A Contempt for a Contempt for Disillusionment

Jean Baudrillard’s enthralling essay entitled Simulacra and Simulation is a compelling explanation of why we silly humans construct our social reality in such irrational ways. As a student of human nature and an atheist at heart, it took every ounce of willpower I possess to keep myself from drooling on the pages. I am particularly intrigued by any opportunity to better understand the minds of people who subscribe (submit?) to what I consider the deeply absurd worldview that is belief in a higher power, and feel that this essay has helped me to better understand how they rationalize a belief that is fundamentally based on an irrational assumption. I will argue that Baudrillard’s concept of perpetually foundationless simulacra explains why theism persists in the world today, and explain why it is destined to dissolve.

            One of the most common misconceptions about atheists is that we don’t believe in anything. That is clearly not the case, as subscribing to the label “atheist” is to simply and solely state that you see no reason to believe in a higher power, so you do not. That is what it boils down to, as I am sure many of you are aware, but where people of faith fail is in their deviation from logical reasoning. Without any evidence, the most rational way to answer the question of whether some omniscient being created everything is in terms of surprise. Which would be more surprising to you: that God exists, or that He doesn’t? Apparently many people are not as easily surprised as I. But I digress.

            To return to Baudrillard’s essay, he asks two questions in the sections directly regarding religious faith, and I intend to answer them. In regard to the “simulacrum of divinity”, he asks “what becomes of the divinity when it reveals itself in icons, when it is multiplied in simulacra? Does it remain the supreme power that is simply incarnated in images as a visible theology? Or does it volatilize itself in the simulacra that, alone, deploy their power and pomp of fascination – the visible machinery of icons substituted for the pure and intelligible Idea of God?” These two questions seem to be phrased in a way that suggests Baudrillard would find the latter the least surprising, but to humor him (me), let’s answer them from the ground up.