Pynchon sez it's OK to be an Atheist (was Re: AtD blurb - "false" religiosity?)

[Paul Mackin]

Sure it's OK NOT to believe, but a better  approach to  the Almighty,  
the  Everlasting, Unearthly Power, is that taken by another famous  
author James Joyce (also by Satan of course)

  Non Serviam (I will not serve)


On Aug 17, 2006, at 8:02 PM, jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> On 18/08/2006:
>
>> "False religiosity" would imply an insincere practice of religion.
>>
>> David
>
> Yes, that's pretty much how I read it too. I'll try and make my  
> point again more clearly, and then leave it. An atheist making an  
> observation about the negative effects on society of  
> "religiosity" (or "religion" for that matter) isn't going to be  
> concerned one iota about practitioners' sincerity, whereas someone  
> who does subscribe to a particular religious faith is very likely  
> to view that distinction as a meaningful one.
>
> Add to that the other evidence from the novels and essays, his  
> sending his son to the Cathedral School, Siegel's recollection in  
> his Playboy article of P attending Mass regularly, and it's more  
> and more difficult to continue to characterise him as an atheist or  
> agnostic.
>
> "Unless the state of our souls becomes once more a subject of  
> serious concern, there is little question that Sloth will continue  
> to evolve away from its origins in the long-ago age of faith and  
> miracle, when daily life really was the Holy Ghost visibly at work  
> and time was a story, with a beginning, middle and end. Belief was  
> intense, engagement deep and fatal. The Christian God was near.  
> Felt. Sloth -- defiant sorrow in the face of God's good intentions  
> -- was a deadly sin." (Pynchon, 'Nearer, My Couch, to Thee', NYTBR  
> 6 June 1993)
>
> http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_sloth.html
>
> best
>
>> I wouldn't be surprised  if Pynchon believed in some form of  
>> religion,
>> but his  indictment of "false religiousity" does not logically imply
>> that he does.  It is possible to percieve the hypocricy or calculated
>> use of someone else's religiousity without being religious one's  
>> self.
>>
>> Ghetta
>>
>> On 8/16/06, jbor at bigpond.com <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> And, in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound, might as well raise the  
>>> hackles of another subset of p-listers and observe that it's more  
>>> and more apparent that P is a Theist or Deist of some stripe (why  
>>> else the distinction implicit in "false religiosity"?) Again, the  
>>> particular stripe isn't clear (and is his own business), but I  
>>> think it's reasonable to assume that he's not an atheist.
>>>
>>> > "[...] it is a time of unrestrained corporate greed, false  
>>> religiosity, moronic fecklessness, and evil intent in high  
>>> places. No reference to the present day is intended or should be  
>>> inferred."
>
>