Let's talk about literature that presents non-belief in a positive light.

I am looking for examples of stories that present atheism, agnosticism, or other forms of unbelief in a positive light. That means a written, fictional narrative in which a major character either already is an unbeliever for reasons of intellectual principle (as opposed to the usual Hollywood atheist, usually a “former” believer angry at God because of a past tragedy), or in which a major character is on an [del]spiritual[/del] philosophical quest and ultimately settles on some variety of non-belief. I’d prefer to talk only about well-written stories, but I am not the arbiter of taste.

Simply naming a story and its author is adequate, but only for Welshmen; I’d be happier if y’all would also discuss the elements of the story that make it noteworthy or compelling to you. Anyone who mentions Stephen R. Donaldson will be beaten with a cudgel. Unless they’re on the Short List, of course. Or unless they’re female, on account of Rhymer Rule 4c. Or unless … ah, screw it, talk about Thomas Covenant if you want, though you can expect regurgitation from some quarters if you do.

Anybody?

I left out “and that character’s unbelief is an important plot point or piece of characterization” above. Sorry. I blame Dionysus.

The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell, is an excellent example of this. Without giving hardly anything away, the book is about a mission to another planet to meet the life on that planet, and some of the characters are devoutly Catholic, while others are atheists or agnostics; there’s a great deal of wonderful dialog as they discuss their views of the cosmos with one another.

A much worse example of this phenomenon would be Harry Potter, in which most of the characters appear to be atheists (in the sense that they never profess or demonstrate any belief in the divine). [edit: much worse because I totally ignored your second post; you may quote this example mockingly as a stern warning to other people who fail to read the whole thread before posting.]

And it’s been awhile since I read it, but A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court has a pretty strongly atheistic main character, if I recall correctly. Certainly he exploits the religious beliefs of his peers for his own ends, and despises them in part for what he views as superstitions.

Try ***The Way of All Flesh ***by Samuel Butler.

Would Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy count, or is a negatively presented religion not enough? I admit I haven’t read it in a while.

I wouldn’t mind further discussion of HDM, which I mentioned in the OP and then edited it out. I can’t quite decide whether that work’s atheism is textual or subtextual.

Here’s what I mean. In many ways, HDM is a response to Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, whose Christian message, however heavy-handed at times, is still subtextual. (I’m fairly sure the words “Christ,” “Jesus,” “Christian,” and “church,” never appeared, and if “god” does, it’s not capitalized.) And in a sense, (poly)theism is the correct philosophical position in-universe; powerful, primordial, supernatural entities do exist and are interested in the doings of [del]humanity[/del] mortalkind. On the other hand, there is no single, sovereign creator; the Authority is not more like the Gnostic Demiurge, albeit one not truly in rebellion against his creator (how can one rebel against that which does not exist).

Of course, HDM is strongly anticlerical in its tone and message, though Pullman undercuts himself by creating a straw version of the Church. I suspect he did so because he wanted to slam Protestantism and Catholicism simultaneously, so he made John Calvin the last Pope in Lyra’s world, but in doing so he no longer was criticizing an actual entity.

On balance I think HDM is more maltheist than atheist (certainly it is not agnostic). I was about to write that it’s not a *positive *portrayal of non-belief (read: a portrayal that argues the virtues of its position rather than simply condemning the opposition), but the bit in, um, The Amber Spyglass about the joyfulness of a limited lifespan puts the lie to that.

I never read the book “Contact” but I heard that the main character was non-religious, as was Sagan, the author.

Isn’t it funny that Hogwarts celebrates Christmas? Are they all Christians there? or am I wrong about this. I was never into Potter world much.

Similarly, don’t the vampires in Twilight marry in a Christain ceremony? (judging by the movie photos alone). Of course the author is famously Mormon, if one considers Mormonism to be Christian.

Funny how non-Christians in media follow religious customs.

ETA - sorry, Skald, for such a thoroughly useless post.

I don’t know that His Dark Materials counts, as in that world, the religion in question is arguably REAL (in the sense that the powers appealed to did at one time act upon people, and those powers are currently being co-opted by the antagonists) so it doesn’t exactly track - an agnostic or an atheist in that world would equate more to a creationist in ours; someone sticking their fingers in their ears and going “lalalala I disbelieve the reality you present!”

I do think that series is an arguably good presentation of someone who is AGAINST religion for all sorts of good reasons, but they aren’t technically atheist or agnostic - I’d instead peg them as apostate.

I am forced to agree with The Sparrow, as much as I totally disliked it personally.

In which version of Contact was the scientist agnostic to the end? I watched the movie and read the book back in the dark ages of childhood, and can never remember which was which. Or have I forgotten and she’s a “tragedy” atheist and doesn’t count?

Speaking of which, I don’t think that’s a valid restriction - I personally was a tragedy-inspired atheist, because that’s the necessary motivation I needed to break out of an entire upbringing, extended family and extended cultural group based solely upon belief. Now that I’ve been actually educated (as opposed to brainwashed and propaganda-ed), I am continuing in my unbelief, not because I’m “angry at god” but because I’m an intelligent person, and I don’t agree with the tenents of my childhood faith. I don’t think you can discount someone just because their **initial **impetus is more personal than philosophical. Now, if the **continued **impetus is emotional, rather than thought-out, then that I do agree with.

as an aside in this conersation - Newsweek’s newest edition has a cover story written by a scientist who had a near death experience & tells us Heaven Is Real! (roll eyes). When did the newsweeklies get this bad?

end hijack.

As an aside to this aside, I read that article and thought “You admit that you suffered damage to the part of the brain that controls rational thought and now you believe in an afterlife? How is that a convincing argument?”

From Pratchett’s Hogfather:

I’m not sure whether this is what the OP wants, or the exact opposite.

36 Arguments for the Existence of God by Rebecca Goldstein
Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler
In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust

One can argue that many of the Golden Age SF works were written in a non-religious mode that presented a future of Humanity unmarred by our current religiosity. Moving forward in time, the very concept of Roddenberry’s secular utopia was predicated upon a diminishment of religion’s hegemony.

Infinite Diversity In Infinite Combinations is a superior philosophy to earlier ideals.

Gagundathar - weren’t there a lot a religious plotlines in Star Trek - DS9; of course they are alien religions.

Kirk also tells Apollo that “We’ve outgrown the need for gods.” (paraphrased)

Jon Osterman gains a whole bunch of superpowers in WATCHMEN – he can view subatomic particles at play, or go explore Mars at the drop of a hat easy as walk across the sun, even see a little ways into the future – and, well, he doesn’t think there’s a god; as far as he can tell, the only miracles are highly improbable events that are bound to happen sooner or later.

This leads another character to figure Jon must think life is meaningless; Jon, however, explains why his worldview in fact leads him to value life all the more, prompting him to base his decisions around preserving humanity.

I thought about saying something dismissive and contemptuous about Star Trek, but I am only supposed to be a hypocritical snob on days with a U in them. I will instead remark that I cannot think of a single statement of overt atheism or agnosticism in Trek; that there is canonical evidence that Kirk is definitely a monotheist and that Uhura is probably a Christian; that the Klingons are more anti-theist than atheist; that most Bajorans seem to worship beneficent deities (a religion to which Benjamin Sisko eventually converts); and that Trek is hardly an atheist universe anyone. There’s no clear evidence fo a single sovereign creator, but I can’t think of a good reason to deny that the Prophets, the Q, and the Organians are small-g gods in the same sense as the Aesir.

He also says “We find the one sufficient.” Kirk’s a monotheist.

Really? It’s been a while since I read this, but my recollection is that while the protagonist is certainly an atheist, he’s not particularly sympathetic; he’s broken by the very appartus of oppression he helped to set up, and was totally willing to cast colleagues to the wind before things fell apart for him. I’m not seeing the positivity here.

Darkness at Noon is a great book, but it sure doesn’t present atheism in a positive light. it doesn’t portray anyone or anything in a positive light.

While almost every every character in the book is (presumably) an atheist, there nothing in the book to indicate why or how they made that decision. And most of those atheists are utterly evil.

Religion is practically irrelevant to most of the characters in Darkness at Noon..