What is especially striking about the Hitchhiker’s Guide to eth Galaxy is how insightful it can be on matters of religion, given that DNA was(inhis own words) a militant atheist.
I had the privelege of asking Douglas Adams a question about religion directly, at his own blog some years ago. The full exchange went:
I’ve noticed many religious elements in your books – Electric Monks, the Last Message, Zarquon, Oolon Colluphid, etc. You treat the sensitive topic of religion with respect, while poking fun at its foibles in a refreshing way. Have you ever given thought to making religion the focus of one of your projects?
IMHO the cool thing about faith is that it open up philosophical realms of debate and analysis (and comedy!) that science alone can’t. Science, as an approximation to observed reality, seems limited to how things are, whereas religion (freed from the burden of logical proof) is more free to speculate about the underlying why.
I am, as you guessed, fascinated by religion. But I am by conviction an atheist, and a fairly radical one at that. Have a look at this.
The fact that you can pose a question doesn’t mean to say that it has an answer, at least, not the sort of answer that the question implies. So saying that religion has the job of asking the underlying “Why?”, as you suggest, seems to me to mean as much as asking “What colour is opera?” or “Where is indecision?” or “When is osteopathy?” or “How is blue?”. By the time you’ve done enough clarification of the question to render it meaningful you’re effectively got yourself another question. Like “How come things are as they are?”
Now, the philosophical disagreement about what Ultimate Question religion is supposed to answer (How many prophets must a wise man follow, anyway? hmmm) aside, it’s clear that DNA’s primary critique of religion was the essence of faith. It’s quite clear he understood faith well – he just disagreed with it as being a valid mode for intellectual inquiry. After all, consider the following infamous excerpt from the Guide entry on the Babel Fish:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything that mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isnÂ´t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you donÂ´t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadnÂ´t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
“Oh, that was easy,” says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingoÂ´s kidneys, but that didnÂ´t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God.
The Babel Fish is a kind of anti-deus ex-machina. It can only have been created by God, and thus serves as the logical nail in God’s coffin. Of course any person with faith would argue that since God exists outside the confines of logic, then direct evidence of God’s creation is not tantamount to rejection of faith. After all, proof denies faith only in the human heart, but God is greater.
Note that DNA couldn’t resist getting his licks in on Man, of course. And the closer to the Babel Fish entry is quite apt:
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
If I may be permitted some exegesis of DNA’s revealed texts, it seems that religion is less a root cause of civilization’s severe dysfunction that the failings of our own limited capacity for enlightenment. DNA, like many intellectuals, was ultimately a human pessimist.
But I have an answer to the rationalist approach that DNA favors on its own merits as well. Sadly, DNA never responded to my follow-up:
For someone of the atheistic persuasion, you certainly have some penetrating (intended, as opposed to accidental, I assume) insights. That quote by the Guide about proof denying faith is an important one which even theists fail to grasp sometimes.
I don’t agree with your assertion that a burden of proof rests on God, or his believers. Most theists that I know of (including myself) are perfectly happy to believe in God without feeling a compulsion (unfortunately suffered by a minority) to prosletyze. For me, as a practising muslim, my faith in God is something that enhances my appreciation of the universe, not detract from it. I too (strongly!) prefer the “awe of understanding to the awe of ignorance” but as a physics/math/astronomy major in college I found several limitations in how far science can drive that understanding.
all the greatest intellectual achievements of mankind, the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, are still in the end only approximations to reality. What we call laws are actually intricate, complex, and internally consistent models that serve to extend our understanding, but by no means do they fully describe the reality that underlies our perception.
Have you heard of Godel’s Theorem?