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.
He's just playing word games, and you are falling for it.
The canonical example of the difference is that plenty of religious Buddhists are also atheists.
Not to be confused with "agnosticism" which is "holding the belief that it cannot be known whether there is a 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.
‘round here we call that trolling.
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.
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.
The statement about atheists not existing is hyperbole used in passing. He doesn't mean there is absolutely no difference between religious and unreligious people. He means they are often similar in non-obvious ways.
The central point of the full speech is that people should be intentional about what they choose to think and care about. It's not too far from stoicism which seems pretty popular in SV/HN.
The chain of points from this passage back to this central point are:
- Atheists and religious people are similar in that they both have a need to find meaning in their life.
- The alternatives that people find for sources of meaning (power, money, looks, etc) are often psychologically harmful.
- These harmful sources of meaning are often adopted by us unconsciously ("by default").
- It is important to be intentional about what we care about because if we are not, we will default to the harmful sources of meaning.
I agree that there is likely some projection of DFW's own psychological issues onto non-religious people at large, and that a lot of people can live happy lives without some form of veneration.
On the other hand, I think his advice is useful for some. I personally find his message about choosing your values intentionally valuable.
----
Even when taken in context, I admit his writing isn't super clear to a general audience. DFW was fond of experimental writing and also believed that writing should be tailored to the audience. His audience in this case was a liberal arts college, so he may have felt comfortable stretching his use of language.
This why I generally lean towards the “sloppy writing” conclusion — it is indeed useful to consider your values carefully, but trying to dunk on atheists both confused the language and lead to the incorrect claim that religious beliefs are less harmful than secular ones which is easily disproven by talking to people who were mistreated by friends or family members who saw that as a religious requirement (e.g. many gay people) or whose religion embraced the same harmful behaviors (e.g. some state religions or cults, the prosperity gospel, etc.).
Better writing could avoid that distraction by focusing on the common harmful classes of behavior and how to recognize those patterns in any particular system. I don’t see this as experimental language use because it’s so far from novel in this particular context and the net effect is to obscure the point rather than reach some deeper understanding.
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.
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.
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.
There is no truth to that whatsoever.
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.