By Fr. Sebastian Athappilly
Q: I really appreciated some of the things you say in your booklet The Delusion of Atheism. Thank you for writing the book! It provides some very convincing arguments debunking atheist claims. What inspired you to write the booklet? And could you please summarise some of the main arguments that you make there?
A: My encounters (disputes and discussions) with atheists on the one hand, and the stunning and fascinating experiences of God’s existence and His loving providence, on the other, inspired and motivated me to work on the booklet.
My observations and reflections on how things in this world correspond to one another in a kind of mutual compatibility and “dove-tailing” (one item fitting squarely well with the other item, as is the case when we assemble a piece of furniture or a technical device, say, computer or a watch or car) led me to the necessity of a Mastermind behind it all—who is called God. This phenomenon is manifested also in our own body, where each organ is structured in view of something outside of the whole system. For instance, the nose is made in such a way that it has nostrils to allow the passage of air coming from outside. The ears are shaped to receive sound waves from outside. The reproductive system shows that it is envisaged and developed in view of another body.
This arrangement, in which one organ or item is interlinked with another element or organ outside, is not possible of itself, unless planned and intended by someone else from outside. It is possible only if directed by an outside agent, as is the case in a concert or orchestra: a Conductor coordinates the different artists in a concert. So, too, in a kind of a universal concert or orchestra—the “Conductor” God coordinates everything. Mere chance, contrary to what many atheists claim, cannot bring this about. That all the bodies invariably follow this structure of development simply cannot be by chance.
Even atheists have to admit that the elements of this earth have their predictable properties and are governed by certain fixed laws. To hold that the universe came to exist by mere chance and that the laws that govern it also came about by mere chance, as atheists claim, one needs stronger faith than the faith of the theist in God the Creator! The “faith” of the atheists is thus stronger, but ridiculous!
Q: Atheists often argue that we cannot conclusively prove God’s existence. How would you as a believer in God respond to that point?
A: This argument is no “argument” at all, for this is not a proof against God’s existence. If someone is unable to prove the reality or existence of an entity, it only means that the concerned person is incapable of it, or that the concerned reality is of a different sphere, surpassing the possibilities of proof according to the prevalent tools and methods.
Physical realities are objects that can be analysed with the help of physical and material tools and experiments. But spiritual realities cannot be treated the same way as physical realities. Each being has its own properties. The special nature of God surpasses and overrides all human means to seek to locate and prove Him as though He were a being among the many beings of this world.
The atheist’s statement that we cannot prove God’s existence is in itself not a proof against His existence. It is illogical to conclude the non-existence of something just because you are unable to prove its existence. No one has disproved God’s existence to date, and no atheist has also proved that God does not exist!
Another point to consider here is that many important things in our life do not depend upon proofs. We do many significant things in life without first proving them. A great part of our life is based on reasonable trust. Is it only after some proof, like a DNA test, that we have accepted our mother and father as our parents?
Some atheists argue that believers have created a God for the sake of consolation in face of the bitter experiences in this world caused by nature as well as society. God is, for atheists, hence a creation of mere wishful thinking. But this argument backfires in the counter direction: Atheism can be equally said to be the creation of the wishful thinking of atheists in order to avoid any sanction against, or accountability for, their evil deeds.
Now, it is true that faith in God helps us face the crises of this world more peacefully and serenely than otherwise. But what is wrong with that? Simply because something helps us in our difficulties does not necessarily mean that it is an illusion or a product of wishful thinking. Food and water really help us, for example, in our hunger and thirst. Are they, therefore, illusions?
With regard to atheist claims, one must also ask why there is something at all rather than nothing. Nothingness might have been an option. But instead of nothing, we experience something that is, that exists; we have an undeniable reality before us. And being cannot emerge from non-being or nothing. In other words, non-being or nothingness cannot be the ground of being or reality. If at all there is reality really, there should be also the Ground or Source of reality really—which is God. On an imaginary or fictive hook you cannot hang a real fan!
Q: A common argument put forward by some atheists is that a loving and omnipotent God just wouldn’t allow so much pain and evil in the world. How do you regard that claim?
A: Yes, atheists sometimes point to the problem of evil and suffering in the world and use it as an argument for their claim of the non-existence of God. But they have no answer for the existence of so much good and beautiful in this world. Nor do they have any meaningful solution to overcome evil in the world. Denying God’s existence is no solution to the problems of the world. It is, above all, faith in God that urges us to help people in their suffering. Atheism has no inner dynamism or intrinsic potential to inspire people to selfless love and service. It only leads people to despair and anxiety. Many factors can cause suffering, even with the existence of God. The mere fact of the existence of suffering is not a conclusive evidence of the non-existence of God. Theism does not hold that God is the one who removes all suffering in this world. The suffering of Jesus and many saints and saintly persons is a clear evidence that suffering and the existence of God are not considered as mutually contradictory, at least in the Christian theism. The atheist presupposes that God and suffering in the world are mutually exclusive. With such an a-priori premise, the consequent conclusion can follow, namely, that because there is evil and suffering in the world, there is no God! However, the first premise is unfounded! What theism states is that God will remove suffering ultimately. Nevertheless, there is no claim of an absolute absence of suffering now.
Q: In some cases, immature, fearsome, brutal or otherwise unhelpful and alienating notions of God preached by some religionists turn people away from God. Also, many people may turn away from God because of the insistence by people who claim to be religious authorities on unverifiable beliefs and dogmas and rituals, which they claim are absolutely necessary for salvation. What do you say about this? How do you think this issue could be addressed?
A: Since we are limited and God is Infinite, our notions about God will definitely be imperfect. This is not surprising. Perfect notions about God can be communicated by God alone. In other words, only God can reveal God perfectly and adequately. In this sense we speak of the self-revelation and self-communication of God. Even in that case, as long as the addressees and recipients of God’s self-communication are imperfect beings, their notions can also be imperfect.
Imperfect and fearful notions about God can also alienate people from God and even make them think that God is a myth. In that case, they are only rejecting wrong notions of God. What religious people should do in this regard is to be aware of their own limitations in speaking about God. We can speak about God only analogically. The principle of analogy is here very important. It demands also humility from our part.
Q: There are different understandings of God. It could be that some people who may be called atheists by others do not deny God as such but, rather, certain understandings of God. For instance, what they deny in the name of denying God might be the notion of God as totally beyond the universe, or the notion of God as an old man in the sky or an autocratic monarch. Do you think that perhaps if God were understood in impersonal terms, in terms of values, such as Morality, Love, Goodness or Beauty, such people wouldn’t say that they deny God. Maybe it is the understanding of a personal God that some people who consider themselves atheist are opposed to. They might claim that the notion of a personal God is anthropomorphic, a creation of human beings in their own image. How would you look at this?
A: It is true that some of those who deny God’s existence deny false or inaccurate concepts of God. A Creator God may not be acceptable to some. But the point is not whether those who believe in God have to therefore change their understandings or not. Perhaps the so-called atheists should also try to understand the deeper meaning of such concepts.
I think it is not befitting to speak of God impersonally and merely in terms of values just so that the atheists may thereby finally accept God. If at all, what we could say is that God is love. But love is not an impersonal value. Rather, it is highly personal! There is no question of love where there are no persons! If God is not personal, He is not God according to faith. Nobody can have faith in an impersonal entity. I cannot, for instance, believe in a computer! Faith in a value is also almost similar to this.
Regarding your point about anthropomorphism, I would say there is nothing bad about anthropomorphism as long as we are aware of its limitations. That is why we employ analogyin religious talk. So, for instance, when I say that God “sees” everything, I do not mean that God sees it just as I see things with my physical eyes.
Q: Many theists believe in a personal God, someone with whom one can have a personal, loving relationship. Some people, including some who do not deny the Transcendent, may find it difficult to believe in a personal God. Could you summarise their objections to a personal God? And how would you respond to them?
A: I do not know all the objections of those who do not want to accept a personal God. But one of the objections is that if God is personal, it would be a limitation or imperfection in God, for to be personal is a quality, and quality indicates limitation.
My response would be as follows: The attempt to ward off any limitation on the part of God is to be appreciated since God is the Absolute. But, on the other hand, God has revealed Himself as Absolute Love. Absolute Truth is identical with Absolute Love. To be Love is only possible while being in relationship. The basis of true religion is relationship. In this sense, love and religion are intrinsically united. In a hypothetical system of isolated beings there is no scope for religion and relationship. To be a person means to be related. From my understanding of God as pure and absolute Love, God is personal to the highest point.
I experience human beings as subjects as myself, in contrast to animals, trees, plants and minerals. I cannot relate myself to other human beings in the same way as I relate myself with other above-mentioned creatures. My relationship with other humans is at the personal level. With human subjects I can relate as I-Thou (you), forming a “We” in partnership and friendship or companionship, whereas with the other beings I relate as I-It. When I speak of God, I cannot imagine that God is merely an impersonal power; God is, rather, the Supreme Person relating to me as a person to be loved and addressed in dialogue. When we say that God is personal what we mean is precisely that God is a God of love and relationship (Thou), and not simply an impersonal or a-personal power (It).
It is also right to conceive of God as super-personal or supreme personal, in the sense that God is and has the fullness of personhood, infinitely higher than we all are and have. We can hence also say that God is not simply a person, but that God is Person and personal. Here, the terms “person” and “personal” are positive values denoting the ability of entering into and fostering relationship over against the mere ontic existence of a thing or a subhuman being.
Comments