Engaging The Atheist Delusion

Last updated on: September 29, 2016 at 7:28 am by Henry Karlson

Engaging The Atheist Delusion 2016-09-29T07:28:13-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Sometimes, it is out of anger and resentment, for not getting what we want from God. It is the cry of a child, and, it should not be surprising that in a society which has not yet learned to grow up, this cry is a popular one, demonstrating once again, that God is denied, not out of any logical analysis or metaphysical contention, but out of simple resentment. Underneath that resentment is an unconscious belief in the God we are fighting against. We can’t be angry and upset at someone who we don’t believe exists, though we can find all kinds of excuses to deny such belief and hide the truth from ourselves.

Sometimes, it is based upon a poor understanding of God, usually because we received a poor representation of God from those who tried to teach us about him. A false image for God, whichever form that God is found in, certainly will end in a denial of that God, when such falsehood is discerned. Many quit there: we were fooled once and do not want to be fooled again, although we unconsciously put something in the place of God, often our own ego. The deconstruction of falsehood is needed, and so the atheist rejection of God often highlights what needs to be reconsidered. Instead of being a means to deny the divinity, however, what lies beyond that deconstruction is what needs to be found and used to make for a presentation of God. This is what the apophatic tradition understood. Our images of God remain crude due to our limited ability to comprehend God – those who understand our images as pointers beyond themselves are able to therefore deny the pointers as being God, but those who confuse the pointers for the God they point to will find a reason to deny the pointers as God and so deny God. When producing contradictions about God, it is because the pointers represent different aspects of God which, if understood to literally represent God and not, as they do, serving as analogies which point to God, then the pointers can easily be put together to make apparent contradictions about God and so suggest God does not exist. Again, there is positive ground which is done through their negation, and we can even accept their rejection recognizing they are rejecting the identification of the pointer with its object. We must take their criticism seriously and use it in our own engagement with God, and with them in our discussion about God. We must purify our image of God and recognize in the end how God transcends any image which we can make for him, so that we know him not through comprehending his essence but in discerning his activity in and with us.[6]

Some of us deny God because we do not experience God in the ways we think we should if he existed. There is an element of misconception of what God is like, and a misconception of how to discern his actions, lying behind this form of rejection. And so with it, we actually see an element of the first two forms of rejection merging into a third kind. For there is at once a false conception of God which is denied, but the conception includes expectations which are not met, like we find in the first. Therefore, those who follow this route often deconstruct notions of God, though they do so with a childish immaturity, often distancing themselves from the truth not by seeing the truth is greater than the image provided, but the reverse. It uses personal experience, and not just personal experienced, but the misconceptions of that experience, as the means to judge the existence of non-existence of God. Much of what God does is filtered out of our perception through our ideological lens, and so it is easy to hide his activity from ourselves and claim he does not exist. This also brings us back to the story that the Buddha told about Brahmā: we make too much of our own experience and so judge through our ignorance and deny God not through evidence but through perceived silence. Being blind to colors does not make us capable of denying the existence of colors; not experiencing the presence of God should not be used as indicative of God not existing. It might indicate what we thought God should be like is not there – or it might indicate something on our part is hindering our own experience of God – or likely, both. Nonetheless, to end up with a denial of God through silence is to raise up our experience as the foundation of truth and to make it, ironically, our divine guide.

Atheism is, at its root, a self-contradicting position based upon ignorance while asserting knowledge, leading, therefore, to its delusional status. And atheists are blind to the fact that everyone, even they, hold something up as the absolute, and so, deifying something and place it in the position of God. They are dishonest with themselves, and so to cure the delusion, as with any and all such delusion, they need to be shown the inherent contradiction of their position and explore why they hide from themselves the truth through their atheistic claims. Yes, some forms in which the divine are presented are to be rejected. We all have to go through a process of purification of our understanding of God, in order to truly let God be God. But we need to recognize what we are doing, lest we end up doing more and turn our apophatic engagement with God into naïve atheism, using the way others misidentify God as an excuse for us to deny all forms of the divinity. On the other hand, there remains after all such negations, even with the atheists, some absolute, some truth which is held up and put in the position of God. The form of that God made by the atheists needs to be examined and criticized just as many as any other forms of expressions of God made by us. In doing so we will note that, contrary to what they have attempted to do, contrary to their assertions, they still hold on to a foundation by which God can be explored. Because there remains some absolute, some truth which even the atheists end up holding to, if and when we can find that, then we can engage them like the early Christians with their pagan contemporaries. We can take the elements of truth that they continue to possess, take the form of the absolute as they establish for themselves, and use it as the foundation by which we can point to them to the truth of God. Through their absolute we can point to the absolute itself, the absolute which is found in and through all kinds of earthly conventions even as it transcends them. God has to exist because the absolute exists. How we define God, what are the best conventions to express our belief in God – those are important, but can only come after the acceptance of the absolute is assured, that is, after the delusion which seeks to hide the absolute from being is overturned, and not before.

[1] Those who say the universe is eternal, uncreated, always existing, never to be destroyed, have put the universe into the role of God, and its contents are seen to be created by the universe, demonstrating that not only does the universe serve as an absolute, as God, it is a creator-God. Those who ask theists “who created God” tend to have no problem in saying “no one created the universe,” showing that they can accept an eternal uncreated creator!

[2] The Long Discourses of the Buddha. trans. Maurice Walshe (Boston: Wisdom, 1995), 76 [ I.2.4-2.5].

[3] Surely, an echo of this is found in some Gnostic creator- myths, where an ignorant Demiurge believes himself to be God while ignorant of the one true God who created him.

[4] The technological apotheosis of the modern age, for example, has led to the destruction of nature, whereby the looming disaster of climate change can be seen as the judgment which will bring our ideological tower crashing down.

[5] This was understood, in part, by the French Revolution, as they tried to create a “Cult of the Supreme Being,’ but then taken further by August Comte, who truly tried to create a civil religion based upon humanity as the true divinity. His last, “positivist” stage of religious development puts humanity in the place of divinity, making humanity itself worthy of its own self-worship.

[6] We should not deny the use of poetic analogies for God, for they have their place. Once we have come to see his transcendence and understand his ontological place is a necessity, we can use his actions to help describe him, realizing that behind such positive assertions lies the greater transcendence of God which is not comprehended by our words. The key to doing this lies in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius and St. Gregory Palamas.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook:

A Little Bit of Nothing

Previous Post

September 28, 2016

Godlike Seed: A Poem

Next Post

September 30, 2016 Marian Reflections and Contemplations

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz