There’s a great exchange in The Princess Bride when Inigo Montoya hears his Sicilian boss Vizzini lisp for the umpteenth time, “That’s inconceivable.” Indigo replies, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” When I hear people characterize themselves as an atheist, I want to respond likewise, “I don’t think it means what you think it means.” Let me explain.
When people pronounce themselves an atheist, they think they are making a theological statement. They are talking about God, his unreality. They are saying that the universe has only a physical, not spiritual, dimension. Religion in any form is therefore a chimera that may have some social utility, but which lacks any basis in fact. Should it be so easy! What the atheist doesn’t realize, however, is that when they start to theologize about God, they are also making statements about people; existential, political, and psychological statements of the most profound sort.
First and foremost, the person who rejects the existence and self-revelation of God is making an existential statement about themselves and others. They are saying that each person is essentially and permanently alone. This has good and bad implications. The good implication is that we are free. Free from accountability, free from interference, free from judgment. We can do whatever we want, and will never be asked to justify our thoughts, words, or deeds. We are attracted to this idea because we are by nature rebels, and hate being told what to do, or not do. But absolute freedom has bad implications as well, for perfect freedom also implies perfect solitude. When in need, who does not want help? When happy, who does not want to share? None of this is possible to the strict atheist, they are alone in the cosmos. Further, when confronted with death, theirs or others’, the atheist must be willing to look forward to extinction with equanimity and dispassion. As one atheist friend said, “When I die, it’s poof; nothing.”
There is also a psychological burden the atheist must bear. Life without the possibility of failure also lacks the possibility of success. For what do we strive, for what do we hope? If there is no goal in the universe, there is no value to how life is lived. The way things are is fine, including the imperfections. The world is the way it is, and to speak of improving it is not only forlorn, it is a waste of time. Ditto with individuals; they are the way they are, and there is no possibility or need of improvement. The drunk should stay drunk, the killer should continue to kill, the thief should continue to steal. Who cares? Who are you to say that something is right or wrong? You arrogant bastard! Why not rape and pillage? Why not make children cry? Who gives a damn? Why start anything? Why finish it? What is beauty? What is nobility? Why have rules, why be fair? Why not maximize personal thrills and comfort at the expense of others? If this life is all there is, only the weak, the ineffectual, the fearful will not do all they can to impose their needs and desires on others. As Oswald Chambers says, “If I have never been a blackguard, the reason is a mixture of cowardice and the protection of civilized life.” The conventions of marriage, self control, self-sacrifice and altruism are signs of weakness and moral fecklessness. The atheist is duty bound, if self-actualizing and consistent, to live this life with a view to maximizing their own advantage, without regard to the rights or desires of others.
Then there is the social or political angle. When somebody professes atheism, they are, if they are being honest, talking about the kind of world they want to live in. What they are saying is, biological life, including humans, is random; it just happened by accident. Therefore, there is no moral authority to be found anywhere in the universe. What you see is what you get. The concepts of right and wrong are at best sentimental notions that have no real force in the grand scheme of things. In other words, Adolf Hitler was right. Now Adolf was a lousy general, but he was a great politician and an even greater philosopher. What he said was this: what counts in human affairs is not silly ideas about the sanctity of human life and vague notions of right and wrong. Rather, what counts is strength, on personal, national, and racial levels. If I can impose my will on you, and he spoke of his personal will a great deal, then I have the right, indeed the obligation, to do so. He, like Charles Darwin, would say that the drama of biological life takes place not on the level of the individual, but rather on the level of the species. Now Adolf is an unpopular person, but I challenge you so say why he was wrong without reference to some theistic notion. He made 50 million people die. So what? He made countless others unhappy. Who cares? His only problem, if you’re a consistent atheist, is that he actually put his ideas into practice. Consistent, but impractical. When considering great atheists like Hitler and Stalin, you have to offer grudging admiration for the fact that their actions were logical extensions of their beliefs.
In contrast with these doers, you have most modern atheists and theists who are so vague about the content of revelation that they are, for all practical purposes, themselves atheists. On the one hand, they say there is no absolute standard for religious truth. Then on the other, they hold themselves and others accountable to a high moral standard on matters they consider important: be green, honor Mother Earth, co-exist, Namaste, lower your carbon footprint, stop global warming. All this is just so much bullshit if you’re really dedicated to the notion of atheism. A consistent atheist is an opportunist.
Viewed in this way, atheism has two inherent drawbacks. First, it’s a lot of work. The atheist considers himself privy to knowledge that sets him apart from and above all theists. It takes energy to be constantly processing the mistakes and foolishness of others. You are saying that most human achievement is at best a waste of time. Forget art, talent, love, all that smarmy stuff the world chases after. It is almost impossible to be consistent on this point and not generate a great deal of friction with others and within your own psyche. Forget trust. Stay on your toes. You’re the only advocate you have, so keep your guard up. Atheism is at its heart intolerant. It is absolute. It removes all middle ground. It denies mercy, it invalidates humanity; it makes us an animal; reptilian, inviolate perhaps, but utilitarian in the extreme. Most people who live out their atheism are dead or in prison.
The second drawback is that to be a good atheist, you must become religious yourself. To believe that God doesn’t exist requires a much greater leap of faith and denial of facts than any theistic position. You must be willing to overlook all evidence that suggests there is a benevolent Creator in the universe. All charity, all improvement, all mercy, all generosity; it’s all misguided claptrap that can seduce the unwary into believing there’s a moral component to the universe. You have to be able to say, with a straight face, that random chance is the author of everything we see and are. The drunk who stops drinking, the thief who stops stealing, the bad man made good, these are falsehoods that need to be confronted, unmasked, and derided. Jesus Christ is not God or even a good man, but either deluded or the personification of evil. And what of his followers? As Paul said, “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” And not just pitied, but opposed. Close those hospitals, soup kitchens, foreign missions that dig wells, and clothe, feed, provide medical relief for and educate the bereft. All so much nonsense, as they are trying to ingratiate themselves to unbelievers, only to mislead them with false hopes.
Atheist. One small word with sweeping implications. With Inigo Montoya, I say once again, “I don’t think you know what that word means.”
