12 ms·

In that quote, Wallace is just morphing, conflating, and fudging the definition of the word "worship". He says people "worship" (with a variety of subtly diffe

by rmah 6y ago

In that quote, Wallace is just morphing, conflating, and fudging the definition of the word "worship". He says people "worship" (with a variety of subtly different meanings) a variety of things and then, implies that because we can use the same word, "worship", to describe those activities, they are equivalent. I despise this rhetorical technique. I find it both insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless.

elmomle 6y ago
It's pretty clear that that "worship" here refers to where we practice focusing our heart's yearnings, not to a set of religious rites. Synonyms of this meaning of "worship" include "revere" and "venerate".
- tmpz22 6y ago
  The crux of organized religion is being so vague that an individual can pick whatever parts of it fits into their own self-image. Thats what OP is tapping into in their quote. The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this.
  - cobri 6y ago
    >>"The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this." This is provably false. "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."[1] As an example, the New Testament is 25x more accurately copied across manuscripts than the Iliad [2]. "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."[3] [1] Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts", p. 23 [2] Bruce M. Metzger, "Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism", cited by Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", pp. 366f [3] F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" p. 15
    - causality0 6y ago
      I believe he meant that the collective interpretation of mainstream religious leaders changes over time and is radically different from one century to the next.
      - Terretta 6y ago
        That doesn’t hold water either, or Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t still be considered by so many as “the highest expression of both natural reason and speculative theology” and the basis for modern clergical study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
        btilly 6y ago
        It definitely does hold water. Here are several examples. Until the Counter-reformation, Catholics were not allowed to lend money at interest due to the ancient prohibition against usury. After that point Catholic doctrine was changed to say that this was one of the commandments for the ancient Jews that was not intended for Christians. The Bible didn't change, but doctrine did. (This despite the fact that the only point in the Bible where Jesus is portrayed as acting angrily was throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. And why was their presence wrong? Because they were engaged in usury!) The doctrine of papal infallibility is accepted by all Catholics today. Yet it was not part of Catholic doctrine until 1870. Until 1616, the Catholic Church had no official doctrine on astronomy. In fact Copernicus dedicated his book to the Pope. And then the Copernican theory was ruled contrary to scripture. Catholics were banned from reading various books about it. A century later, the bans on the books were lifted. A century after that, the Catholic Church declared that the Copernican theory was in accord with scripture. In all of these cases Scripture didn't change. Jesus still threw the moneylenders out of the temple for usury. Peter still received the keys to heaven. And Joshua bid the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth. But the beliefs that people had based on these passages /did/ change.
        causality0 6y ago
- ggggtez 6y ago
  No. Because he opens his thought with saying that "Atheism" doesn't exist. Atheism isn't a rejection of "yearning" or "reverence". It's a rejection of religion. He's just playing word games, and you are falling for it.
  - Cookingboy 6y ago
    I absolutely agree. It's just your typical pseudo-intellectualism rant here. It starts with a provocative declaration and then backed up with some explanation that is technically true, but doesn't offer any actual insights or value.
    - junon 6y ago
      This was also my takeaway.
  - throwawaygal7 6y ago
    I mean, theres some truth on both sides. From a christian/jewish/islamic perspective whatever you focus most on is your 'idol' - the bible talks alot about worshipping money, for instance. In that sense, then whatever you focus on in life is idolatrous worship, an atheistic religion.
    - kriops 6y ago
      "there is actually no such thing as atheism" There is no truth to that whatsoever.
      - meowkit 6y ago
        Hyperbole. Of course atheism exists, but its used as an engaging opener. Contrary to some other comments in this thread, the people complaining about the literal truth value are the ones falling for the author’s writing technique, not the other way around. Don’t interpret it literally. Its used to assemble an idea that anything can be worshipped/venerated, not to make the argument that atheism doesn’t exist.
- belorn 6y ago
  This redefining of the word worship do not work at all for me. We do not worship cooking food. The words do not describe well a hobby. It is negative associated with personal relationships. Worshiping a pet sound crazy.
  - cdblades 6y ago
    It is also redefining atheism and religion.
- marc_abonce 6y ago
  It's worth pointing out that this equivalence is only possible in the English language (and maybe other Germanic languages?) where apparently the word worship means a lot of concepts (adoration, veneration, reverence) that in Romance languages are actually separate. In fact, the disagreement over this words is one of the most important differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I don't know how does this distinction work in other religions, but based on Wikipedia[1] it looks like adoration, veneration and reverence may also be different on many of them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration
  - bnjms 6y ago
    This is the most interesting take on this thread. What is otherwise a lot of atheists misunderstanding the English usage of worship by religious people and those familiar with them.
antonzabirko 6y ago
Pretty straightforward to me. Worship here just means prioritize.
- ur-whale 6y ago
  Feel free to assign the meaning you find most convenient to random words, but the fact is, we are in the thick of a thread about religion, in which Wallace's excerpt is being used to make a point ...
  - seppin 6y ago
    It's pretty clear what his intentions were and what he was trying to say. It's not like he gave the term a completely unrelated meaning. "What one focuses on everyday and builds your sense of self and worth around" is a very good definition of worship, imo.
  - antonzabirko 6y ago
    Oh yeah i am sidestepping that cause his quote doesn't really apply to religion. It's just a way to appeal to people who see no difference between money and ethics in a nice way.
  - nfw2 6y ago
    Thanks I will, and I will know I am doing a good job of it when I am regarded by many as the most talented writer of my generation
throwaway823882 6y ago
Actually he's making philosophical commentary about the nature of what people dedicate themselves to. But if you want to get emotionally wrapped up in the definition of a word and ignore the message, go for it.
- thatcat 6y ago
  Exactly, he's pointing out that the revaluation of all religious values does not lead to atheism, but to individually chosen principles that must also be based on a faith due to the uncertainty that such beliefs are meant to deal with. Even athiesm itself can be viewed as a fundamentalist religious belief that is based on faith.
constGard 6y ago
In all fairness, this same rhetorical technique was commonly used in the faith that I was raised in. We were often taught that one could violate the Jewish/Christian commandment to "have no other gods before me" by placing more importance on material goods or hobbies (your car, your boat, sports, etc.) than worshiping God.
- krapp 6y ago
  Judaism was a monotheistic religion surrounded by polytheists, their concern was maintaining their cultural integrity and identity. Other commandments (though shalt not covet, etc) are concerned with materialism and greed. "Though Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" is pretty clearly about precisely what it says on the tin.
  - ARandomerDude 6y ago
    Not necessarily. "Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things." - Philippians 3:19
    - aljarry 6y ago
      Letter to Philippians is much younger history, though. I don't recall Old Testament ever mixing meaning of "gods" and hedonism.
      - crgwbr 6y ago
        One example would be Matthew 6:24b: “You cannot slave for God and for Riches” Riches is capitalized because it’s being personified as a competing god.
        aljarry 6y ago
        It's also New Testament, but the "Riches" is capitalized in specific translation you're using, it's not capitalized in New King James, and neither in New International Version. I'd wager it's relatively modern addition. To see if that point is actually in the sources, you would need to go into Greek, or look for a good historic analysis of Gospel of Matthews. [edit] Ten commandments come from oral tradition, but most probably were written down at least a few hundreds years earlier (500 or 600BC)
temp8964 6y ago
Unless you can elaborate and distinguish different kinds of "worship", your accusation is overblown. Maybe he used this word simply because it was the best choice available to capture and communicate the underlined meaning?
- seppin 6y ago
  I think you are right and I think people are attacking the quote because he chose to "attack" atheism.
- Kinrany 6y ago
  1. To believe in something unobservable by conventional means. 2. To value something over anything else. The word "atheist" clearly implies the first, and he never explains what meaning of the word "atheist" he uses in his "there are no atheists". So this is either a rhetorical trick, or a tautology that defines "atheist" as, roughly, "someone who doesn't value anything that much", but never goes anywhere with this definition.
  - temp8964 6y ago
    Apparently he is not comparing religion and atheism. He also mentioned money, beauty, etc. You seems miss the point of the quote as a whole. Even atheism is not worship. Atheists, as human, still need something to worship on, like everyone else. But again, the focus is really not atheists. Getting downvoted. Worship here obviously means something other than religious. Worship money, wealth, power, etc. is commonly used in language. It's pointless to fixated on the narrow meaning of the word.
    - CRConrad 6y ago
      > Atheists, as human, still need something to worship on, like everyone else. [Citation needed]
  - Jetrel 6y ago
    To try to chip in on this with something useful: I like the atheist movement, but there definitely is one major logical inconsistency in it. The whole driving motive behind atheism is that folks have looked at existing religions, where people believe in provably false statements, and – you know, that's "bad". It's bad because it's factually false. The key thing is that the valuation of objective truth here goes way beyond just a calculus of hedonic means and ends - but is treated as something with inherent moral value. For most of these people (speaking from personal experience as one), if you're given a red/blue pill choice between "hedonic misery but knowing the truth of your existence" versus "ignorance and bliss", most of us are morally obligated to chose the former. It's a bravery and honor thing. I don't want a security blanket of false beliefs. I want to know the truth. But that right there - if we're rejecting the hedonic "means and ends" justification - has no logical justification whatsoever. The only reason we want to know "the actual truth" is a completely unjustifiable woo-woo piece of "just because we do". It's like an axiom - there's no proof for it or justification for it. It's just there. We value the truth for no freaking reason - we consider it just somehow morally good in some inherent, unprovable way - dare I say, because it's "sacred", somehow. I don't mind making a religion out of pure truth-seeking. That seems like a great idea, honestly. But let's recognize it for what it is.
johnfn 6y ago
He's really not, though. He means that these are the activities from which people derive purpose. People derive purpose from religion, or money, or beauty, or status.
chmod600 6y ago
It is not logically rigorous, but it illustrates a point. Can you expand on why the distinction you are drawing is important?
- andagainagain 6y ago
  Trying to steel man David Foster Wallace here, I would say his point is that, if you define "religion" instead as a sort of personal philosophy, then we all have one. And because we all have a philosophy of some sort, we all have desires, rules, and some sort of ethical principles, we don't have atheists. The point he has relies on a faulty premise. When people talk about religion and atheism, they aren't using the definition of Wallace. They're using the strict definition - non-theist. Not a theist. They don't believe in god. they are saying absolutely nothing about the rest of their philosophy. He RELIES on changing the definition of religion into something it very clearly isn't. And he does this in order to provide evidence that people, who obviously exist, must not according to his definition. It's like saying "Homosexuality doesn't exist, because all homosexuality is is is rejecting the beauty of certain genders. But we all recognize the beauty of our mothers and brothers and fellow humans, and the grace they give and the home they provide. No human would be human without loving thy neighbor". It's insulting. And other than that, it has absolutely no value, intellectually, morally, or otherwise.
- alexashka 6y ago
  Because the absence of logical rigor is what enables charlatans to continue to make a living off of people's desire to believe in something that is not so. This is a problem that's bigger than religion - when people can't tell when they're being bullshitted to or when they use emotion instead of reason to decide on matters that significantly affect their lives and lives of others (not just which flavor of icecream to have), it's a problem.
  - chmod600 6y ago
    Logic - at least rigorous logic - is much more limited in applicability than we'd like to believe. Religion probably has the most influence over family structure, a topic where it's hard for me to imagine that logic would play a leading role.
pkghost 6y ago
I could not disagree more. Wallace's use of language here is instructive, poignant, and immensely useFUL. I'll bet you're an engineer, data scientist, or other technical professional, not simply b/c you're here, but b/c your response to Wallace's use of ambiguity and multiple layers of meaning reveals as much about the nature of your own relationship with language, which I'd guess prefers that things should be clear, precise, and have singular meaning. (I'm certainly oversimplifying you, so apologies.) Look into "cognitive decoupling", and you may find a dichotomy that illustrates some of your reaction to Wallace. https://everythingstudies.com/2018/05/25/decoupling-revisited/ https://everythingstudies.com/2018/05/25/decoupling-revisite...
- OOPMan 6y ago
  Sounds like the usual post-modern rubbish to me...
- Kinrany 6y ago
  Regardless of words being context-dependent and having uncountable number of meanings, in the context of a single argument a word should generally only have one meaning.
  - pkghost 6y ago
    Again, I could not disagree more with your interpretation of what's happening here. I'd recommend you, too, read the article I linked in the comment above. To characterize Wallace's words as an "argument", as if he were a lawyer in the court of being—as if such a thing exists—, is to employ cognitive decoupling, and to miss the point. There's nothing wrong with C.D.—it's absolutely useful and necessary to have contexts in which words mean one thing and one thing only, but it's equally if not more necessary to have contexts in which that constraint does not hold, in which we are free to make meaning by use of metaphor and non-literal comparison. Indeed, it's the only way in which we can point to dimensions of experience that do not yet have names; it's how language evolves and expands, it's how technical domains come into existence.
  - jimbokun 6y ago
    If you are writing a research paper or a legal contract, yes.
mcavoybn 6y ago
Given the degree of your outrage, I think something other than "rhetorical technique" has triggered you here. Then again, maybe you are just really really opinionated about "rhetorical techniques" and following strict definitions of words? In that case, you must despise the vast majority of stories and literature because of their metaphors, parables, and subtly different meanings...
- andagainagain 6y ago
  This is obviously incorrect. If someone is making an argument then there is a higher bar of what word usage means than stories about santa clause. And using words like "religion" with completely different, fuzzier, less meaningful definitions in order to make a point that doesn't address the topic of religion being discussed is in fact worthless at best. Manipulative and dishonest at worst.
  - mcavoybn 6y ago
    It's up to the reader to decide what is worthwhile for them. Also, whether that quote is relevant or not is not what is being argued. The original dispute (on a surface level) was about a "rhetorical technique". Now you say it is manipulative and dishonest, which is a completely different thing and obviously false.
    - andagainagain 6y ago
      the "rhetorical technique" is a softer way of saying "manipulative and dishonest" in this context.
OOPMan 6y ago
Most things people say that try to conflate atheism with theism are insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless
- nwah1 6y ago
  It is not conflating. It is essentially giving advice for how to live, which is that meaning and identity and focus should not be on something material since those can and likely will be lost. Wallace even mentioned the Four Noble Truths as an option, which is not even part of a theistic worldview in many interpretations. This is the same advice that most who study mental health would give.
mywittyname 6y ago
This sort of conflations are typical in social commentary situations, comedy especially. This is absolutely something I could see done in an act done by Carlin or Williams.
nnvvhh 6y ago
You must be fun at parties.
equality_1138 6y ago
Here is a glaring example of debating semantics in hopes to discredit the actual meaning of something or attempt to kill the topic altogether. Appears to be a bad outcome from the rise of STEM worship.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 6y ago
> I despise this rhetorical technique. I find it both insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless. It is etymologically correct though: condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown. * https://www.etymonline.com/word/worship https://www.etymonline.com/word/worship From the root worth "worth": weorþ "significant, valuable, of value; valued, appreciated, highly thought-of, deserving, meriting; honorable, noble, of high rank. * https://www.etymonline.com/word/worth https://www.etymonline.com/word/worth What do you hold in highest regard in your life? Family? Truth/honesty? Happiness? Other? (Saint) Thomas Aquinas said that the four typical substitutes for God are wealth, pleasure, power, and honor. None of those things are necessarily bad in themselves—some amount are often necessary for life, and can be be used to achieve good things—but chasing them for the sake of themselves without a higher principle to guide you once acquire them has probably caused many people problems over the course of history. Asking yourself "what is the highest good in my life? what is the thing/princple that I hold in highest esteem? what do I 'worship'?" can be a good spiritual/moral exercise.
- subsaharancoder 6y ago
  the quality and calibre of this comment is what brings me to HN everyday..
- teawrecks 6y ago
  Concepts shouldn't be dependent on the language they're conveyed in, though. Try translating the passage to a language without the word "worship", or with 100 sub-distinctions, or introduce a concept like "zen" and his point falls apart. He also introduces a false dichotomy which equates "worship" with "theism". If I "worship" money or sex, no one would seriously say that makes me a "theist". So even if we accept his warped use of the term "worship", his claim that atheism doesn't exist still doesn't hold up.
  - IHLayman 6y ago
    > If I “worship” money or sex, no one would seriously say that makes me a “theist”. The Greeks had a god of wealth that they worshipped, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus. Furthermore, there is an entire page of sex/fertility deities on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities. Maybe you are conflating theism with monotheism.
jimbokun 6y ago
And he makes his point very clearly and saliently and powerfully, and you know exactly what he means. It's nowhere near as insulting, intellectually dishonest, and useless, as pedantic comments like yours.
- andagainagain 6y ago
  I will wholly disagree with this point of view. Telling people that their whole category of thought doesn't exist based on your own personal variants of definitions is belittling. I put in a different comment that this isn't that different in concept from telling homosexuals that they don't exist because we all love our mothers.
nfw2 6y ago
You know who also sucks at writing? William Shakespeare "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." In this quote, Shakespeare is just fudging the definition of "name". He says people and flowers both have something called a "name", implying their names are equivalent. This is intellectually dishonest because people's personal names are subtly different than the names you use to describe objects. I find this quote insulting and useless.
hedora 6y ago
“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master—that’s all.”
throw0101a 6y ago
> In that quote, Wallace is just morphing, conflating, and fudging the definition of the word "worship". That quotation is one paragraph in a much longer essay. It may be useful to go to the full source: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water * https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI (where he originally delivered it as a speech) The key phrase is "day-to day trenches of adult life".

by rmah 6y ago

elmomle 6y ago

It's pretty clear that that "worship" here refers to where we practice focusing our heart's yearnings, not to a set of religious rites. Synonyms of this meaning of "worship" include "revere" and "venerate".

tmpz22 6y ago
The crux of organized religion is being so vague that an individual can pick whatever parts of it fits into their own self-image. Thats what OP is tapping into in their quote. The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this.
- cobri 6y ago
  >>"The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this." This is provably false. "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."[1] As an example, the New Testament is 25x more accurately copied across manuscripts than the Iliad [2]. "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."[3] [1] Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts", p. 23 [2] Bruce M. Metzger, "Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism", cited by Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", pp. 366f [3] F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" p. 15
  - causality0 6y ago
    I believe he meant that the collective interpretation of mainstream religious leaders changes over time and is radically different from one century to the next.
    - Terretta 6y ago
      That doesn’t hold water either, or Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t still be considered by so many as “the highest expression of both natural reason and speculative theology” and the basis for modern clergical study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
      - btilly 6y ago
        It definitely does hold water. Here are several examples. Until the Counter-reformation, Catholics were not allowed to lend money at interest due to the ancient prohibition against usury. After that point Catholic doctrine was changed to say that this was one of the commandments for the ancient Jews that was not intended for Christians. The Bible didn't change, but doctrine did. (This despite the fact that the only point in the Bible where Jesus is portrayed as acting angrily was throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. And why was their presence wrong? Because they were engaged in usury!) The doctrine of papal infallibility is accepted by all Catholics today. Yet it was not part of Catholic doctrine until 1870. Until 1616, the Catholic Church had no official doctrine on astronomy. In fact Copernicus dedicated his book to the Pope. And then the Copernican theory was ruled contrary to scripture. Catholics were banned from reading various books about it. A century later, the bans on the books were lifted. A century after that, the Catholic Church declared that the Copernican theory was in accord with scripture. In all of these cases Scripture didn't change. Jesus still threw the moneylenders out of the temple for usury. Peter still received the keys to heaven. And Joshua bid the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth. But the beliefs that people had based on these passages /did/ change.
        causality0 6y ago
ggggtez 6y ago
No. Because he opens his thought with saying that "Atheism" doesn't exist. Atheism isn't a rejection of "yearning" or "reverence". It's a rejection of religion. He's just playing word games, and you are falling for it.
- Cookingboy 6y ago
  I absolutely agree. It's just your typical pseudo-intellectualism rant here. It starts with a provocative declaration and then backed up with some explanation that is technically true, but doesn't offer any actual insights or value.
  - junon 6y ago
    This was also my takeaway.
- throwawaygal7 6y ago
  I mean, theres some truth on both sides. From a christian/jewish/islamic perspective whatever you focus most on is your 'idol' - the bible talks alot about worshipping money, for instance. In that sense, then whatever you focus on in life is idolatrous worship, an atheistic religion.
  - kriops 6y ago
    "there is actually no such thing as atheism" There is no truth to that whatsoever.
    - meowkit 6y ago
      Hyperbole. Of course atheism exists, but its used as an engaging opener. Contrary to some other comments in this thread, the people complaining about the literal truth value are the ones falling for the author’s writing technique, not the other way around. Don’t interpret it literally. Its used to assemble an idea that anything can be worshipped/venerated, not to make the argument that atheism doesn’t exist.
belorn 6y ago
This redefining of the word worship do not work at all for me. We do not worship cooking food. The words do not describe well a hobby. It is negative associated with personal relationships. Worshiping a pet sound crazy.
- cdblades 6y ago
  It is also redefining atheism and religion.
marc_abonce 6y ago
It's worth pointing out that this equivalence is only possible in the English language (and maybe other Germanic languages?) where apparently the word worship means a lot of concepts (adoration, veneration, reverence) that in Romance languages are actually separate. In fact, the disagreement over this words is one of the most important differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I don't know how does this distinction work in other religions, but based on Wikipedia[1] it looks like adoration, veneration and reverence may also be different on many of them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration
- bnjms 6y ago
  This is the most interesting take on this thread. What is otherwise a lot of atheists misunderstanding the English usage of worship by religious people and those familiar with them.

antonzabirko 6y ago

Pretty straightforward to me. Worship here just means prioritize.

ur-whale 6y ago
Feel free to assign the meaning you find most convenient to random words, but the fact is, we are in the thick of a thread about religion, in which Wallace's excerpt is being used to make a point ...
- seppin 6y ago
  It's pretty clear what his intentions were and what he was trying to say. It's not like he gave the term a completely unrelated meaning. "What one focuses on everyday and builds your sense of self and worth around" is a very good definition of worship, imo.
- antonzabirko 6y ago
  Oh yeah i am sidestepping that cause his quote doesn't really apply to religion. It's just a way to appeal to people who see no difference between money and ethics in a nice way.
- nfw2 6y ago
  Thanks I will, and I will know I am doing a good job of it when I am regarded by many as the most talented writer of my generation

throwaway823882 6y ago

Actually he's making philosophical commentary about the nature of what people dedicate themselves to. But if you want to get emotionally wrapped up in the definition of a word and ignore the message, go for it.

thatcat 6y ago
Exactly, he's pointing out that the revaluation of all religious values does not lead to atheism, but to individually chosen principles that must also be based on a faith due to the uncertainty that such beliefs are meant to deal with. Even athiesm itself can be viewed as a fundamentalist religious belief that is based on faith.

constGard 6y ago

In all fairness, this same rhetorical technique was commonly used in the faith that I was raised in. We were often taught that one could violate the Jewish/Christian commandment to "have no other gods before me" by placing more importance on material goods or hobbies (your car, your boat, sports, etc.) than worshiping God.

krapp 6y ago
Judaism was a monotheistic religion surrounded by polytheists, their concern was maintaining their cultural integrity and identity. Other commandments (though shalt not covet, etc) are concerned with materialism and greed. "Though Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" is pretty clearly about precisely what it says on the tin.
- ARandomerDude 6y ago
  Not necessarily. "Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things." - Philippians 3:19
  - aljarry 6y ago
    Letter to Philippians is much younger history, though. I don't recall Old Testament ever mixing meaning of "gods" and hedonism.
    - crgwbr 6y ago
      One example would be Matthew 6:24b: “You cannot slave for God and for Riches” Riches is capitalized because it’s being personified as a competing god.
      - aljarry 6y ago
        It's also New Testament, but the "Riches" is capitalized in specific translation you're using, it's not capitalized in New King James, and neither in New International Version. I'd wager it's relatively modern addition. To see if that point is actually in the sources, you would need to go into Greek, or look for a good historic analysis of Gospel of Matthews. [edit] Ten commandments come from oral tradition, but most probably were written down at least a few hundreds years earlier (500 or 600BC)

temp8964 6y ago

Unless you can elaborate and distinguish different kinds of "worship", your accusation is overblown. Maybe he used this word simply because it was the best choice available to capture and communicate the underlined meaning?

seppin 6y ago
I think you are right and I think people are attacking the quote because he chose to "attack" atheism.
Kinrany 6y ago
1. To believe in something unobservable by conventional means. 2. To value something over anything else. The word "atheist" clearly implies the first, and he never explains what meaning of the word "atheist" he uses in his "there are no atheists". So this is either a rhetorical trick, or a tautology that defines "atheist" as, roughly, "someone who doesn't value anything that much", but never goes anywhere with this definition.
- temp8964 6y ago
  Apparently he is not comparing religion and atheism. He also mentioned money, beauty, etc. You seems miss the point of the quote as a whole. Even atheism is not worship. Atheists, as human, still need something to worship on, like everyone else. But again, the focus is really not atheists. Getting downvoted. Worship here obviously means something other than religious. Worship money, wealth, power, etc. is commonly used in language. It's pointless to fixated on the narrow meaning of the word.
  - CRConrad 6y ago
    > Atheists, as human, still need something to worship on, like everyone else. [Citation needed]
- Jetrel 6y ago
  To try to chip in on this with something useful: I like the atheist movement, but there definitely is one major logical inconsistency in it. The whole driving motive behind atheism is that folks have looked at existing religions, where people believe in provably false statements, and – you know, that's "bad". It's bad because it's factually false. The key thing is that the valuation of objective truth here goes way beyond just a calculus of hedonic means and ends - but is treated as something with inherent moral value. For most of these people (speaking from personal experience as one), if you're given a red/blue pill choice between "hedonic misery but knowing the truth of your existence" versus "ignorance and bliss", most of us are morally obligated to chose the former. It's a bravery and honor thing. I don't want a security blanket of false beliefs. I want to know the truth. But that right there - if we're rejecting the hedonic "means and ends" justification - has no logical justification whatsoever. The only reason we want to know "the actual truth" is a completely unjustifiable woo-woo piece of "just because we do". It's like an axiom - there's no proof for it or justification for it. It's just there. We value the truth for no freaking reason - we consider it just somehow morally good in some inherent, unprovable way - dare I say, because it's "sacred", somehow. I don't mind making a religion out of pure truth-seeking. That seems like a great idea, honestly. But let's recognize it for what it is.

johnfn 6y ago

He's really not, though. He means that these are the activities from which people derive purpose. People derive purpose from religion, or money, or beauty, or status.

chmod600 6y ago

It is not logically rigorous, but it illustrates a point. Can you expand on why the distinction you are drawing is important?

andagainagain 6y ago
Trying to steel man David Foster Wallace here, I would say his point is that, if you define "religion" instead as a sort of personal philosophy, then we all have one. And because we all have a philosophy of some sort, we all have desires, rules, and some sort of ethical principles, we don't have atheists. The point he has relies on a faulty premise. When people talk about religion and atheism, they aren't using the definition of Wallace. They're using the strict definition - non-theist. Not a theist. They don't believe in god. they are saying absolutely nothing about the rest of their philosophy. He RELIES on changing the definition of religion into something it very clearly isn't. And he does this in order to provide evidence that people, who obviously exist, must not according to his definition. It's like saying "Homosexuality doesn't exist, because all homosexuality is is is rejecting the beauty of certain genders. But we all recognize the beauty of our mothers and brothers and fellow humans, and the grace they give and the home they provide. No human would be human without loving thy neighbor". It's insulting. And other than that, it has absolutely no value, intellectually, morally, or otherwise.
alexashka 6y ago
Because the absence of logical rigor is what enables charlatans to continue to make a living off of people's desire to believe in something that is not so. This is a problem that's bigger than religion - when people can't tell when they're being bullshitted to or when they use emotion instead of reason to decide on matters that significantly affect their lives and lives of others (not just which flavor of icecream to have), it's a problem.
- chmod600 6y ago
  Logic - at least rigorous logic - is much more limited in applicability than we'd like to believe. Religion probably has the most influence over family structure, a topic where it's hard for me to imagine that logic would play a leading role.

pkghost 6y ago

I could not disagree more. Wallace's use of language here is instructive, poignant, and immensely useFUL. I'll bet you're an engineer, data scientist, or other technical professional, not simply b/c you're here, but b/c your response to Wallace's use of ambiguity and multiple layers of meaning reveals as much about the nature of your own relationship with language, which I'd guess prefers that things should be clear, precise, and have singular meaning. (I'm certainly oversimplifying you, so apologies.) Look into "cognitive decoupling", and you may find a dichotomy that illustrates some of your reaction to Wallace. https://everythingstudies.com/2018/05/25/decoupling-revisited/ https://everythingstudies.com/2018/05/25/decoupling-revisite...

OOPMan 6y ago
Sounds like the usual post-modern rubbish to me...
Kinrany 6y ago
Regardless of words being context-dependent and having uncountable number of meanings, in the context of a single argument a word should generally only have one meaning.
- pkghost 6y ago
  Again, I could not disagree more with your interpretation of what's happening here. I'd recommend you, too, read the article I linked in the comment above. To characterize Wallace's words as an "argument", as if he were a lawyer in the court of being—as if such a thing exists—, is to employ cognitive decoupling, and to miss the point. There's nothing wrong with C.D.—it's absolutely useful and necessary to have contexts in which words mean one thing and one thing only, but it's equally if not more necessary to have contexts in which that constraint does not hold, in which we are free to make meaning by use of metaphor and non-literal comparison. Indeed, it's the only way in which we can point to dimensions of experience that do not yet have names; it's how language evolves and expands, it's how technical domains come into existence.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  If you are writing a research paper or a legal contract, yes.

mcavoybn 6y ago

Given the degree of your outrage, I think something other than "rhetorical technique" has triggered you here. Then again, maybe you are just really really opinionated about "rhetorical techniques" and following strict definitions of words? In that case, you must despise the vast majority of stories and literature because of their metaphors, parables, and subtly different meanings...

andagainagain 6y ago
This is obviously incorrect. If someone is making an argument then there is a higher bar of what word usage means than stories about santa clause. And using words like "religion" with completely different, fuzzier, less meaningful definitions in order to make a point that doesn't address the topic of religion being discussed is in fact worthless at best. Manipulative and dishonest at worst.
- mcavoybn 6y ago
  It's up to the reader to decide what is worthwhile for them. Also, whether that quote is relevant or not is not what is being argued. The original dispute (on a surface level) was about a "rhetorical technique". Now you say it is manipulative and dishonest, which is a completely different thing and obviously false.
  - andagainagain 6y ago
    the "rhetorical technique" is a softer way of saying "manipulative and dishonest" in this context.

OOPMan 6y ago

Most things people say that try to conflate atheism with theism are insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless

nwah1 6y ago
It is not conflating. It is essentially giving advice for how to live, which is that meaning and identity and focus should not be on something material since those can and likely will be lost. Wallace even mentioned the Four Noble Truths as an option, which is not even part of a theistic worldview in many interpretations. This is the same advice that most who study mental health would give.

mywittyname 6y ago

This sort of conflations are typical in social commentary situations, comedy especially. This is absolutely something I could see done in an act done by Carlin or Williams.

nnvvhh 6y ago

You must be fun at parties.

equality_1138 6y ago

Here is a glaring example of debating semantics in hopes to discredit the actual meaning of something or attempt to kill the topic altogether. Appears to be a bad outcome from the rise of STEM worship.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throw0101a 6y ago

> I despise this rhetorical technique. I find it both insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless. It is etymologically correct though: condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown. * https://www.etymonline.com/word/worship https://www.etymonline.com/word/worship From the root worth "worth": weorþ "significant, valuable, of value; valued, appreciated, highly thought-of, deserving, meriting; honorable, noble, of high rank. * https://www.etymonline.com/word/worth https://www.etymonline.com/word/worth What do you hold in highest regard in your life? Family? Truth/honesty? Happiness? Other? (Saint) Thomas Aquinas said that the four typical substitutes for God are wealth, pleasure, power, and honor. None of those things are necessarily bad in themselves—some amount are often necessary for life, and can be be used to achieve good things—but chasing them for the sake of themselves without a higher principle to guide you once acquire them has probably caused many people problems over the course of history. Asking yourself "what is the highest good in my life? what is the thing/princple that I hold in highest esteem? what do I 'worship'?" can be a good spiritual/moral exercise.

subsaharancoder 6y ago
the quality and calibre of this comment is what brings me to HN everyday..
teawrecks 6y ago
Concepts shouldn't be dependent on the language they're conveyed in, though. Try translating the passage to a language without the word "worship", or with 100 sub-distinctions, or introduce a concept like "zen" and his point falls apart. He also introduces a false dichotomy which equates "worship" with "theism". If I "worship" money or sex, no one would seriously say that makes me a "theist". So even if we accept his warped use of the term "worship", his claim that atheism doesn't exist still doesn't hold up.
- IHLayman 6y ago
  > If I “worship” money or sex, no one would seriously say that makes me a “theist”. The Greeks had a god of wealth that they worshipped, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus. Furthermore, there is an entire page of sex/fertility deities on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities. Maybe you are conflating theism with monotheism.

jimbokun 6y ago

And he makes his point very clearly and saliently and powerfully, and you know exactly what he means. It's nowhere near as insulting, intellectually dishonest, and useless, as pedantic comments like yours.

andagainagain 6y ago
I will wholly disagree with this point of view. Telling people that their whole category of thought doesn't exist based on your own personal variants of definitions is belittling. I put in a different comment that this isn't that different in concept from telling homosexuals that they don't exist because we all love our mothers.

nfw2 6y ago

You know who also sucks at writing? William Shakespeare "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." In this quote, Shakespeare is just fudging the definition of "name". He says people and flowers both have something called a "name", implying their names are equivalent. This is intellectually dishonest because people's personal names are subtly different than the names you use to describe objects. I find this quote insulting and useless.

hedora 6y ago

“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master—that’s all.”

throw0101a 6y ago

> In that quote, Wallace is just morphing, conflating, and fudging the definition of the word "worship". That quotation is one paragraph in a much longer essay. It may be useful to go to the full source: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water * https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI (where he originally delivered it as a speech) The key phrase is "day-to day trenches of adult life".