5 ms·

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.

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.
    - technothrasher 6y ago
      No, I agree he's equivocating and creating a false dichotomy. Wallace struggled with addiction and alcoholism much of his life, and said that AA was a powerful force in attempting to turn his life around. So it's not surprising that he sees religion and materialistic self-destruction as two sides of one coin. For an atheist who is not particularly self-destructive and content with his choices in life, the quote above reads as not overly insightful outside of explaining Wallace's character.
nnvvhh 6y ago
"Just playing word games," he's a writer! Not everything written is documentation.
- acdha 6y ago
  He’s a writer, sure, but that doesn’t mean that bad writing is not fair game for criticism. Redefining words is a common technique in this style of apologetics to avoid having to engage with an argument intellectually and it being used by a famous writer doesn’t make it more worthy.
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    No it isn't. I'm sorry but not all writing needs pedants nitpicking to get the point across. The point is extremely clear and you can argue about the nuance but there is no hidden meaning or contradiction here.
    - acdha 6y ago
      As evidenced by this entire thread, the point isn't extremely clear _because_ of the writing. I don't think it's just a question of nuance, either, both because he was far too skilled a writer to be unfamiliar with common English vocabulary and it's very much following in a tradition of writing from people who are uncomfortable with wanting to believe in something which they can't justify on the evidence (the very definition of religious faith — see e.g. Hebrews 11:1). Some people react to that by rejecting facts but others take an approach of basically arguing that nobody is purely rational and therefore they can believe what they want, giving them carte blanche to believe things they suspect but don't want to admit are just human creations. As a former fundamentalist, I've seen quite a few examples of that — a very popular one is trying to equate faith or relief in science as being equivalent to their religious counterparts. Given DFW's history of depression, having rejected his parents' atheism, and having relied on AA in his struggle with addition, I am quite inclined to believe that the latter explanation is true in this case as well. I can understand why he wanted to have a special belief system which would be constructive as a break from the painful destructive behavior he was all too familiar with but that makes it the desperate longings of a broken person rather than a divine truth.
btilly 6y ago
Correction. Atheism isn't a rejection of religion. It is a lack of belief in God or gods. The canonical example of the difference is that plenty of religious Buddhists are also atheists.
- aksss 6y ago
  Yes, I know a few atheists whose fervor walks, talks, and quacks like a religious zealot.
  - teawrecks 6y ago
    That would be anti-theism, or "strong atheism", though. It's the difference between "not holding any belief related to the existence of a god", and "holding the belief that there is no god". Not to be confused with "agnosticism" which is "holding the belief that it cannot be known whether there is a god".
wellpast 6y ago
I think you've already fallen for literalness as the only way to interpret or value anything. Which is unfortunate because all of the momentous truths in life (ie, that matter to corporeal beings, to us) are not of the literal variety. You probably know this on some buried level but you cling to the literalness anyway. Why?
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  Dude, you're on HN, what do you expect? DFW is making a compelling point. The words were taken from his magnificent "This is water" commencement address at Kenyon College in the early naughts.
nfw2 6y ago
He is playing word games, but he's not trying to trick anyone. When he says atheism doesn't exist, it's just a stylistic flourish. It's not the point of the passage; he's not trying to argue that everyone believes in god. The point of the passage is that everyone needs a source of meaning in their life, and that religious is more psychologically healthy option than the alternatives.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  > When he says atheism doesn't exist, it's just a stylistic flourish. It's not the point of the passage; he's not trying to argue that everyone believes in god. ‘round here we call that trolling.
  - nfw2 6y ago
    It's not trolling if the audience is intended to see the true meaning. The speech was given to a group of students graduating a liberal arts college. It's a group of people that would appreciate literary devices that don't beat you over the head.
101011 6y ago
You are very opinionated for what ultimately is a piece from a fiction writer. Of course he's going to play on words and conflate emotions when waxing about the meaning of life. I don't understand why so many have to be such a harsh critic. Yeesh.
- ggggtez 6y ago
  If someone is a fiction writer, we shouldn't care what they have to say? Sure. Then let's agree his quote is worthless. But I'd still argue the opposite. This is a fiction writer who obviously is listened to. He's famous. He's quoted by random people on the internet. And those quotes are taken from speeches that he was presumably paid to give. Words are his profession. It's not correct to say that just because he doesn't do journalism that his words have no impact on reality. On the contrary, because he is a writer, we should be especially wary of his words. His words are meant to convince you of a point. You can't just ignore his goals and say it's poetry. His goal is to convince you that Atheism is bad, and he suggests that all atheists worship "something" that will destroy them (since it obviously isn't God, one of the only carve outs he leaves for worship that won't destroy you). In the context of the above article, the point is crystal clear. The quote was posted with it's intended meaning: that atheists are nothing more than people who "worship" the material. That's bullshit. That's not what atheism is, and Wallace is being disingenuous.

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.
  - technothrasher 6y ago
    No, I agree he's equivocating and creating a false dichotomy. Wallace struggled with addiction and alcoholism much of his life, and said that AA was a powerful force in attempting to turn his life around. So it's not surprising that he sees religion and materialistic self-destruction as two sides of one coin. For an atheist who is not particularly self-destructive and content with his choices in life, the quote above reads as not overly insightful outside of explaining Wallace's character.

nnvvhh 6y ago

"Just playing word games," he's a writer! Not everything written is documentation.

acdha 6y ago
He’s a writer, sure, but that doesn’t mean that bad writing is not fair game for criticism. Redefining words is a common technique in this style of apologetics to avoid having to engage with an argument intellectually and it being used by a famous writer doesn’t make it more worthy.
- Daishiman 6y ago
  No it isn't. I'm sorry but not all writing needs pedants nitpicking to get the point across. The point is extremely clear and you can argue about the nuance but there is no hidden meaning or contradiction here.
  - acdha 6y ago
    As evidenced by this entire thread, the point isn't extremely clear _because_ of the writing. I don't think it's just a question of nuance, either, both because he was far too skilled a writer to be unfamiliar with common English vocabulary and it's very much following in a tradition of writing from people who are uncomfortable with wanting to believe in something which they can't justify on the evidence (the very definition of religious faith — see e.g. Hebrews 11:1). Some people react to that by rejecting facts but others take an approach of basically arguing that nobody is purely rational and therefore they can believe what they want, giving them carte blanche to believe things they suspect but don't want to admit are just human creations. As a former fundamentalist, I've seen quite a few examples of that — a very popular one is trying to equate faith or relief in science as being equivalent to their religious counterparts. Given DFW's history of depression, having rejected his parents' atheism, and having relied on AA in his struggle with addition, I am quite inclined to believe that the latter explanation is true in this case as well. I can understand why he wanted to have a special belief system which would be constructive as a break from the painful destructive behavior he was all too familiar with but that makes it the desperate longings of a broken person rather than a divine truth.

btilly 6y ago

Correction. Atheism isn't a rejection of religion. It is a lack of belief in God or gods. The canonical example of the difference is that plenty of religious Buddhists are also atheists.

aksss 6y ago
Yes, I know a few atheists whose fervor walks, talks, and quacks like a religious zealot.
- teawrecks 6y ago
  That would be anti-theism, or "strong atheism", though. It's the difference between "not holding any belief related to the existence of a god", and "holding the belief that there is no god". Not to be confused with "agnosticism" which is "holding the belief that it cannot be known whether there is a god".

wellpast 6y ago

I think you've already fallen for literalness as the only way to interpret or value anything. Which is unfortunate because all of the momentous truths in life (ie, that matter to corporeal beings, to us) are not of the literal variety. You probably know this on some buried level but you cling to the literalness anyway. Why?

crispyambulance 6y ago
Dude, you're on HN, what do you expect? DFW is making a compelling point. The words were taken from his magnificent "This is water" commencement address at Kenyon College in the early naughts.

nfw2 6y ago

He is playing word games, but he's not trying to trick anyone. When he says atheism doesn't exist, it's just a stylistic flourish. It's not the point of the passage; he's not trying to argue that everyone believes in god. The point of the passage is that everyone needs a source of meaning in their life, and that religious is more psychologically healthy option than the alternatives.

mr_toad 6y ago
> When he says atheism doesn't exist, it's just a stylistic flourish. It's not the point of the passage; he's not trying to argue that everyone believes in god. ‘round here we call that trolling.
- nfw2 6y ago
  It's not trolling if the audience is intended to see the true meaning. The speech was given to a group of students graduating a liberal arts college. It's a group of people that would appreciate literary devices that don't beat you over the head.

101011 6y ago

You are very opinionated for what ultimately is a piece from a fiction writer. Of course he's going to play on words and conflate emotions when waxing about the meaning of life. I don't understand why so many have to be such a harsh critic. Yeesh.

ggggtez 6y ago
If someone is a fiction writer, we shouldn't care what they have to say? Sure. Then let's agree his quote is worthless. But I'd still argue the opposite. This is a fiction writer who obviously is listened to. He's famous. He's quoted by random people on the internet. And those quotes are taken from speeches that he was presumably paid to give. Words are his profession. It's not correct to say that just because he doesn't do journalism that his words have no impact on reality. On the contrary, because he is a writer, we should be especially wary of his words. His words are meant to convince you of a point. You can't just ignore his goals and say it's poetry. His goal is to convince you that Atheism is bad, and he suggests that all atheists worship "something" that will destroy them (since it obviously isn't God, one of the only carve outs he leaves for worship that won't destroy you). In the context of the above article, the point is crystal clear. The quote was posted with it's intended meaning: that atheists are nothing more than people who "worship" the material. That's bullshit. That's not what atheism is, and Wallace is being disingenuous.