The other day, I mentioned my rapture over the essays in Douglas Adams’ The Salmon of Doubt.

One of my favorite bits was a speech, which I’ve just found a transcript for, discussing the concept of an Artificial God. I found this piece to be immensly interesting—not just because it’s funny and readable, but because it deals so well with a topic I’ve wrangled with for so many years.

Douglas was a proclaimed atheist. In an interview with The American Atheist, Adams said the following:

... I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god – in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference)...

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

[...]

First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. ...
I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. ...

That is terribly, hysterically, true. In fact, the entire interview is also a good read. Note to Craig: I think even you would like it.

I haven’t digested everything yet. I have to say that I find Mr. Adams’ writings remarkably refreshing. It is nice to finally hear someone say in an articulate way why they think as they do. His writing resonates with me as something I’ve always felt but have never been able to express.

Now before those of you that know me get going with the ‘hey hey wait, you said you were a pagan’, I will clarify by saying I felt I had a pagan bent—meaning that if I thought there were truth in any kind of religious structure, it would not be in the judeo-christian theology. I think that entire system is about as artificial as you can get – it makes no sense in this modern age (I doubt it made sense in the dark ages either, but who knew better since the church controlled the dissemination of knowledge in those days?).

I’ve often felt a connection between me and .. whatever – the nearest tree, the moon, friends far away, whatever. But I don’t think any of that needs a God to work. If anything, it’s more than likely a product of my own affection and wishful thinking, combined with a hearty dollop of intuition. “You see what you want to see”, etc. If I want to combine this with psychoanalysis, I could say that I wanted to be cared for by a mother that really understood my feelings – hence my “need” or “desire” for GodHead to be female (which is an interesting thought, I’ll have to tell that one to the counselor).

I’ll chew, and will return to this subject later. I’ve been posting only techie stuff lately, and all the comments have dried up, I guess I must have been too boring. So, my beloved friends, chew on this, and let me know what you think.