Cognitive theorist,
Steven Pinker, drew me to the
RSA this lunch time. I was wooed by the title of the debate: “Reason, Fiction and Faith – Are any of the arguments for the existence of God any good?” as well as the chance to see a fellow Romantic in the flesh. However, it wasn’t Steven who was doing the talking. He was there to give his wife, the philosopher and novelist Rebecca Goldstein, a boost by sharing a platform with her and acting as her interviewer. A powerful partnership.
But it was by no means disappointing to listen to Rebecca (with Steven at her side). I was particularly interested in the way she described Plato’s influence on her work. She went as far as to say: “I write novels and short stories he would approve of. He is the father figure whose approval I want.” In the Q&A after the 35 minute interview, I asked her whether she saw Plato as her superego or as her muse. If she answered superego, then I would have wondered where her inspiration came from. If she answered muse, then I would have been inclined to alter my understanding of the role of the muse: not only called upon to inspire, but also to grant approval. Her answer was “both” so, in my understanding, the literary and psychoanalytic definitions remain distinct friends.
Other revelations Rebecca made on her insight into her own creative process included the reflection, “some issue compels me to write” alongside eulogistic anecdotes about how Plato awakened her when she was a girl. She made a valid criticism of Gertrude Stein: "Who wants to read Gertrude Stein? Fiction should be about enchantment." And she laid into Kingsley Amis: “I am not motivated by posers. I want to present characters for whom this is a life and death struggle”. Amen.
As for religion, Rebecca said it was much more than just belief. She said that, for her, religion was wrapped up in questions of self-identity, group identification, loyalty to a community and loyalty to historical narratives. She said she saw parallels within the academic world to the religious community in terms of its hierarchal structure. For example, a professor and his “disciples”; graduate students who hang on his every word, changing their opinion whenever he changes his. I can understand why an American academic might look to religion for examples of just about any working structure. Religion is so much more dominant in the US and is related to differently. In the UK, for instance, we can look to the monarchy for hierarchal parallels.
Then there was her argument that romantic delusion takes on from religious delusion. I am currently critical of clichés like “sex was her religion” or “romanticism was his religion”. It’s not really helpful to say, for instance, that “science is Dawkins’s religion”. It clearly isn’t or he wouldn’t attend an Anglican Church services.
I thought Rebecca’s observation that “philosophers are seen as heretics” was more interesting as it reminded me of
Jonathan Sacks and his desertion of philosophy.
It was Steven, however, who made me rethink my
attitude towards agnosticism’s present status as the comic fool. He retold a joke about how a Jewish couple consulted an agnostic chaplain for advice about their crumbling marriage. The husband goes to see the agnostic chaplain first. The chaplain listens to his point of view and his complaints about his wife. When the husband has finished his story, the chaplain says, “You know what, you’re right”. Then the wife comes to see him and he listens to her take on the situation. When she’s finished, he says to her, “You know what, you’re right.” The agnostic chaplain’s wife has been hiding in the wings and has heard the whole thing. She confronts her husband and says: “How can you say that?! How can you tell them they are both right? They can’t both be right!” And the agnostic chaplain says to her; “You know what, you’re right.”
I thought that was funny. Humour is a great peacemaker.
