Sadly, it seems most people's denial of God is rooted in one or both of two things: Either God didn't do something the person wanted/expected, or He tells them not to do something they want to do. This means that most atheism has its roots in emotion and morality, which is to say not in logic. Few people "arrive" at atheism as a result of long, studied inquiry into the arguments of Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas, etc. They typically assent to atheism due to a much less sophisticated or rational source of denial, and so their faith in God is snuffed out prior to any real exercise of reason. This non-rational source of faithlessness, then, motivates much, if not most, atheism, and as such it deserves a closer inspection.
If you tell a person that there is a street in China, most people will likely believe you. Even if you’ve never seen a street in China, you will likely believe them when they tell you. Humans are wired to believe, for without belief people cannot function. Imagine if you had to literally prove everything to people, all the time. Prove the sandwich isn’t poisoned. Prove you’re my parent. Prove I’m from such and such a city. Prove that 17 is really 17 and not some other number. Prove my memory is accurate. Prove your memory is accurate. Prove that language has meaning. Prove that reasoning is rational. Prove you’ll never cheat. Prove that obeying the law matters. Prove that the law, and each law, is just. And on and on one could go.
If proof is required of absolutely everything prior to its being believed or believable, then the first step of proof would be impossible, for the first step would have to be proven prior to the first step having been proven. As a result, nothing could justify believing anything either in general or at all, and one could not take a single step because believing one’s own senses would not be established. One couldn’t accept any explanation until they first proved that reasonable explanations ought to be persuasive, but it would be viciously circular to use reason to say that reason is reasonable. If reason cannot be trusted, then reasoning about anything could not be trusted, and so even the senses could not be trusted because one could not trust that one was reasoning accurately about the sense data. Even doubt would be impossible because there would be no rational basis for the doubt, for the very structure of doubt itself implies rationality, and so doubt cannot be so radical that it denies itself the rational ground on which it stands. That would be like using language to prove that words don't exist. The reasonableness of reason must therefore be presupposed on the basis of faith, on the faith-borne presupposition of the reasonableness of reason, otherwise reason must be disqualified, and with it all reasoning about sense perception. Faith is required, therefore, because non-faith is really just nonsense. This is why radical skepticism and nihilism are foolish, because in using reason they have already admitted belief in something other than nothing.
In that light, it is clear enough that people believe things all the time, without requiring proof. This much is obvious. But why, then, would someone doubt something’s existence? If it is not born of extensive logical inquiry, then some other factor must be involved. Now, if the idea of God were utterly innocuous, then the risk of belief would be very low, and doubt would be less likely. For example, on the one hand, despite not having done the measurements, most people accept that the earth is so many thousands of miles around. If another person said that it was, give or take, several hundred miles different, no resistance would be given. No threat; nothing to doubt here. The truth is, though, on the other hand, with the idea of God comes all sorts of non-innocuous implications. These implications are sensed emotionally as either welcome or threatening to some cherished prior belief or commitment. Only if someone finds an idea threatening to their worldview will they find the motivation to start doubting.
Now, along with the idea of God comes the idea that one must both acknowledge and even obey certain restrictions. In short, God imposes on the free desiring of objects. Consequently, the motive of many people’s disbelief in God is, quite simply, that they want to do what they want to do. God is invisible, and yet the desire seems so tangible, and as such the disbelief in God serves a positive purpose in their mind to free their conscience to pursue the desired object or person. And yet, the absurdity of this being a rational ground for disbelief is obvious. It is merely desire counterposed to God, an atheism of convenience. In contemporary culture, however, convenience is king, and desire is nearly self-justifying, even virtuous, and so God is disbelieved at ever-increasing rates. Why believe in something that limits one’s freedom of desire? Today, the entire progress of humanity is being framed as the increased access to desires, coupled with the systematic deconstruction of all perceived limitations and restrictions, and so as convenience culture insinuates itself more and more, God will necessarily be made to seem less and less real and compelling. Since He does not give total permission in an environment where total permission is the intuited goal, belief in Him becomes consequently perceived as an existential threat to one’s very relationship with life; God is made to seem anti-virtuous.
Not only restrictions, others disbelieve God because He does not satisfy deeply felt desires. Rather than being upset by restrictions, they are willing to believe and obey as a transaction for the reception of desires and favors. As long as the sickness isn’t unto death, they will believe. As long as the marriage lasts, they will believe. As long as they get or don't lose the job, they will believe. And so on. At the point at which God finally seems uncooperative to the desire, not holding up His end of the bargain, their imagined and projected bargain, then the person begins to despise God for betraying their trust.
In order to deal with this atheism, one might be tempted to argue logically for why God’s existence is rational. But, unfortunately, this will not touch the motive of disbelief. The basic selfish motive is driving the show, and that motive is that what they want is king. For them, God either interposes Himself as an obstruction, or He fails to meet an expectation, and so either way He seems positively threatening. In either case man’s desire is made the standard, the criteria whether or not God ought to be believed in and obeyed. Without dethroning self, God will be resisted. To address this, then, one must address the man and his desires. One must address the moral question, whether desire ought to have limits. One must address the assumption that life ought to be as one wants. Until then, God will be resisted with existential fervor. Too much is at stake. The logical question of God's existence is simply an afterthought, a window dressing, a cleaner come in to wash and tidy up what is at root a matter of a desire for unrestrained desire and radical autonomy.
-Fr. Joshua
No comments:
Post a Comment