James Wood at the NYS Writers Institute in 2008

[KnowKnot]

"...something a little bit strange to be railing against this entity that you have supposedly got beyond... and the obvious answer is that in some way I haven't, and probably never will."

Lovely.

Reminiscent of Terry Pratchett's vulnerable, & nearly self-deprecating definition of himself as a "Victorian-style atheist," and his statement: "I think I'm probably an atheist, but rather angry with God for not existing."

(For those unfamiliar w/ Pratchett: truthfulness AND humor intended, always.)

[samuelmorrison]

the volumne is much too low.

[polymath7]

Argh, damn typos...

[blahblahhuh1]

Re: Wood's comment:

Its not true that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris have 'no time' for religous 'music, buildings' etc. They simply think it can be enjoyed with out the supernatural element. Just thought I'd mention that.

[polymath7]

@blahblahhuh1

I'm bitterly disappointed in Wood -who I much admire- for telling such a blatant lie.

And it is a lie.

He's lying either about *what* he read, or *whether* he read in the first place, but unless his memory is extremely poor, he's lying.

He hasnt simply forgotten Dawkins' chapter on art and his love of Bach's St. Mathew Passion; nor Hitchens' oft reapeated remarks about how he "could not be without" the King James bible or the devotional poetry of John Donne.

(cont.)

[polymath7]

(cont.)

His lie is all the more egregious for being prounounced so emphatically "...*no* time *What-so-ever*..." as this appears to forclose upon the possible defense of carelessness.

It might seem (wth my two-part comment) that I'm making too much of this, but for a professional man of letters to so widely misrepresent two writers he claims to have read -even if on a seemingly minor point- is really not a trvial thing.

Wood ought at least to be embarassed, if not ashamed.

[KnowKnot]

@polymath7 Good call. You're making too much of this. Exponentially too much. Wood has no reason to be embarrassed.

Wood: "It's why I like to read theology, even though, say, for a pure atheist like Richard Dawkins or someone like that (...) it would be like reading (...) ancient cosmology or something... it's of some cultural interest, but intellectually entirely null."

1) It was an illustrative, conversational, and, based on the body of Dawkin's ideas, appropriate statement.

(...continued>)

[polymath7]

@KnowKnot Incorrect. Wood has the greatest possible cause to be embarrassed. He is a literary critic who has been caught red-handed, on video, bluffing about authors he has obviously never read.

If *this* is not cause for embarrassment to a man of letters, please, tell me, what possibly could be?

This is not a rhetorical question; I would like a specific hypothetical example.

[KnowKnot]

@polymath7 I was wrong, and I apologize. I was distracted, and skimmed the later comment: "I certainly feel this when I read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Sam Harris, or any of these contemporary atheists who have no time whatsoever for the buildings, the documents, the music... one should be able to understand what grips believers..."

I THINK there's an unintentional and conversational warp there, and a messy construction.

(...continued>)

[KnowKnot]

@polymath7 I think he's putting weight on his general FEELING in reading these authors & others ("any of these contemporary atheists.") He would not be the first to get that feeling.

If I understand, he "feels" that all results of theological influence are dismissed via a categorical dismissal of the intellects of its adherents, & the paradox is the impulse to such rebellious atheism, along with a desire to more fully experience the focus of the rebellion.

But, alas. My ilk suffers, typically.

[megayaweh247]

Having people like James Wood in the world makes it a better place. He is smart, well-read, and hard working - but, without all the ra-ra and fireworks. He is a modest intellectual giant; and the better for it. More likely to effect revolution because he is modest, respectful, and calm. Nobody likes being pilloried for their strongly held beliefs and views. Wood states his position with respect like a great educator.

[polymath7]

@megayaweh247

"Nobody likes being pilloried for his deepl heald beliefs...."

This is *precisely* why, in the right hands, riducule is such an effective rhetorical stragegy.

Beleiefs that are maintained solely out of mental comfort are discarded only when they become emotionally costly.

As such, the best way to get people to abondon stupid beliefs is to make them feel stupid for holding them.

It is.

I speak from experience.

[KnowKnot]

@polymath7

2) The St. Matthew Passion is no work of theology. Nor is "art" in general, though it may be influenced by, intended as argument for, or include aspects or fragments extracted from theology. Appreciation can easily be isolated.

3) Due to its historical status, the KJV may be indespensible for sociological, literary, comedic (etc.) purposes. As for Donne, & devotional art generally, see #2,  and consider this common concept: religion is "literally false but poetically true."

[polymath7]

@KnowKnot "(2 The Saint Mathew Passion is no work of theology...."

This comment is one long, incoherent non sequitur that, apart from sharing a mere reference to said Bach and Bible, bears no obvious logical relation to the comment to which it responds.

Tediously typical of your ilk, you suffer a severe incapacity for lucid semantic logic.

[KnowKnot]

@polymath7  In the end, tediously, I wish I could hear the statement questioned and clarified. Incapacities taken into account.

[Travsterable]

@KnowKnot Can u just shut the ---- up? You're blocking basically all the comments page. Debate through messages

[JohnAdamCulligan]

Why rail against something you don't believe exists (or, as Wood suggests, something that you've got beyond)? Good question.

Why tackle the root of many contemporary problems, if it isn't a rational one? I mean, if all the fanatics who blow themselves (and others along with them) up are doing so in tribute to a non-existent entity, why criticize that entity? Don't you want to show them how little you care about their problem, regardless of what costs they will exact to 'fix' it?

[natmanprime]

@JohnAdamCulligan excellent attitude

[polymath7]

@JohnAdamCulligan

"Why rail against something you don't believe exists..."

You're too gentle. This is an exquisitely stupid question to which no answer that is free of mockery is appropriate.

[StoneFredFlint]

Indeed. As C. Hitchens frequently says, religion would be less of a problem if the religious kept their beliefs to themselves, but they can't--they insist on proselytizing and committing all sorts of crimes and atrocities on behalf of their superstitions. If they would just leave us alone there would be less need for public dispute, but they don't, and by the tenets of their religions they cannot. So we need talented rhetoricians to call out these fascists and expose their lies and hypocrisy.

[hpd929]

This is a much more mature position than the position staked out by the anti-religious writers today. Did you actually listen to anything Wood said? He condemned those, like yourself, you engage in tedious overstatement about "fascism" and "lies and hypocrisy." His nuanced view is much more attractive to people like Paul Kurtz than the view of the louder atheists today. He also makes a fine point about being beyond God: the atheists give God lots of attention and God makes them lots of money.

[wimvandenberghe]

An atheist lacks a belief in gods cos he sees no evidence for it and therefore rejects that particular hypothesis. Where is James Wood getting the idea from that atheism means one is "certain" there are no gods or one "knows" they don't exist? I am an agnostic atheist: I don't believe in the supernatural, cos I don't see any evidence that it exists, but I can't know for certain that it doesn't exist.