Vonnegut's Views on the Realm of Religion

        In Kurt Vonnegut’s 1963 novel, Cat’s Cradle, which he published in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis, the novelist discusses multiple issues such as the effects of advanced science on the world and the eternal subject of religion. Vonnegut, a self-proclaimed Humanist, takes a satirical approach to the unwavering religious devotion of the narrator, John, to the denomination of Bokononism. As an agnostic, I agree with many of the writer’s views on faith. For instance, when first introducing Bokononism, John cites the opening sentence of The Book of Bokonon: “’all the true things… are shameless lies’” (5). The contradictory juxtaposition of “’true’” and “’lies’” illustrates the bold nature of Bokonon. This boldness, along with the brazen diction of “’shameless,’” creates an interesting contrast of Bokonon to other deities.  Unlike other divine beings that leave their beliefs to faith, Vonnegut purposefully devises a god to foil this. I admire Vonnegut’s choice as I feel it allows readers the unique opportunity to question their own beliefs—does it really matter if the Bible, Koran etc. exist as the truth or not? I contend that fallacies play essential roles in our lives; fictional novels have inspired me countless times and have even changed my life, yet these books technically remain as untrue. Moreover, I defend Vonnegut’s views on the socialization of religion. One specific encounter John has with Hazel Crosby parallels this. After discovering their shared Alma mater, Crosby because instantaneously fervent and demands John to refer to her as mom. John then wonders about the “seeming team that was meaningless… a granfalloon,” (91). Although I do not feel that close-knit religious communities reside as “meaningless” in the slightest, I do feel that, considering the opposing views within religious denominations, one cannot have an intense connection with someone just based on a worldwide religion. Also, Vonnegut’s use of incomprehensible diction such as “granfallon” reflects another criticism Vonnegut and I share: religion has become over-complex and intricate. Vonnegut asserts through his cynical tone that religion has become worn and often remains as merely a social gathering, both of these take away from the essential values religions advocate. I contend with many of Vonnegut’s opinions, but not always to the same extent. I advocate that those offended by Vonnegut’s ideals use their indignation to strengthen their own faith. In contrast, those who, like me, often agree with the novelist, do so in a less belligerent fashion than Vonnegut.