The metaphysics of atheism
Investigation #10
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation…A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things. — Walden, Thoreau
There has been some discussion about whether atheism is a belief system. Predictably, some who say they are atheists state that their way is not one of belief but the absence of belief. Of course, those interested in word play can always resort to all kinds of infinite regress and argue back and forth: not believing is a form of belief; absence of belief is to still believe that it is possible to be in a situation that allows for ‘absence of belief’, etc. Needless to say, there are as many definitions of atheism as there are those who claim to be atheists.
The basic tenet of atheism is to not have belief that there is Divinity in any form. It is specifically a disbelief in there being Divinity; some prefer to refer to atheism as that which is opposed to theism. However, while most atheists would say with firmness they do not believe in the Divine, there may be those who stipulate variations on this and do not claim certitude in God’s non-existence. So in some cases there would be atheists who espouse agnosticism (but who are quite unaware of doing so, which is perhaps the best way to be agnostic).
However, the atheists would probably insist that they accept science as more reliable than any concept of the Divine; cite scientific evidence as ‘facts’ to support their views, and so use empiricism as a means of providing knowledge and certainty. When asked do you believe that your family loves you, or that you care for your spouse, that you believe in loyalty or that compassion is an important trait — they would have some form of belief pertaining to this (perhaps supported by ‘facts’ rather than fiddle-faddle like intuition). So atheists do believe – for instance, ask them if they believe that the sun ‘rises from the east’; the earth is the only planet on which humans exist; or there is no man currently on the moon (so no humans on satellites either).
To push things further, ask atheists if they have superstitions: do they believe in lucky numbers, colours, on which day to do important things or are there auspicious occasions for them and why. Chances are many who claim to be atheists (and probably also rationalists) have pet beliefs and superstitions (though they may not call it that). They would also insist on logic being the ‘alpha and omega’ in determining what is right and how things should usually be done. Yet, this is the kind of logic that gets suspended when we delve deep into high end quantum physics.
Atheists may also insist that their conception of what is good (and morality) derives from humanism, and then you ask what is ‘humanism’ and then there will be another list of definitions, quotes, texts, beliefs, or empirical data to support this. It has nothing to do with the Divine. So there is belief in humanism, but then again some may quibble with this – they want to be clear that they are purged of all belief, except perhaps the belief that if you are gainfully employed you will get your monthly salary on time and that quarrelling with your boss regularly may ruin your career. Then again, it may be said that this is the kind of stuff that you can believe in.
The point is not to trivialize atheism as some of its views regarding the world may be held by some of us who believe we are not atheists; they could also well have been part of the process of our spiritual evolution; nor should those who deem themselves theists think that nothing good ever comes from atheistic beliefs (or principles) as having faith in humanity (as some humanists would claim) can be a positive thing. It must be noted that there are also humanists who do not claim to be atheists but agnostics (this is not to say that everyone who believes in God will assert they are not humanists, some may indeed regard themselves as humanists though not always card carrying members of a humanist association). Moreover, notions like self-reliance and empowerment are ideas theists may also share with non-theists and can be found across numerous cultures.
However, what should be looked at a little closer are the underlying assumptions to many beliefs/claims that slip into the atheistic system of thought; there is blind acceptance of many things beyond pure empiricism while eschewing diligently any allegiance to the Divine. At this point, the controversial philosopher Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s thought can be useful.
One of the important points Heidegger raises about Nietzsche (who famously wrote ‘God is dead’), is that his idea about the ‘death of God’ comes from nihilism. But it is Heidegger’s notion of this nihilism that is valuable, in that he states that Nietzsche’s nihilism and replacement of having to believe in Divinity through belief in the ‘Overman’ – is a matter of metaphysics. Heidegger is correct to point out that Nietzsche truly is a metaphysical thinker and the basis of his ideas, including the ‘Eternal Return of the Same’ and justice are anchored in Being (the ontological basis of Heidegger’s own thought).
We are told that in positing nihilism Nietzsche is actually stipulating Being (everything including beings emanate from this metaphysical base), and he is apparently not making a scientific claim but a metaphysical one. His nihilism is not equivalent to the claim that there is a ‘Nothingness’ underlying everything that is devoid of any meaning or value. On the contrary, we are informed that Nietzsche’s nihilism is of a positive nature in that he is putting forward a revaluation-transvaluation of all values (the uppermost ones in human history) by coming up with a different paradigm of trying to find our way after rationalism has ‘killed off’ the need for God. It also reflects the end of Western metaphysics and the need for a re-energizing of thinking that is representative of the reality forging (or co-creating) force of the individual (or subjectivity). There is historically in our socio-philosophical-religious progress the need to create new values for ourselves rather than be trapped in old ones that no longer serve us. Nietzsche provides us with a confrontation with ourselves, established religion, social mores and whatever that has kept us away from the ‘will to power’ part of which involves an overcoming of the old values and belief systems through a form of ultimate empowerment. This ‘will to power’ is the metaphysical essence of Being.
Some of this may resonate with quite a number of people in our time and it is interesting that Nietzsche believed his was a philosophy of the future (he died on the cusp of the 20th century), and that there was a period of great struggle ahead in the time to come. Here it must be noted that ideas like people are not perfect: so unfortunately, not only was he right in that the last century was dominated by war/conflict but, alas, his ideas were manipulated by the Nazis. To make matters worse, Heidegger who championed much of Nietzsche’s thought was a member of the Nazi party: and though he did repudiate some things the Nazi’s stood for — he was a German nationalist, always commiserated with German loss during the world wars and remained silent over the Holocaust (except for one brief mention in a lecture).
Heidegger also insisted that his take of Nietzsche highlighted his resistance to Nazi ideas such as biologism: he believed that Nietzsche was not just a German thinker but one for mankind (it is, ironically, easier to defend Nietzsche’s reputation than Heidegger’s as the former clearly despises many aspects of his Teutonic heritage and any form of ideological fixation — religious, philosophical or political). But there is a spiritual dimension to Nietzsche too as he also describes his ‘Overman’ as a Caesar who could, through the ‘will to power’, be someone with “the soul of Christ”.
But to get back to Heidegger-Nietzsche’s ideas rather than their politics, it is difficult to dismiss the postulate that even those who deny the existence of God have metaphysical presuppositions. How many atheists are claiming a nihilism that implies pure materialism and nothingness and vacuity of meaning in anything beyond empiricism (and if so, what is their theoretical basis for interpreting any empirical results). To do so is to make an extraordinarily stringent claim which we have yet to see backed-up effectively by anyone who actually believes this. Yet again, to make even this form of ultra materialist claim implies a certain metaphysics — that of absolute nihilism: if hyper materialist atheists think they do not need to prove this, then they are not as empirical or ‘scientific’ as they believe; or if they have no idea about this, then they are inclined towards agonisticism and are not as clear about their stand/beliefs as they might claim – so can there ever be certainty in atheism on the non-existence of God?
However, it is unsurprising if there are atheists who would subscribe openly or otherwise (or subconsciously) to a version of the metaphysics of Heidegger-Nietzsche, in that they have to account for where everything comes form – like matter, beings, energy, change, evolution, dissolution and human drives etc. It would be safe to say many have probably not thought too much beyond this but those who are honest with themselves will have to examine what exactly their metaphysics is and trying to deny it and just uttering the mantra: “science, science, science…” proves nothing.
Also listing down the problems of the world, the suffering, the negative aspects of living and the infamous issue of why evil exists to prove atheism is the right or the better alternative to belief in God is understandable but does not settle anything. For, and this is the wonder of wonders, there are those who have suffered more than many can imagine and have been in the bleakest of situations who shine forth in their faith and insist in belief in God. Perhaps they are exceptional people (though some may choose to be cynical over this), but their conviction for reasons best known to them comes across as miraculous.
In any case, things are more interesting for atheists in the new millennium. Science has indeed, through quantum physics and those pushing its boundaries, started to make genuinely fascinating claims. Moreover, we are now familiar with (and accept) many things such as the intelligence of human cells and the body’s self-healing capacity; we understand better what psychosomatic effects are; that there is an intelligence to nature and the planet and in the natural balance of ecosystems when not interfered with in destructive ways; that what we term ‘the universe’ has at least ten dimensions (which also means there are parallel ‘realities’); that the known universe is assessed to be 4 per cent ‘matter’, 23 per cent ‘dark matter’ and 73 per cent ‘dark energy’; that the possibility of time travel related to wormholes and black holes tend to turn science ‘fiction’ into — science ‘fact’. Imagination is indeed the precursor to knowledge.
And what if, before long, scientists start to claim what many ancient beliefs stated eons ago and add weight to Heidegger-Nietzsche’s Being-beings — that there is indeed a metaphysical basis to the cosmos (which cannot be understood properly via linear/binary modes of thought); that multi-linearity and extra-dimensional thinking is what we need. Additionally, what if science posits an active intelligence to the universe and its beings expressions of this at various stages of evolution [1]: beings of certain energetic frequencies may show selfishness, greed, violence, and those of other frequencies may reflect spiritual values of going beyond ego, selflessness, caring, compassion and harmlessness. How do we account for those who appear and espouse peace, wisdom, benevolence and even unconditional love like Krishna, Jesus, Buddha and other great spiritual teachers some of whom insist on the Divine.
That there may be atheists closer to Divinity than those who assert themselves theists in the way they lead their lives is not an issue, but that they deny belief or knowledge and understanding of that against which they are compared to is remarkable as it is sad. Not because that makes them lesser human beings, but because they have denied a greater framework to all that exists and prefer one that is limited.
If science finally comes round to giving, through quantum thinking [2], explanations that support and resonate with spiritual truths and even the existence of the Divine or a Supreme Intelligence: would atheists then attack the scientists for ‘copping out’ and becoming back-door theists? Would science which is starting to move beyond rationalism towards the active use of the imagination — be just promulgating ‘fiction’? What then would atheists cling to? Would it be said they do not have to subscribe to any of this as they decide what to believe in and what not to despite growing ‘evidence’ to the contrary of their convictions or beliefs?
Atheists and anyone else who share such views (and this would include theists who insist on keeping strictly to the letter of religious texts and not a jot more that takes them out of their comfort zones) without being prepared to relinquish dogmatism should know that we will move into a new age when quantum science finally merges with the spiritual, and the latter at long last becomes the basis of scientific theorizing and empirical evidence. This would be a sure sign of human intellectual-spiritual growth and evolution.
Such developments in which there is a conflation of ideas between science and spirituality offer an expansive space for everyone. It is not something meant to exclude ‘non-believers’. In such a situation, people can only exclude themselves if they so choose through exercising their free will: that is sticking with the old paradigm and refusing a revaluation of values. Yet, basic and higher energetic forms of tolerance, acceptance, and compassion surely have a place in an immeasurable universe that is ever evolving. They probably have a place in a multiverse: in this we can see the highest aspect of humanism being transvalued into something new and greater. It takes form in a human being which is an aspect of Being synthesized with Divinity (the return and rebirth of the Divine as reflected in many cultures throughout human history). It is indeed the fruition of the ‘Overman’.
It is Nietzsche for the 21st century and beyond.
[2] The idea of quantum thinking being related to philosophical thinking is looked at further in “A theory of economic violence”.
[Note: This essay is from 2013 and can also be found here with some videos—My Blog. The credit for some of the pictures are unknown though the one just above is by Caspar David Friedrich.]
©2022 Sanjay Perera. All rights reserved.
