Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Philip Roth: When the whole world doesn't believe in God, it'll be a great place


October 3, 2010 on CBS News - Full Interview
Philip Roth has been called "America's greatest living novelist" many times over. Roth rarely does interviews, but he invited Sunday Morning into his home. And that's where Rita Braver sat down with him to talk about his work, his life, and his legacy.
(via Cruciefiction)

24 comments:

  1. "When the whole world doesn't believe in God, it will be a great place." Great quote or greatest quote?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amazing man!  Awesome quote.  Would love to see the remainder of the interview.

    ReplyDelete
  3. the interviewer was a bitch- it is almost like she believes and wanted roth to retract his confession of atheism or something

    ReplyDelete
  4. <span>"When the whole world doesn't believe in God, it will be a great place."</span>
    Ugh, no, it probably won't. Better in a lot of ways, maybe... But we need to stop pretending that every problem in the world is caused by theism. People will be people, with or without gods, fairies, angels, UFOs or whatever else. To think that non-belief is a cure-all is just as ridiculous as any superstition, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It'll be a better place because most everyone will have accepted reason. Irrationalism can create a nightmare in ways other than religion.  The barking-mad fantasies of religion only have a chance to flourish in a culture where reason, as a moral ideal, is almost dead--as in the U.S. today. Religion is an illness caused by reason deficiency and I don't see a cure coming anytime soon. In the longer term, religion isn't our primary problem. In the short term, however, the "New Apostolic Reformation" is in progress right goddamn now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It'll be a better place because most everyone will have accepted reason. Irrationalism can create a nightmare in ways other than religion.  The barking-mad fantasies of religion only have a chance to flourish in a culture where reason, as a moral ideal, is almost dead--as in the U.S. today. Religion is an illness caused by reason deficiency and I don't see a cure coming anytime soon. In the longer term, religion isn't our primary problem. In the short term, however, the "New Apostolic Reformation" is in progress right goddamn now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It'll be a better place because most everyone will have accepted reason. Irrationalism can create a nightmare in ways other than religion.  The barking-mad fantasies of religion only have a chance to flourish in a culture where reason, as a moral ideal, is almost dead--as in the U.S. today. Religion is an illness caused by reason deficiency and I don't see a cure coming anytime soon. In the longer term, religion isn't our primary problem. In the short term, however, the "New Apostolic Reformation" is in progress right goddamn now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't hear him say that it would be a perfect world without problems, where human flaws will no longer exist. I think this 'non-belief = cure-all' is a strawman. I don't think I've ever talked to an atheist who thought there will be a perfect world if there were no longer any believers. However, there is a very long, and very serious row of problems that are directly linked to people's misconceptions of how reality, and our world, works, that are directly linked to religion, which spreads these misconceptions with a built-in armor against doubt, questioning and criticism. Without these things humanity would be far better off, and without that sort of mindset we would also be far better equipped to deal with the problems that are not a direct result of religion and religious thinking - I don't know, that sounds like a great world to me!

    ReplyDelete
  9. How likely it is that it will ever become true, though, is another thing. I must admit that I am not overly optimistic...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Mouse, and anyway, a totally non theist world would imply, I think, that everyone was on a more or less similar intellectual plane, and I can't imagine that EVER happening.  Not to mention that not everyons is equally mentally strong enough to envision the possibility that there is "nothing" after our lives are over.

    ReplyDelete
  11. He should have used the word better instead of great.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am not religious but religion greatly interests me. IMHO religion does not function primarliy as an alternative cosmology as many anti-theists seem to think. I cannot think of any society in the past that has not had religion as part of its culture. And I suspect religion will continue as long as mankind hangs on even if we find the mass of of the Higgs Boson. Religion has value to many as it provides a sense of group identity and community to its adherents. It ritualises and adds significence to events all people go through birth and death to name two obvious ones. Solipsism maybe interllectually sound but it provides scant comfort when people are suffering. We don't put our dead into the pet food chain, even though it makes logical sense. No, when someone close dies we feel something of note has happened. I do think we have invented gods but not to explain 'how we got here' but help us live our lives. To use a rather trite example I support the Pittsburgh Steelers (I live in UK) this gives me a postition from which enjoy the football season. My support for them greatly enhances the significance of the game. It gives me identity and a sense of solidarity with my fellow Steeler fans. Other teams are available

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with M. It's not about intellectuality so much as it's about upbringing. That's almost as big a problem, but upbringing can be changed, where as innate intellectuality usually can't. I think that warrants a little bit of optimism, at least.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It does function as an alternative cosmology.  Every religion has it's own creation myth.  I didn't hear anyone claim that it's primary function is alternative cosmology, so I'm not sure whom you are arguing against.  Also, no one claimed that religion doesn't do any of those other things, so you are arguing against a position that doesn't exist.  Honring a loved one has nothing to do with religion, religions just provide a way that you are "supposed" to honor them.  Of course we feel something of note has happened, we are emotional animals. Also, all of those things you mentioned (grou identitiy, community, rituals, deaths, etc.) are not absent in non-believers, one of which you claim to be.  What is your point? 

    Also, what logic are you using to show it is logical to feed our pets with dead family members?

    Your example isn't trite, it just doens't make any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  15. After religion, nationalism. It's a tossup which is more irrational and destructive.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'd breath easier if we outgrew Nationalism along with Religion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. <span>I'd breath easier if we outgrew Nationalism along with Religion. Hard-pressed to decide which is more irrational or dangerous.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  18. Those who've read the intro to Sam Harris' new book will be reminded of his comment about the front lines of the culture wars not being at the entrances of the megachurches. Mr. Hann's comment seems to be exactly what Sam is talking about.

    Sure, religious groups have been really beneficial--"group identity" in irreconcilable groups with hatreds for no reason except for different barking-mad myths has been a wonderful thing indeed. These cults kill each other and people who don't believe at all. Each wants power over everything--see the New Apostolic Reformation mentioned earlier; it's part of the "Christian Nation" power grab in the U.S.

    Religious rituals add meaning to births and deaths? What bizarre idea! When someone is born or dies, we surely don't need religion to inform us that something significant has happened or to allow us to experience the deep emotions involved. Love of hocus-pocus is hardly reason to keep lunatic myths alive. If the myths arn't believed, the hocus-pocus and silly clothes won't impress anyone. (I, however, really loathe hocus-pocus: what a joke it is.)

    Again, look at all the misery producing rules that religion imposes. We only have 3 states in the U.S. where doctor assisted suicide is legal. The goddamn Catholic church spends lots of money fighting it (the amounts have been compiled and are available). Everyone knows all the silly misery inducing rules, so I need not go on. (Even the better rules are out-of-context "commandments" and essentially unintelligible.)

    Worst of all, because it's more fundamental, is the irrationalism that religion needs and perpetuates. Just hearing a religious person try to defend their nonsense is a lesson in a cognitive psychopathology.

    I'm not sure, but Hann seems to be equating atheism with solipsism. Anyway, the equate is nonsense! Besides, a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is meaningless. Without existence, you can't acquire the generalizations from which to prove anything and certainly not existence. You have to start with existence. Look at what Aristotle said about the PNC axiom.

    On the deepest level, living according to non-fact is failure producing--even if we don't understand exactily in what way we're failing. Putting the goal of moral action outside of life clearly means the those who practice such a monstrous ethics are not living the best actual lives here on Earth. When people suffer, religion is the wrong way to deal with it; acting on facts is always the better way because it's the only way that has a chance of being effective--by doing something REAL.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Those who've read the intro to Sam Harris' new book will be reminded of his comment about the front lines of the culture wars not being at the entrances of the megachurches. Mr. Hann's comment seems to be exactly what Sam is talking about.

    Sure, religious groups have been really beneficial--"group identity" in irreconcilable groups with hatreds for no reason except for different barking-mad myths has been a wonderful thing indeed. These cults kill each other and people who don't believe at all. Each wants power over everything--see the New Apostolic Reformation mentioned earlier; it's part of the "Christian Nation" power grab in the U.S.

    Religious rituals add meaning to births and deaths? What bizarre idea! When someone is born or dies, we surely don't need religion to inform us that something significant has happened or to allow us to experience the deep emotions involved. Love of hocus-pocus is hardly reason to keep lunatic myths alive. If the myths arn't believed, the hocus-pocus and silly clothes won't impress anyone. (I, however, really loathe hocus-pocus: what a joke it is.)

    Again, look at all the misery producing rules that religion imposes. We only have 3 states in the U.S. where doctor assisted suicide is legal. The goddamn Catholic church spends lots of money fighting it (the amounts have been compiled and are available). Everyone knows all the silly misery inducing rules, so I need not go on. (Even the better rules are out-of-context "commandments" and essentially unintelligible.)

    Worst of all, because it's more fundamental, is the irrationalism that religion needs and perpetuates. Just hearing a religious person try to defend their nonsense is a lesson in a cognitive psychopathology.

    I'm not sure, but Hann seems to be equating atheism with solipsism. Anyway, the equate is nonsense! Besides, a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is meaningless. Without existence, you can't acquire the generalizations from which to prove anything and certainly not existence. You have to start with existence. Look at what Aristotle said about the PNC axiom.

    On the deepest level, living according to non-fact is failure producing--even if we don't understand exactily in what way we're failing. Putting the goal of moral action outside of life clearly means the those who practice such a monstrous ethics are not living the best actual lives here on Earth. When people suffer, religion is the wrong way to deal with it; acting on facts is always the better way because it's the only way that has a chance of being effective--by doing something REAL.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Have you not read or seen commentary regarding those countries with little faith.  i.e. Denmark, Netherlands, etc.  

    You are shortsighted because you live in an overly religious country I would assume.  

    No one said "no" religion was an absolute fix.  But it's guaranteed that having religious faith automatically lowers ones IQ which has a massive detrimental effect on society as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @M

    Why not be more optimistic?  It's already a reality in many successful countries.  As I said before, countries like Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands have done VERY well without religiously indoctrinating the population.  So, thinking we don't have a yardstick to measure "no religion" in society is a bit shortsighted.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Uh... I AM Swedish!

    Where did I say I think we don't have a yardstick? As I said... I "live the yardstick". I've not said that it's impossible, only that, yes, I am not very optimistic. The Scandianavian countries, and a few other countries have done relatively well with this, yes (though if you think there's not a massive amount of woo-thinking around here, you're mistaken, we have a loong way to go to when it comes to such things) but it's a separate question to note that it has worked in a few places, and another to discuss if and how it could work in all places.

    What set of circumstances have made it work here, and are those circumstances possible everywhere, or much harder to come by? Is it possible to identify all circumstances, are these set of circumstances even nessecary, or can completely other sets of circumstance lead to the a similar result...? And so on, there are a lot of questions.

    It's absolutely possible, as the countries you mention is a case in point, but it's also very complicated processes, and very many countries and cultures all over the world that are very different to each other - because of that alone, I find it hard to be optimistic that the whole world will become free of this.

    I don't have the answers to those questions either. But very, very simplistically speaking I think a big part of it is a question of partly poverty, and partly education. I think that considerbly better the conditions for people in the world, and education from the very start that counters religious claims and teach critical thinking would come a long way.

    All I'm saying is that on a global scale it's a very complicated thing, and that makes it hard to be optimistic that it will happen even in a distant future.

    ReplyDelete