Fishing for Atheists

Stanley Fish wrote a piece for the Times reviewing recent books by a trio he calls “The Three Atheists”—Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris—all of whom have written critically (although in slightly different ways) of religion and religious belief. Fish’s review features his usual smarter-than-you snarkiness which makes for an especially provocative read, as evidenced by the hundreds of comments posted to the Times website in response.

I don’t want to get into (or in the middle of) this pissing match in part because I don’t think the debate between theists and atheists is really amenable to reasoned discussion and also because at some fundamental level both sides are probably right. It’s like you can spend your life arguing whether Sandy Koufax or Warren Spahn was the greatest lefthanded pitcher ever, but at some point, reasons fail and it just comes down to a matter of taste.

Getting worked up over whether God exists thus seems to me to be something like getting all exercised over which is the superior flavor, chocolate or vanilla—and even if it’s not, all the books in the world, and all the criticisms of those books, is pretty unlikely to convince either the chocolate or vanilla lovers to change their minds.

Me, I sort of wish I did believe in God, but I just can’t seem to make the move from the ineffable mystery of the Universe to something (and especially some One) behind it. Creation itself is god enough for my tastes; assuming a Creator diminishes the All-ness-That-Is in a way that makes me uncomfortable—but maybe that’s the point, after all.

I’m inclined to think that in any case, God’s existence depends on people’s belief in Him; if no one believed in God, He would cease to be. It’s like the “stars” on American Idol wouldn’t be stars without their fans.

And I’m not really sure if that’s a reason for believing in God or not.