Dialogues Concerning Moral Nihilism

DIALOGUES CONCERNING MORAL NIHILISM

A Play by Dean Hall and Jon Gill

LIGHTS UP on a SMOKY PUB.  Location: southern U.S., time period: doesn't matter.  The pub is not quite what you might call "run down" but it's not the cool place on the block anymore.  It's a little noisy.  Songwriter DEAN HALL is on a small stage playing Hank Williams's "YOUR CHEATIN' HEART."  Focus shifts to two men waiting at a high-top table for their third.  One is a man (20s) who thinks it's edgy and cool to call himself NIHIL ZARATHUSTRA.  He's wearing a black button-down work shirt with rolled up sleeves and jeans.  He's got a black wool Kangol cap that he wears backwards—like a cross between a beret and Che Guevara.  He's smoking a Cuban cigar and drinking Johnnie Walker Black, neat.  He’s performing a card trick for HUGH DAVIDSON that he fumbles.  Hugh, being polite, compliments him.  Hugh is a middle-aged guy who’s gotten his education as much from experience as from books—a much more rugged, cooler character than Nihil.  He’s drinking a margarita and wearing a nondescript black t-shirt, well-worn Levis, and a semi-ironic salmon pink turban. They’re waiting for WILLIE J to arrive.

HUGH. Are you sure he’s coming?

NIHIL. I’m not sure of anything.  (He flashes a cheesy grin.  They are silent for a moment.  They both take drinks.)

HUGH. (Gesturing to the stage) Man, this guy’s pretty good.

NIHIL. I guess.  But if he plays another country song…

HUGH. (Interrupting Nihil)…yeah right, like you’d actually do anything.

NIHIL. Well… (he is silent for a moment.)  Isn’t small talk the worst thing ever?  Do we really, like, is there really a need to discuss the weather or the traffic at any length?  Why can’t we just be in the same space without talking?  I mean really, why do we feel the need to kill the silence?  What are we so afraid of?  Surely we’d survive just fine by acknowledging and embracing it…

HUGH. Are you sure you’re still talking about small talk?

NIHIL. (A Cheshire-cat-like grin pulls across his face) I’m not sure of anything.

The song finishes, and they both applaud, NIHIL applauding obnoxiously loudly while half-jokingly calling out FREE BIRD!  DEAN HALL begins playing his own song entitled JESUS WAS A BLUES MAN.  WILLIE J enters from a door on stage right.  Willie is a tall, skinny man closer to Hugh’s age than Nihil’s.  At the risk of invoking stereotype, he wears a tweed suit and a dress shirt with a novelty tie.  He’ll be drinking beer, in which Hugh will inevitably share, but Nihil is far too pretentious for beer.  WILLIE scans the room for NIHIL and HUGH.

HUGH. (shouting to get Willie’s attention) WILLIE!  Wil...Goddamnit WILLIE, OVER HERE!

WILLIE. Hey guys!  What are you talking about?

NIHIL. Nothing, of course…

WILLIE. Been saving that one up, I see.  I could smell it coming from across the room.

HUGH. Eh, you know, the usual bar talk.  Meta-ethics.  Nihil’s over here trying to argue that the ideas of good and evil are bullshit.

NIHIL. Well, not exac…

WILLIE. (Interrupting) That’s terrible!  How could you even believe something so vile?

NIHIL. (Standing at the table and pacing, reciting an essay of his own writing from memory) Well it’s not exactly that simple. You see, Good and evil are simple, false constructs.  Now you may find that a repulsive thing to say—and certainly I, myself, was resistant very strongly to ethical nihilism when I first came across it.  

WILLIE. (To himself) Oh God, here we go.  (HUGH and WILLIE look at each other and shake their heads).

NIHIL. There is a natural feeling of repugnance when one is confronted with the idea that there is no such thing as inherent rightness or wrongness.  With that simple statement, the field of ethics is dead in the water, in case David Hume and Friedrich Nietzsche hadn't already pronounced its death quite loudly many centuries ago.  Good and evil, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly—these are properties that do not exist in nature.  Good and evil are not inherent, but rather claims of adherence to arbitrarily-stipulated forms.  Instead of ethics, we have merely æsthetics, by which I mean that we do not have proper ethics—the consideration of what is right and what is wrong, but instead we have æsthetics and axiology—the consideration of those things that we either do value or ought value.  

WILLIE downs his beer with bemusement and contempt.  He begins to make his counterpoint before being cut off by HUGH.

HUGH. (Imitating Willie) Yes, Nihil, that’s lovely, but how does that work in practice?

NIHIL.  Well…(pausing for a moment as though he doesn’t know what he’s going to say next) an action is only good dependent upon the definition used to quantify goodness.  Right?

WILLIE. (hesitantly) Well…I don’t know, what do you mean?

NIHIL. Like, “the good” is a form, and something is judged as good or bad by how well it adheres to that form, but that form is merely stipulated, not based on any real thing, get it?  (Silence).  Okay, here's a fairly extreme example: it is fairly universally accepted that murder is morally wrong.  But why?  What is it about murder that makes it inherently wrong?  

WILLIE. Well, I mean think about it.  As sentient beings we’re vehemently opposed to murder!  It’s the ultimate violation of the happiness of others—and more to the point, it’s absolutely against the very idea of morality!  The idea of morality is to work towards a more inclusive whole!  Morality is all about people coexisting in a society..,

NIHIL. (Interrupting) AND I AGREE WITH YOU!  All I’m saying is that any answer given to my question must essentially boil down to some form of either a naturalistic explanation—for example, it's bad to kill because it is detrimental to the survival of the species; or a retributivistic argument—e.g., one must treat others how one wishes to be treated; or a further moral argument—e.g., that to murder someone is to commit a violation against their sense of agency and consent.  But again the question must be asked: why is that inherently wrong?  (Nihil is quite proud of all the fancy words he used.)

WILLIE. (letting out an exasperated sigh, knowing there’s no use trying to stop Nihil) keep going…

NIHIL. What is inherently wrong about hindering the survival of the species?  And further, why is it just our species that it's inherently wrong to kill?  Is it because of moral agency?  Okay, why do we think a violation of agency is wrong?  Ultimately, the point you reach is the admission that wrongness is merely contradiction to the values of the moral judge, essentially a fallacious appeal to emotion.  There is no inherent wrongness, merely offense to the sensibilities.  An agreed-upon moral position, therefore, is entirely reliant upon a concordance of the values of those establishing such a position.  In other words, moral goodness is merely a stipulated definition that is agreed upon by the moral judges.  This, therefore, necessarily means that any action judged as right or wrong is merely being judged in a formalistic sense—i.e., the measure of a particular action's goodness is the degree to which it conforms to the definition of goodness upheld by the moral judge.  To say that something is morally good is to say that it possesses the quality of moral goodness, naturally; therefore judges must agree on what qualifies as moral goodness itself, which necessarily means the construction of a stipulative definition.  Sure, if we stipulate a definition, we can judge something by the extent to which it holds to that definition.  But that does not make a thing inherently good at all.  It just means that it fits the definition chosen, and yes, different moral judges do all have different, nuanced ways of defining what is right or beautiful or good.  At the risk of invoking cliché, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  If it's true that there is no such thing as inherent metaphysical goodness, then clearly the idea of inherent morality could only be viewed as pure, simple construct.

WILLIE. So you spent all that time to say you’re a moral skeptic?

NIHIL. YES, hell, I’m a nihilist!  And so are you!!

WILLIE. Okay, come on, now that’s where I draw the line.  I’m not about to just say that everything is permitted and that you should do whatever you want!  Hell no, I won’t allow it!

NIHIL. But Willie, that’s not what nihilism means!  You’re attaching all this baggage to a word that just means that nothing is intrinsically morally good!  Hell, you even agree with that, I know you do!

HUGH. (rising) You idiots, do you even realize you’re basically on the same goddamned page and you’re over here arguing minutia?  You both know you wouldn’t allow it!  None of us would!  But Willie, that’s not the point here—look, you admit that there’s no common essence to morality, which is what Nihil’s saying—you’re over here trying to go one step further though and ground it in some divine nonsense!  Where’s the rub?  (3 beats of silence).  Anybody? 

WILLIE. Look, I’m just trying to get some moral facts here, and…

NIHIL. (exploding) Facts, Willie?  Really?!  You want facts?  Here’s some things that are just outright facts.  I am a tiny, loosely-put-together bundle of carbon, hurdling through the vastness of space on a comparatively-average-sized pale blue rock held in place by the force of a giant nuclear reactor 93 million miles away.  I will live for nothing—NOTHING—but a mere blink of cosmic time, and my impact on the universe will be virtually non-existent.  I probably don’t have what might be classically called “free will” and there definitely is no inherent meaning or reason to my life or the lives of anyone else.  

And yet, every moment I think upon these things, I feel like a god, standing tall upon Olympus, for despite my insignificances, I have been granted the most incredible fortune possible, and it feels like the whole of reality, the vast expanses of space and time, have conspired, allowing me the beautiful opportunity to experience this cosmic blink filled with love, laughter, music, joy, wisdom, LIFE!  Yes, I am a nihilist.  I don’t believe in any inherent value in the world.  But that doesn’t stop me from being happy, or from behaving in what you might call a “moral” way.  Look, just because life might be “easier” in a universe where inherently grounded morality exists, doesn’t mean that we should accept that as being the case.  We’re philosophers, goddamnit.  We care about the truth.  The way things actually are.  Not the PR implications of the words we use.

HUGH. That’s the real rub, Willie.  You guys are just arguing semantics over the definition of fact, but it’s completely irrelevant.  You say that “faith in a fact can fix a fact,” but that’s just not what we mean by fact.  You see, a fact is a fact is a fact.  It’s not dependent on human minds.  But Nihil, you’ve got to also understand that, while physics does fix the facts, and is the best way we have of knowing the world, truth is emergent, subjective.  A product of human minds.  Willie, what you really want moral truths, and if Nihil was honest he would happily grant those to you.  He might not want to admit it, but he’s every bit as worried about morality as you are.  Hell, I bet it keeps him up at night that there aren’t any moral facts in the world.  But Willie, that’s not an excuse to try to ground the subjective with the objective.  We can’t derive an ought from an is, any more than we can derive an is from an ought.  Writing about David Hume’s philosophy, Simon Blackburn said that “the foundation stones of moral knowledge lie in front of everyone.”  These stones can be analyzed, cherished, collected, or thrown, but they are stones nonetheless—and really, ultimately it’s up to us.  We’ve got to figure it out.  We have to find our own grounding.

WILLIE. And what’s that grounding?

HUGH and NIHIL. Love.

DEAN HALL begins to play I’LL BE YOUR ANGEL

NIHIL. Love is the answer.  We all have love within us.  All morality comes from love—caring about those around us.  Love is so powerful that it can usurp reason.  Hume said that Reason is the slave of the passions.  It's not something that has to be argued for—IT'S ALREADY THERE!  The grounding is within us!  And love is greater than all of us.  It’s greater than all our ideals.  It’s greater than happiness.  Happiness is all about the self.  But love is the most inclusive thing there is.  Happiness reflects upon the self, but love reflects upon humanity.  Love connects all sentient beings.  We don’t need or want to appeal to happiness.  All that matters is love!  Now argue out of that one, goddamnit! 

Nihil slams his hand too hard on the table, accidentally sending his whiskey glass tumbling to the ground and shattering.  All three laugh hysterically, then slowly go silent.  They sit for a moment.

NIHIL. So, how about this weather we’re having?

WILLIE. Crazy, indeed!  And the traffic getting here…

They trail off in small talk.  We see all three joking and laughing.

FADE TO BLACK.

-Dean Hall and Jon Gill 
(This is the fruition of an independent readings course on David Hume that commenced last July. The nectar is in the journey! -jpo)

Some keep the Sabbath going to church

Some keep the Sabbath going to church —
I keep it, staying at Home —
With a Bobolink for a Chorister —
And an Orchard, for a Dome —

Some keep the Sabbath in Surplice —
I just wear my Wings —
And instead of tolling the Bell, for Church,
Our little Sexton — sings.

God preaches, a noted Clergyman —
And the sermon is never long,
So instead of getting to Heaven, at last —
I’m going, all along.

-Emily Dickinson,

on her b'day (WA)

An atheist in the pulpit

"Some might be surprised to see an avowed atheist take the pulpit in a Christian church,” I said as I began my sermon at the University Church of St Mary The Virgin back in February. “Others will know that this is far from unprecedented, although admittedly the atheist before you would usually be an ordained one."

I was fairly confident this joke wouldn’t offend the congregation of Oxford University’s liberal Anglican church. There are and have been many atheist clerics in churches like this, sometimes avowedly but usually in all but name. Most don’t like the A-word because of its anti-religious connotations, but if being an atheist means fully accepting a naturalist worldview and rejecting the existence of a literal, personal God, then many churches are full of them.

So I wasn’t too worried that my hosts would think their vicar had invited them to dance with the devil. If anything, I expected more criticism from my secular comrades. Sam Harris famously made the case that these apparently harmless liberal theists are are at least as dangerous as their hellfire-proclaiming brethren. The moderates make religion more acceptable, shielding it from criticism and delaying the day it finally dies... (continues)

Julian Baggini 

A secular thanksgiving

It's Thanksgiving tomorrow, and although my extended family knows me too well ever to risk asking me to say "grace" or "bless" the occasion, I know plenty of secularists who dread the prospect of such a moment. Others relish it. There's a growing Internet archive of options (see below). And for those thankful for recovered good health, there's Daniel Dennett's classic "Thank Goodness!"

Secular and agnostic prayers

De-baptismal certificate

“I, having been subjected to a Christian baptism before reaching an age of consent, or having submitted to baptism before embracing freethought and reason, hereby officially renounce that primitive rite and the Church that imposed it. I categorically reject the creeds, dogmas, and superstitions of my former religion, particularly the pernicious doctrines of ‘Original Sin’ and damnation.

“I further denounce as an affront and defamation to humanity the false and demeaning belief that any baby is born with ‘Original Sin’ and must be cleansed of it by baptism. From this day forward, I wish to be excluded from any claims of religious affiliation or membership based on baptismal records.”

Signed __________________
Opening a professional society meeting.

• Give thanks to the magical elves that no one thinks about: the catering and cleaning staff and administrative support professionals who made this meeting happen, who worked tirelessly to organize and produce it while making it look like it took no effort whatsoever, that it all appeared out of thin air, and were paid very little to do so, and who will clean up the mess we make and do it all again tomorrow for some other organization, forever and ever, till death do they part, world without end. —Judy L.
• Replace the invocation with a reading of the organization’s mission statement before each meeting begins.. —dezcrawford
• “All of us assembled here clearly know from our studies there is no evidence for any sort of god, and we give thanks that the wishes of imaginary deities have no effect on chemical bonds.” —Randomfactor

(continues)

==

Secular Invocations and Graces

In addition to the major rites of passage, humanists and other nonreligious people often find themselves asked to contribute to other types of ceremonial event: a benediction before a banquet, an invocation at the beginning of a legislative session, or a toast at a retirement party. Sometimes the standard wording is religious, and secular participants struggle to find an alternative. Other times there is no standard wording. In either situation, you may find the following advice and examples useful.

Secular Invocations

Many groups and government bodies begin their meetings with prayers or other forms of religious invocation conducted by a chaplain or religious minister. Even when such religious commencements make an effort to include people of all faiths they may exclude people with no religion. Secularists argue that government should not hold religious events because they have the effect of endorsing religion and relegating the non-religious to second-class status. However, when governments and other groups refuse to stop all religious commencements and invocations, they may sometimes agree to a humanist benediction as an alternative.

For an example of a secular invocation that is inclusive, although given by someone identified as representing a humanist viewpoint, read this article by Herb Silverman.

For an example of a more pointed invocation by an atheist, read this article.

(continues)

==

Need a secular grace this Thanksgiving? HNN readers and AHA members submit their own Thanksgiving “non-prayers” that can satisfy both religious and non-religious family members before the big meal!

---

Thanksgiving is a holiday many Americans can enjoy. But what should humanists do if they’re asked to say “grace” before the meal? Many may choose to keep the peace and lead the family (especially if the family includes very religious members) in a traditional prayer. But for those who desire a non-religious option, here are several “Thanksgiving Non-Prayers” for the holiday!

Van Curren submits these two non-prayers. He is president of the Humanists of Idaho and became a Humanist Celebrant in 2006. He's also authored three books; the latest is Dissecting A Bible: A Critical Analysis of the Holy Scriptures. 

Corn and grain, meat and milk
Upon our table width and length
With loving thought and careful craft
Through so many hands have passed
Essence of life, fruits of our labors
Bringing sustenance and strength
To ours and all our neighbors
May we all be grateful for all we have
And compassion for those without.

---------------------------

From the freshly baked breads
To delicious meats and treats
This meal is the work
Of many hands
For all of us to share
From the seeds in the field
And animals in the barn
To this table of family and friends
Hard work has provided us
A bounty of tender, loving care.

In HNN’s Thanksgiving Issue last year, we published a “Nonbeliever’s Grace” by Paul Diamond, who was inspired by a column in Ann Landers where an atheist asked what to say when asked to say “grace” before a meal.

I offer my deepest appreciation and my most profound apologies to the plants and animals whose lives were forfeit for our good health this day.

We give thanks to the ranchers and the farmers, their workers and their hands whose skill, sweat and toil have brought forth this bounty from the Earth.

We are grateful to the workers in the fields who pick our food, the workers in the plants where our food is processed, the teamsters who carry it to market and the stockers and the checkers who offer it up for our selection.

We are particularly appreciative for those at this table who have prepared this food with love and affection for our enjoyment and nourishment this day.

We remember fondly those who the miles and circumstance keep from joining us today as we remember those who are no longer with us and are grateful for the time we have shared with them.

We enjoy the warmth and fellowship that surrounds this gathering as we share the fervent hope  That people the world over can share the good fortune, warm feeling and conviviality that  embraces this gathering.

This non-prayer was composed by the Red Bank Humanists and submitted by HNN reader Bruce Fowler last year.

As we come together at this special time, let us pause a moment to appreciate the opportunity for good company and to thank all those past and present whose efforts have made this event possible. We reap the fruits of our society, our Country, and our civilization, and take joy in the bounties of Nature on this happy occasion. Let us also wish that, some day, all people on Earth may enjoy the same good fortune that we share.

HNN reader Kris Punke offered this simple grace:

As we eat, let us turn our minds to every individual we know, and wish them plenty, love and comfort on this day and every day. As we sit together, let us turn our minds to those we do not know, and wish them plenty, love and comfort on this and every day.  As we celebrate, let us turn our minds and hearts to love, always love, of everyone on this world.  Finally, let us turn our  minds and hearts onto ourselves, make our wishes into action: sharing love and comfort whenever we can, with whomever we can, wherever we may be, and be thankful for the opportunities to  give, love and comfort. In this way, we give thanks and are thankful in return.

Finally, another HNN reader who goes by the handle skeptic150 offers this modified version:

Let us be thankful to those who planted the crops, cultivated the fields, and gathered the harvest; for the plants and animals who have given themselves so that we can enjoy this meal together;  and to those who prepared this meal, those who served it, and those who will clean up afterwards.         

Let us remember those who have no festivity; those who are alone; those who cannot share this plenty; those who are hungry, sick, and cold; and those whose lives are more affected than our  own by injustice, tyranny, war, oppression, and exploitation.

In sharing this meal, let us be thankful for the good things we have, for family and friends, for warm hospitality, and for good company. americanhumanist.org 

"Nones" in Divinity

Why are these "nones" enrolling in Div School more than in philosophy grad programs? It's not for the reason an associate dean for ministry studies at Harvard gave the New York Times:

"...philosophy and liberal-arts fields have given up on the project of finding a moral language, an articulation of values. That language isn’t found in many places. And when you find it, it’s not easy to abstract it. You have to connect it to a tradition.”

There are plenty of philosophical traditions seeking to articulate and apply a "moral language." Pragmatism is one.

In Harvard’s case, the influx of secular and unaffiliated students had one early and visible pioneer, Greg M. Epstein. In 2004, while already serving as the assistant humanist chaplain for Harvard students and staff members who are atheist or agnostic, Mr. Epstein enrolled in divinity school. He took classes in everything from existentialist philosophy to musicology to nonprofit administration, and he did a practicum in ministry with a cohort of Unitarian Universalist students, the closest thing he could find to atheists...

What? No open atheists studying at Harvard?! That's unlikely.

But it is clear that too many young "nones" are arriving in college without advance awareness of non-theological academic alternatives in the quest for meaning, value, and purpose. Secular humanists need to do a better job of broadcasting these alternatives. I do hope Chaplain Epstein and his peers will help with that.

Southern Atheist

From the NYTimes-

 

Growing up in Los Angeles and Paris, we both were raised secular and embraced atheism early and easily. It’s not that we didn’t ponder life’s mysteries; it’s just that after we reasoned away our religious questions, we stopped worrying about them and moved on. When we learned about the former pastor Jerry DeWitt’s struggles with being an “outed” atheist in rural Louisiana, we realized for the first time just how difficult being an atheist can be in some communities, where religion is woven deeply into the social fabric.

This Op-Doc video shares those challenges, for Mr. DeWitt as he grapples with his changing social status, and for his community as it struggles to accommodate the idea of secular morality. This difficult conversation is becoming increasingly common in this country: As one Pew Research Center study showed, the percentage of American Christians is on the decline, from 78.4 percent in 2007 to 70.6 percent in 2014, and the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans, including atheists, is steadily growing (from 16.1 percent to 22.8 percent in that same time).

In much of America, tolerance rules, but in some communities, especially in the Bible Belt, churches can still compel conformity in ways that make atheism a very costly choice. As we have followed the topic, we have met young people estranged from their families and others fired from their jobs. Perhaps most poignant for us are the people we’ve met who sit quietly in the pews every Sunday, pretending to share in a faith they do not have. The time we have spent with Mr. DeWitt has helped us to see that the freedom of religion we cherish in this country is meaningless — unless it is accompanied by an equally valid freedom from it. -Jason Cohn, Camille Servan-Schreiber

 

Jason Cohn is the Peabody Award-winning director of EAMES: The Architect and the Painter. Camille Servan-Schreiber is a producer of documentary films, including “Eames: The Architect and the Painter” and “American Jerusalem: Jews and the Making of San Francisco.”

Op-Docs is a forum for short, opinionated documentaries, produced with creative latitude by independent filmmakers and artists. Learn more about Op-Docs and how to submit to the series.

Promote more, bash less

Many atheists find this a challenge. Many refuse it.

	Action for Happiness (@actionhappiness)
6/30/15, 5:13 PM Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate pic.twitter.com/6SbaexN1W1

"Wanted: A Theology of Atheism"

Speaking for myself, that's NOT what I want at all. The rich tradition of godless thought and writing (see Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History, for ex.) needs no theological frame or (as a friend put it) "codification," but it does need to be acknowledged. And most of us don't feel the need to go to Atheist Church or sing secular hymns.

 

Still, an interesting essay from UNC historian Molly Worthen:

...Pragmatist philosophers like Philip Kitcher offer a different approach to the question of atheist morality, one based on “the sense that ethical life grows out of our origins, the circumstances under which our ancestors lived, and it’s a work in progress,” he said. In the pragmatist tradition, science is useful, but ethical claims are not objective scientific facts. They are only “true” if they seem to “work” in real life.

“Successful experiments” — the trial and error of weighing self-interest against the needs of the community — “built the human conscience,” Mr. Kitcher wrote in his 2014 book, “Life After Faith.”

Continue reading the main story

==

POSTSCRIPT, June 7. Interesting reader-response in Sunday's letters. To Ms. McGIRR of Greenwich...

I suggest there are few because atheism’s central tenet — there is no God — is a denial, and something of beauty is, above all else, an affirmation.

MARGARET McGIRR
Greenwich, Conn.

...may I respectfully direct you to Mr. Penn Jillette's affirming personal credo: "There IS no god!" Of course, he also says he's "beyond atheism." In my experience, most atheists are.

 

Fresh air, great spaces

 

Heather ‏@Angelflght13 

Foxhole atheists



Advice for the Teen Atheist

There are dozens of bestselling books on spirituality for teens (and many more not on the bestseller list), and many books on atheism as well. But, surprisingly, books about atheism and agnosticism specifically for young people are rare indeed. David Seidman was perplexed by this lack of material for teenagers questioning faith, and that led him to write What If I'm an Atheist? A Teen's Guide to Exploring a Life Without Religion.

In his conversation with Point of Inquiry’s Lindsay Beyerstein, Seidman discusses several techniques for young nonbelievers as to how best to come out to religious parents, and has advice on such things as dating and fitting into peer groups — all of which are all the more difficult when identifying with a minority belief. Teenagers are rebuilding their identities as adults and losing faith can be isolating and traumatic, making the need for this book long overdue. Point of Inquiry

Militant atheism and solar love

Interesting exchange between Krista Tippett and her guest Margaret Wertheim on a recent On Being:

Ms. Tippett: So you’ve — I think you've pointed at this, but I want to explicitly go here with you. You’ve said that you don't think neuroscience is going to — it's also finally going to have a theory of everything that explains us to ourselves. That explains happiness and love and pain and why we do what we do or whether we have a choice to do it. But you said you think there is something more that remains — that will remain. But I also want to say, you've spoken a lot and very movingly about your Catholic — about that legacy of Catholicism. But you also are atheist, is that correct? Now? I've heard you say that.
Ms. Wertheim: I — no, I'm not an atheist.
Ms. Tippett: OK.
Ms. Wertheim: What…
Ms. Tippett: You have to be careful what you say because it has eternal life online.
[laughter]
Ms. Wertheim: It has eternal life online. And when I was preparing for this interview, Krista, I thought, “I know this question's going to come up. I know it's going to come up, and what am I going to say?”
Ms. Tippett: Well, yeah. I don't need you to declare yourself unless you want to. But I…
Ms. Wertheim: I want to say very publicly I’m not an atheist.
[laughter]
Ms. Tippett: OK. All right.
Ms. Wertheim: So what is my beliefs? And I'd like to put it this way: I don't know that I believe in the existence of God in the Catholic sense. But my favorite book is the Divine Comedy. And at the end of the Divine Comedy, Dante pierces the skin of the universe and comes face to face with the love that moves the sun and the other stars. I believe that there is a love that moves the sun and the other stars. I believe in Dante’s vision. And so, in some sense, perhaps I could be said to believe in God. And I think part of the problem with the concept of, “Are you an atheist or not?” is that our conception of what divinity means has become so trivialized and banal that I think it's almost impossible to answer the question without dogma. And I think it's a very — I’m very, very saddened by the fact that militant atheism has become so to the fore of our society. I think it's destructive and unhelpful. And I don't think it does science any service... (continues)

Well... poetically speaking, many atheists can admire "the love that moves the sun" just as readily as we can appreciate the splendor of the rainbow. The problem isn't "militancy," it's reductionism and literalness and a tin ear for poetry. A vocal minority of atheists commit these errors.

But, it's an engaging conversation. Give a listen.