Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

Nagelisms

Posted September 3rd, 2014 by Lesley Hazleton

For your enjoyment, a few quotes from Thomas Nagel, the philosopher of consciousness who famously asked “What’s it like to be a bat?”  (His answer:  we’ll never know.)

To my mind (as it were), Nagel is one of the most readable philosophers out there.

These are all from “The View From Nowhere.”

On death:

         — “I believe there is little to be said for it.”

         — “Each of us has been around for as long as he can remember. It seems like the natural condition of things.”

On truth:

 — “If truth is our aim, we must be resigned to achieving it to a very limited extent, and without certainty.”

— “If you want the truth rather than merely something to say, you will have a good deal less to say.”

 On being human:

— “The human race has a strong disposition to adore itself, in spite of its record.”

— “Our constitutional self-absorption together with our capacity to recognize its excessiveness make us irreducibly absurd.”

 On philosophy:

   — “Philosophy is after eternal and non-local truth, even though we know that’s not what we’re going to get.”

   — “Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up.”

And this:

— “I would rather live an absurd life engaged in the particular than a seamless transcendental life immersed in the universal.”

 

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, existence | Tagged: Tags: consciousness, death, philosophy, The View From Nowhere, Thomas Nagel, truth, what's it like to be a bat? | 9 Comments
  1. juliakgruwell says:
    September 3, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Thank you, Leslie!

  2. juliakgruwell says:
    September 3, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Sorry about the misspelling, Lesley!

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 3, 2014 at 1:09 pm

      Happens awl the time!

  3. willow1 says:
    September 3, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    A lot like Ambrose Bierce. But a little less toothy.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 4, 2014 at 9:08 am

      Ah, but what you sacrifice in bite you gain in depth!

  4. Omer says:
    September 16, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Leslie,

    Did you read Nagel’s book on Mind and Cosmos: Why the NeoDarwinian Materialist Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False?

    Please check out this excellent review by Alvin Platinga

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/110189/why-darwinist-materialism-wrong

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 16, 2014 at 4:03 pm

      I did read Mind and Cosmos, but found it disappointing, especially for Nagel. Very anthropocentric, and oddly reliant on personal intuition rather than real thought. Nagel sets high store by his intuition, but as another reviewer commented in the New York Review of Books, “does anyone find it intuitive that we’re hurtling around the sun at 67,000 miles an hour?” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/awaiting-new-darwin/

  5. Omer says:
    September 24, 2014 at 1:03 am

    Leslie,

    Thanks for your reply. I checked the link you sent.

    Please check out the following for an engaging series on “Nagel and his critics.”

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/nagel-and-his-critics-part-vii.html

    I think Edward Feser is an excellent philosopher on many issues.

  6. Omer says:
    September 24, 2014 at 1:19 am

    Lesley,

    With regards to your disappointment Mind and Cosmos on with regard to intuition and anthropomorphism,

    please also check this the following.

    I think this very brief blog post correctly exposes couple errors of reasoning in the NYTimes review you linked.

    http://lifesprivatebook.blogspot.com/2013/03/h-allen-orr-kant-and-nagel.html

The 100th Post: a Non-Mission Statement

Posted January 10th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

The tyranny of round numbers has me in its grip.  A decade birthday or a centennial seems to insist on comment, whether we are ready for it or not.   Usually not.

Today my ‘dashboard’ informs me that this is the one-hundredth post since I began The Accidental Theologist nine months ago (note how I even avoid typing in the number 100, with its two imposing ovals).  And I’m resisting the impulse to obey the round-number imperative and say something ultra ‘meaningful.’  Like a mission statement.

I am not into the missionary position.  ‘Mission statement’ is a term dreamed up by PR hacks trying to give corporations some sort of moral standing, as though they had a sacred mission in life – to make things better, to help you, to serve you – other than profit.  I find missionaries hard enough to take when they’re spreading old-fashioned religion;  when they’re spreading the religion of consumerism, I find them even harder to take.

The first thing I wrote here, Who is the AT?, might be the closest I’ll ever come to such a statement, so I went back and looked at it this morning,  and found to my delight that it said exactly what I’d say today.  “None of the comfort of received opinion, no claim to truth, let alone Truth… None of that astounding confidence (aka hubris) that cloaks ignorance and prejudice.”   That’s the aim, anyway, and many of you have done your best to hold me to it.

And if some are frustrated by my refusal to take a single, clearly defined ‘position’ – let alone the missionary one – I’m delighted.   It means (at least I hope it means) that so far, I’ve avoided the traps of smugness or righteousness or self-satisfaction – all signs that a mind has stopped working – let alone the illusion that I have a stranglehold on that impossible ideal known as ‘truth’ (as though it were something that could be wrestled to the ground, pinned down, and held in an armlock).

I do realize that most people like to know exactly where they and others stand, and that I might be considered peculiar in that I like to explore and – the inevitable companion of exploration — get lost (which is why some people dread hiking with me, and why one of my favorite books is Rebecca Solnit’s A Field Guide to Getting Lost).   I find it exciting to not know exactly where I am.  The things that stay with me – an experience, a conversation, a scene, a small epiphany – often happen when I least expect them, when I’m not where I thought I was going.  And when I write, I often find out where I’m going only once I’ve gotten there, and sometimes I never get to any “there” at all.

So thanks to those who appreciate that we don’t all have to be on the same page (the same chapter is far more interesting, or just the same book).  To people with the patience and curiosity and openness of mind to explore instead of rushing to well-defined ‘positions.’  To those who think with their heads instead of their knees (the infamous kneejerk reaction).  Those who look, reflect, enthuse, even despair — who approach this whole, complex, often crazed subject of religion and politics and the larger one of our existence on this earth not as something to be ‘solved,’ but as an ongoing question.

Accidental theologists unite! — we have nothing to lose but the false consolation of consensus.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, existence | Tagged: Tags: accidental theologists, mission statements, missionary position, Rebecca Solnit, round numbers, truth | 8 Comments
  1. Yusuf says:
    January 10, 2011 at 10:04 am

    I would like to thank you Leslie, for Schooling this 50year old on the art of thinking. I think you have made me a better…person…Muslim, maybe even a better employee, husband…reading your posts and commenting on them have helped me to define or get to the root of my beliefs, certainly not the same as yours, but I’m learning to separate that which I truly believe from that which I have been told to believe
    In my religion we are taught not to gush praises on someone lest it cause them problems with their ego and I do believe in the wisdom of that practice so let me say I will do my best to help keep you grounded, inshallah ;-).
    Thanks again

  2. Robert Corbett says:
    January 10, 2011 at 11:42 am

    My sentiments exactly, Leslie. When I feel my sentiments on an issue contradicting a stance previously taken, I refer myself back to Edward Said’s belief that truth is the only measure for responsibility of thought. Leave it to politicians and PR hacks to stay on message.

  3. Nancy McClelland says:
    January 10, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Great sentiments, Lesley — in solidarity, I’d like to share one of my favorite quotes: “changing your mind is proof that you’re thinking.” I wish that maturity, growth & philosophical development were appreciated in politics as a strength, not a weakness… ah, but at least we have this blog for that. Keep it up. -Nancy

  4. Gigi says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Lesley!
    I just discovered your blog today — and how apropos that you are not in the missionary position. Also read After the Prophet over the break … as always, brilliant. You might be amused to know that my current partner, a lapsed Catholic and former Baptist minister, is studying to become a Wiccan priest. xo, Gigi

  5. Adila says:
    January 10, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Good post.

  6. Lynn Rosen says:
    January 10, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    Darling! This is the very reason we all love you. Stay strong, as we all know you can never do otherwise.

  7. Rashid Chowdhury says:
    July 4, 2011 at 12:15 am

    Dear Lesley,
    I am a sunni muslim and live in Bangladesh. While looking through amazon.com I came to notice your book. It took me quite some time to bring the book from the US to my country and possibly this is the only copy now available in my country. It is a fascinating book to read. You are a very good prose writer and while reading the book i felt I was personally witnessing history as the events unfolded step by step. Most of us have a hazy knowledge of what happened after the death of the prophet. Much information is fabricated and colored by own perception of those who had either written and told them. For example Sherry Jones has unnecessarily vilified Ali in her two books (although story) on Aisha. But I have a hunch that your narration is most close to the truth. It is apparent from your book that most of those early leaders who professed the faith actually did not believe in it. To accept Islam was a tactical retreat for the Ummayads. When their time came, they manipulated the religion to suit their needs. I still dont understand how could a muslim kill the people of the cloak when the prophet had specifically asked the Umma to protect them? in fact those who rule the muslim world now are no different from those early rulers. They misuse the religion to secure their own status and earthly pleasures. All the violence that are taking place in the muslim world are perhaps their creation, even Al Quida and the Taliban.
    Congratulations to you once again for writing such a good book. Please write more on Islamic history.
    Rashid Chowdhury

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      July 4, 2011 at 1:57 pm

      Thank you, and yes, am working on more. — L.

The ‘Obvious’

Posted December 28th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

You’ll find none of the comfort of received opinion here. No claim to truth, let alone Truth (that capital T always makes me nervous).  None of that astounding confidence (aka hubris) that cloaks ignorance and prejudice.  The aim is to question, to explore, to keep my mind — and yours — open, raise some sparks, and see what happens.

I wrote that eight months ago by way of introducing myself in ‘Who is the AT?’   Perhaps you thought I didn’t really mean it.  If so, you’ll likely hit the Escape button in about one minute from now, because most of us, myself included, hate it when people challenge what we take for granted.  We have, each of us, established certain fundamental principles by which we live our lives or see the world (the word ‘fundamental’ used  deliberately), and these are our ‘last-ditch’ positions – our sacred principles, and sometimes our sacred cows.  They’re the base from which we sally forth to do battle in the ever-expanding world of ideas, even as we insist that it is not expanding, and that certain verities – truths – are universal or eternal.

I am talking about what we often call “the obvious.”  The big O, if you like.  Here and there, it has been making an appearance in comments posted on this blog, along with its close cousin, the big S – simplicity.  “It’s obvious that…” “It’s really quite simple…”   Such comments make me feel like I’m being preached at – always an excellent way to get me to stop listening – but my real problem with them is that they cling to simplistic certainties in a complex and uncertain world.   I am an advocate of uncertainty, of doubt, of inquiry — a lover of paradox and of the ironies that seem to me inherent in human existence.  Simplicity might be all very well as a life style, but as a mind style, I find it stifling.

The Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing, hero of the ‘anti-psychiatry’ or ‘existential psychiatry’ movement of the 1960s and 1970s, once said this about the obvious:

To state the obvious is to share with you what (in your view) my misconceptions might be.  The obvious can be dangerous.  The deluded man frequently finds his delusions so obvious that he can hardly credit the good faith of those who do not share them… The obvious is literally that which stands in one’s way.”

Or, he summed up,

“One man’s revolution is another man’s platitude.” *

I’m not sure if Laing meant it this way (you couldn’t always be sure of anything Laing said – I once interviewed him at his home near Hampstead Heath in London, and came away after a couple of hours none the wiser), but what I take from this is that the obvious is what prevents us from thinking.  It stands like a brick wall between what we already think and what we might think if we allowed ourselves to inquire further.   In other words, once we decide that something is obvious, we stop thinking about it.  We accept it as a given:   sometimes as a sacred given – “Torah from Sinai,” as they say in Hebrew – sometimes as a scientific one, sometimes simply as an unquestionable assertion.   We take it for granted, and lose patience with those who don’t.

That, I think, is what Laing meant by the obvious being dangerous.   While we see it as a matter of fact, it is in fact one of faith, which becomes clearer when you consider how deeply attached we are to it.  Fact requires no emotional investment;  faith does.

Though I lack it myself, I see great courage in faith.   My image of faith is of a person walking out on a limb – a real limb of a real tree, reaching far out into the air — in full awareness that the limb might break and that they might fall and break one of their own limbs, but in the faith – trusting — that this will not happen.

This kind of faith I admire.  It’s certainty that repels me.  Religious certainty, atheist certainty, scientific certainty, political certainty, moral certainty:   the absolute conviction that you are right and that “they” – fill in the blank for whichever “they” most concerns you right now – are wrong.

If we can let go of what increasingly seems to me the pernicious idea of the obvious – the idea that we are somehow in possession of “the” truth, that “we” are the enlightened ones while “they” are living in delusion and darkness – perhaps then we might begin to be able to move toward something that could honorably be called knowledge.

Just please, don’t ask me to walk out on the same limb with you.  We live in a huge forest of trees, and I’m more interested in the forest itself than in any particular tree, let alone any particular limb.  Besides, I discovered as a child that I was no good at climbing trees.   Either I’d get halfway up and get stuck, afraid to go higher and equally afraid to climb back down, or I’d fall.  And yes, I have the scars to show for it.

————————————————————–

* The Laing quotes are from a speech reprinted in The Dialectics of Liberation, ed. David Cooper, which also includes speeches given at the same event in 1967 by Gregory Bateson, Paul Goodman, Stokely Carmichael, and Herbert Marcuse.   The book is out of print.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, existence | Tagged: Tags: certainty, faith, obviousness, R.D.Laing, truth | 4 Comments
  1. lavrans says:
    December 28, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    You know, I think it’s obvious that you’ve got a certain advantage here (humor intended).

    I notice that when I am writing, I am constantly finding myself writing something that I’m quite sure of until I put it down to paper. Once there, I find I have to challenge it- can I really put that to posterity with the same certainty with which it flowed onto the page? How many times have I actually said that thing without really questioning it?

    In conversation- and indeed, in places like the comments sections of blogs or in forums, I will leave those statements lying there. Ripe to be picked at.

    The thing that I hate about writing, as much as I love it, is that I will realize that I don’t believe some tenet of my belief system. It’s some bit of trivia or slant of perception that I’ve become comfortable with merely because it has been there for a long time. Then I write it down, look at it, and realize that it’s just a piece of hypocritical or bombastic tripe (without the useful past of that much maligned organ).

    Which leads me to the question- wouldn’t you sort of expect such “simple” responses to be part of the foundation of the blogosphere? Here they seem to have given you a nice jumping off point of the intractable problem with obviousness. Of course it’s hard to see the forest, the trees are getting in the way; so too, certainty in the obvious is a great crutch for getting through the day, especially in trying times or places. Pesky journalist…

  2. Lynn Rosen says:
    December 28, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    What a spectacular perspective to begin a new year. Thanks for the reminders.

  3. James says:
    January 9, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    I find it interesting that your proposed lack of faith comes across with such certainty. More of the interesting ironies, I guess. If you really lacked any kind of faith why would you write the way you do, which is to say in a searching manner but refuse yourself any kind of faith? Maybe you don’t always make that assertion. Christopher hitchens does something similar but with much more certainty. I don’t begrudge him his atheism but it seems his non belief is directed toward the god of religion as come through men and women which is often stomach turning. But to deny faith altogether especially separate from religion seems farcical.

    I enjoy your work.

  4. James says:
    January 9, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Another point which seemed, i hate to say, false was your description of the kind of faith you admire. It seems to me the individual who walks the branch knowing it could quite possibly break is a foolish one, outside of that quaint illustration of faith. It seems to me that you would think that and the illustration comes across as patronizing. I don’t mean the criticism as malice just questions about the certainty of uncertainty. I search for similar things and find myself just as dissatisfied and tormented by faith/non faith as ever. Sometimes I feel it often I don’t.

The Truth Problem

Posted December 13th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

The response to my TEDx Quran talk in the week since the video of it was released has been magnificent, and the comments here on the AT, on YouTube, and on many other sites, have been immensely moving, humbling, thought-provoking, and inspiring, sometimes all at the same time.

All of which means that I haven’t had much time for my usual reading.  So when I finally curled up late last night with last week’s New Yorker, I thought it would just be a relaxing break.   Instead, Jonah Lehrer’s densely argued article on scientific research called “The Truth Wears Off” had me sitting straight up in alert attention, and his conclusion left me kind of breathless:

We like to pretend that experiments define the truth for us.  But that’s often not the case.  Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved.  And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true.  When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.

This article is dynamite.  I mean that almost literally, since Lehrer explodes the carefully nurtured image of scientific research as the ultimate arbiter of fact.  It demonstrates what he calls “the slipperiness of empiricism.”  And it challenges the faith in science – I use the word “faith” advisedly here – of “new atheists” like Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett (a foursome I think of H2D2 for short).

Lehrer focuses on what he calls “the decline effect” – the way much research across a wide range of fields, including psychology, ecology, biology, and medicine, fails the most basic scientific test, which is replicability.  If other researchers can produce the same results, then the research is valid;  if they cannot, it has to be assumed flawed.   And many, in some fields even most, cannot.  Results that initially seem ground-breaking often fade with each replication of the research, and sometimes even turn negative.

“It’s as if our facts were losing their truth,” says Lehrer.  As one somewhat depressed biologist told him:

We cannot escape the troubling conclusion that some – perhaps many – cherished generalities are at best exaggerated in their significance, and at worst a collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs.

Citing the example of wildly divergent results for the efficacy of acupuncture in the Far East as opposed to Western Europe, for instance, Lehrer writes:

This wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don’t want to see.  Our beliefs are a form of blindness.

It gets downright scary when he talks to a Stanford epidemiologist who looked at the 49 most cited clinical-research studies in three major medical journals.  “Of those that had been subject to replication, 41% had either been directly contradicted or had their effect sizes significantly downgraded.”   It gets even worse when the research is in a “fashionable” field like genetic differences in disease risk for men and women.  “Out of 432 claims, only a single one was consistently replicable.”

The Stanford epidemiologist suspects “significance chasing,” where “scientists are so eager to pass the magical test of statistical significance that they start playing around with the numbers, trying to find anything that seems worthy.”   They don’t do this deliberately, but unconsciously.  “Knowing” that something has to be true, they find ways to make it seem so.

“The decline effect” may in fact be a decline of illusion, says Lehrer.  The problem being that it’s very hard to let go of illusions:

Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results and suffer from falling effect sizes, they continue to get cited in textbooks and drive standard medical practice.  Why?  Because these ideas seem true.  Because they make sense.  Because we can’t bear to let them go.

Because, in short, scientists are as human as the rest of us.  And the very idea of truth — that absolute ideal of veracity — is as slippery and troubling as ever.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, existence, science | Tagged: Tags: empiricism, Jonah Lehrer, replicability, the decline effect, The New Yorker, truth | 9 Comments
  1. Linda Williams says:
    December 13, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    This reminds me of my personal fasination (and horror) when I went from a idealist English Major to working in a bank marketing department… Given the assignment to research and write a report on the numbers presented on various accounts… I found I could make three or four different conclusions with the same numbers… ie: I had the power to make the numbers say what I wanted them to say! It scared the innocense out of me.

  2. Michael Camp says:
    December 13, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Lesley,
    Thought provoking article. As I have alluded to in my writing, “faith” or “religion” can infect philosophy and science, not just religious institutions. As I see it, it’s not that “truth” is a problem, as much as it’s human bias that is a problem. It’s usually unconsciously applied, as you say, but so easy for people to get on a bandwagon that’s based on one source saying, “new research suggests…” before the full gamut of research has been completed.

    We tend to reinforce what we already believe, whatever side we are on. Publishers still get textbooks on evolutionary theory wrong (e.g. Haeckel’s drawings of embryos repudiated as “falsified” by Stephen J. Gould, et al, can still be found), as do Creationists who blindly follow selective “evidence” for a young earth despite the preponderance of more replicable tests.

  3. Ken Campbell says:
    December 13, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    I recommend Francis Wheen’s “How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions” as a thoughtful exploration of this sort of anti-scientific relativism.

  4. Colin Christopher says:
    December 14, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Hi Lesley,

    Thanks for your TED talk earlier this fall! We’ve just posted a piece on it (http://insideislam.wisc.edu/index.php/archives/6109) and hope that you can spread the word on the initiative we’re doing here at the University of Wisconsin to spread voices such as yours. We look forward to your upcoming book!

    Best,
    Colin

    Blogger,
    Inside Islam

    insideislam.wisc.edu

  5. Howard Thomas says:
    December 16, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Re: “They (scientists) don’t do this deliberately, but unconsciously. “Knowing” that something has to be true, they find ways to make it seem so.”

    > This is an atrocious article. Mumbo jumbo.

    This is exactly opposite to what is involved with proper science. Scientists welcome repeated examination to disprove an assertion. This is how an assertion is either made stronger, or is rightly abandoned because of a more compelling explanation.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 16, 2010 at 10:04 am

      Your point being the point of Lehrer’s article, no? Plus the basic epistemological question: what is “proper” science?

  6. Ray Taylor says:
    January 5, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    I find it striking that we are still trying to kill empiricism/logical positivism 60 years after it was put to death unequivically by the new philosophers of science (Quine-Popper-Davidson-Feyerabend-Kuhn et al). Not to mention the critical realists who point out how it all comes down to how language and culture mediates between the empirical reality and the perceiver.

    Unfortunately most scientists have a very narrow field definition of what constitutes adequate criteria for their epistemic enterprise (they are mostly philosophical illiterates), and usually depend on their experimental procedures for that criteria. This is scientism, or what I call the technologization of science (a very pragmatic orientation). H2D2 fit into this category quite clearly.

    Real science is about discovery, which depends on a type of creativity that unconditions the mediated reality. It is based on conjecture, not on instrumental “proofs” that come later.

  7. paul skillman says:
    January 5, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    There are no truths, only vested interest where human relations are concerned.
    Remember the astronemer who made drawing of canals on Mars? Maybe his mind supplied him to match his intentions of wanting to find intelligent life on another planet.
    Our minds create what we want to believe, subjectively & objectively.

  8. Louai says:
    January 7, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    We see what our mind wants to see… We remember what our mind is interested in… Objectivity is always colored by our subjectivity… all what we do is a mere approximation to reality… wallahu alam…

    Below is a relevant and highly recommended read:

    http://i-epistemology.net/attachments/618_V15N1%20Spring%2098%20-%20Arif%20-%20Science%20Objectivity%20and%20Ethics%20in%20Research%20Methodology.pdf

Faith, Falsehood, and Fiction

Posted October 8th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Here’s Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, the newly crowned Nobel literature laureate and a proud agnostic, talking about truth, lies, and fiction in a piece called “Is Fiction the Art of Living?“:

THE lies in novels are not gratuitous – they fill in the insufficiencies of life. Thus, when life seems full and absolute, and men, out of an all-consuming faith, are resigned to their destinies, novels perform no service at all.  Religious cultures produce poetry and theater, not novels.

Fiction is an art of societies in which faith is undergoing some sort of crisis, in which it’s necessary to believe in something, in which the unitarian, trusting and absolute vision has been supplanted by a shattered one and an uncertainty about the world we inhabit and the afterworld.

I’m not at all sure about that idea of novels providing a “service,” but this is nevertheless an excellent explanation of why totalitarian societies clamp down not only on civil rights and freedom of expression, but on that most essential and potentially most subversive of individual rights — freedom of imagination.

Now it’s time to catch up with Vargas Llosa.    Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter sounds like farcical fun, but this accidental theologist really has to start with The Storyteller, in which a saintly, disfigured student presents himself as the official storyteller for a rainforest tribe and the repository of its collective memory.

Long live stories!

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, art | Tagged: Tags: accidental theologist, faith, fiction, lies, literature, Mario Vargas Llosa, Nobel prize, truth, uncertainty | 2 Comments
  1. Andreas Moser says:
    October 8, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    I can’t decide which book of Mario Vargas Llosa to read first. Help me please by taking part in my poll: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/mario-vargas-llosa-poll/
    Thanks 🙂

  2. The Books She Carried « The Accidental Theologist says:
    November 13, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    […] Faith, Falsehood, and Fiction […]

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity science technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback