God Is; Atheism Isn't

I have long believed that there is really no such thing as an atheist.

Atheists tend to give the game away by making ethics their main concern. Christopher Hitchens used to challenge people to name one sin an atheist could commit that a theist would not. Atheist ads in subways and on buses in Britain and I think also North America read “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Richard Dawkins’ famous book in his own field was titled “The Selfish Gene.” It was, taken in ethical terms, a defense of selfishness.

Their real concern is ethical, rather than ontological. The question is not “is there a God?” but “is there any punishment for sin?” It is this they want to deny.

Atheists who say they do not believe in God commonly devoutly believe in “Evolution,” “Nature,” or “Science.” They speak of their chosen deity in personal terms, as though it has a will and a direction, and emotions, and is all-powerful.

What’s the difference between this and the traditional conception of God? Only the absence of an ethical dimension. Unlike God, Evolution, Nature, or Science do not believe in right and wrong. It is not God they are rejecting. It is right and wrong.

In other words, atheism is just a dodge by immoral people to convince themselves that they can do as they like, without being eventually called to account.

They give this away, too, by commonly claiming that religion is only wishful thinking, while they are the tough-minded realists. This works only if they ignore the concept of Hell, and think only of the possibility of Heaven. By this assertion, they show that it is Hell they are denying—they begin by denying it. Heaven is purely a secondary issue; presumably they have an inner conviction they’d never make it there anyway.

For an evil-doer, the concept of simple nullity is obviously infinitely preferable to that of eternal torture.

As to Hitchens’ challenge, it is easily met. There are ten commandments. The first three or four, about having no other gods before God, and keeping the Sabbath holy, would be routinely broken by any atheist.

You might argue that this is a Catch-22. How can an atheist be held responsible for violating these commandments if he does not believe there is a God? They are about things due to God.

But then, the fact that God includes these among the commandments suggests that God himself does not allow the possibility. There is, God here attests, really no such thing as atheism.

It indeed seems reasonable to assume that God would have imprinted the awareness of himself in the psyche of each one of us, and in the universe we experience. The universe is a conversation God is having with us.

St. Paul wrote to the Romans:

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

The existence of God also seems apparent to human reason seven ways to Sunday: there are many rational proofs of the existence of God. An atheist, if sincere, needs to have grappled with and somehow disproven all of them. And I think it is fair to say that nobody ever has.

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”11 - Catechism of the Catholic Church; Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 2:DS 3004; cf. 3026; Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum 6.

The common claim that the existence of God is an article of faith, and up for grabs, is a scam.

Anyone who asserts that there is no God is committing a willful act of denial.

No Salvation Outside the Church?

In a debate with Dinesh D’Souza, which I recently viewed on YouTube, Christopher Hitchens made the claim that Christians are obliged to believe that all non-Christians go to hell. Making a very similar point, Richard Dawson responded to a simple question from a Christian, “What if you are wrong?” by countering “What if you are wrong about Zeus?” (He might also have mentioned his flying spaghetti monster.) You’d think Hitchens and Dawson would have at least taken the time to learn what Christianity actually teaches before deciding to reject it; that they have not seems to reflect poorly on their sincerity. D’Souza was able to respond, quite simply, that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Indeed, it has officially been declared heretical, and has led to actual excommunication. Similarly, Dawson is wrong if he supposes that belief in Catholicism means believing other religions are simply untrue, or that Catholics must hold, as atheists do, that Zeus does not exist.

The Catholic belief is quite simple and lucid. Catholicism is the truth. If we did not think so, of course, we would not be Catholics. It is not, of course, the only truth; that I am wearing black socks is also true, without really being an article of Catholic faith. But any assertion that directly contradicts Catholic teaching, plainly, must be untrue.

Other religions, therefore, can be largely, indeed mostly, true. Because, overwhelmingly, they agree with Catholicism. The points on which they disagree are generally few. Atheism, on the other hand, is plainly false in its key, defining assertion.

Nor does Catholicism ask anyone to accept its assertions on anything like “blind faith.” The teachings of the Catholic Church can by and large be explained and demonstrated to the unaided human intellect through reason and evidence. Yes, there are “mysteries” that go beyond what reason can completely comprehend, but these too can be shown to be logically necessary conclusions, and certainly never to contradict either reason or evidence.

We are all perfectly aware, through unaided conscience, of an absolute moral obligation to seek truth, and, once truth is known, to embrace it. Since Catholicism is true, we are all morally obliged to be Catholics. If we are not Catholics, we have committed a sin, and in a sense the most serious sin possible, that of turning from God.

So it is perfectly reasonable, and obvious, to say that one must be Catholic to be saved. But only if one’s ignorance of the truth of Catholicism is deliberate. Just the present gentle reader is not guilty of lying if he insists he does not know the colour of my socks, as he cannot see them.

What is, in all circumstances, morally obligatory, is to genuinely seek to find and to follow truth; especially on the most important matters of life, the most important of all being religion. And if one does so, that road will inexorably lead in the direction of Catholicism. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to do so in all sincerity, and yet still die without yet having come to the definite conclusion that Catholicism is true. In this case, you are innocent of any sin, and therefore still entirely likely to go to heaven.

Understand this principle, and you understand why Catholic evangelization is not terribly pushy. Non-Catholics are okay, so long as they are sincere in what they do believe. And so long as they are sincere, they are heading in the right direction without any intervention on the missionary’s part. There is no need to rush anything.

Unfortunately, Hitchens seems to have identified himself plainly as not of this camp of sincere seekers of truth—he has not made the effort to find out what Catholicism teaches. He believes what he believes not out of a commitment to truth, it appears, but for some ulterior motive. Nor can he plead lack of intelligence, a lack of the intellectual equipment to discern matters quickly and clearly. And the same can be said of Dawkins. It is not for us to judge; but it is striking just how much flat-out misinformation and deliberate distortion there is in the popular culture about what the teachings of the Catholic Church are. This deliberate falsification of Catholic teaching in itself argues strongly for the truth of the Catholic teaching. Obviously, those who oppose it do not do so out of any commitment to truth; and obviously, they fear the power of and secretly suspect the truth of the real teaching, or they would reveal it in order to plainly disprove it.

Can someone know the truth, and willfully refuse to accept it? Of course; Adam and Eve did exactly that. It seems to be a part of human nature, completely illogical as it is. TS Eliot thought that “man can only take so much truth,” and Winston Churchill suggested that most people, when they stumble upon the truth, simply pick themselves up and walk away, as though nothing had happened.

This, of course, argues as much against an easy, uncritical, facile Catholicism as anything else in terms of unexamined life. It is no doubt easier for us Catholics; but it is still up to us to test everything, as Saint Paul required.