, behavior, and values.

I tend to disagree with the last part of the review where he talks about reading a work as some type of psychological profile of the author. I can see where that is meaningful when you are trying to analyze the author; but not really when you are trying to understand the work. I think E L Doctorow said something like, "My book is successful not if it tells you something about me, but rather if it tells you something about you." I tend to enjoy literature from that light.

[backscatter712]

5. There's being mad at God, and there's being mad at religion. There's a difference.

Just speaking from my personal experience, since I've become an atheist, I've found God to be little more than a cartoon caricature. Made of paradoxes, ridiculous alleged behaviors, and utter nonsense, I've lost all motivation to waste any energy being mad at God. He's a cartoon.

Religion, on the other hand, gives me plenty to be mad at, and I'm feeling pretty damned justified in my anger. Child abuse and molestation; ostracism, mistreatment and sometimes violence against the GLBT community and atheists; nonsense being taught as fact in schools instead of science; destructive and ineffective abstinence-based sex education, discouragement of the use of condoms, leading to spread of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc.; persecution and violence against people because they believe in the wrong imaginary sky-daddy; oppression and violence against women; incitement of terrorist violence; etc., etc., etc.

Yeah. I'm really fucking furious at religion. And I'm not the least bit sorry for being angry.