The Paradox of Atheism and the Value of Religious Fictionalism
In this thesis, I argue for Revolutionary Religious Fictionalism, roughly the view (i) that realist accounts of religion are false and (ii) that our thought and talk about religion should be construed as a kind of pretence (analogous to our thought and talk when engaging with fiction). This kind of view is not new – it has recently been articulated and defended by various philosophers – but the two arguments I put forward in support of the position are new. Each argument is fleshed out in the two main parts of this thesis.
In Part 1, I draw an important connection between the Paradox of Fiction and a puzzle for atheists: accounting for the possibility and rationality of emotional engagement with religion for those who do not believe in god(s). I argue that the best solution to the Paradox of Fiction requires us to embrace a kind of fictionalism about fictional objects (whereby our thought and talk about fictional characters involves make-believe and pretence). By analogy, I argue that the best solution to the puzzle for atheists is to embrace a kind of fictionalism about religion (whereby our religious thinking, discourse and practice also involves make-believe and pretence—or something relevantly similar).
In Part 2, I ask what the value or utility of positive engagement with religion might be if one is an atheist and does not believe in god(s). One common assumption defended in the literature on religious fictionalism, is that religious fictionalism is defensible only if the benefits of fictionalist engagement in the discourse for an atheist are the same as the benefits of genuine engagement for a theist. But this is a mistake (as the literature on moral fictionalism makes clear in that related domain). Revolutionary Religious Fictionalists merely need to demonstrate that the benefits of fictionalist engagement with religion has greater value and utility than is attainable by other anti-realist approaches. I then attempt the required demonstration and respond to challenges to the view.
