Part One - Atheism and Salvation
Atheism and Salvation - Part One (1/10)
The fool says: that God does not exist.
-Psalm 53:2
If you do not believe that I Am,
you will die in your sins.
-John 8:24
It is necessary to take the issue of atheism seriously
I am writing this essay because I embrace the words spoken by Benedict XVI in the memorable letter he wrote to the bishops on March 10, 2009:
“The real problem in this moment of our history - wrote the Pope - is that God disappears from the horizon of humanity, and with the extinguishing of the light coming from God, humanity is struck by a lack of orientation, the destructive effects of which are increasingly evident.”
One could say conversely that humanity remains human only insofar as it at least implicitly believes in God, and vice versa becomes inhuman to the extent that it abandons God. It is impossible to love a man if one does not love God, just as one cannot achieve the effect without leveraging the cause. Similarly, if there is an effect, there is a cause that produces it: one who sincerely loves their neighbor proves to love God. He is himself proof of the existence of God, even if perhaps he considers himself an atheist but, as it has been said, 'believes not to believe.' This is what was once called 'implicit faith.'
On the other hand, one can believe in God without necessarily giving rise to love for man, because this love is the effect of our will, which can remain inert even if we know the truth. At the same time, if the effect is active, it means that the cause exists and is at work. Those who bring about the effect are based on the cause. If we love our neighbor not in just any way, but in the right way, without demeaning or flattering them, it is a sign that we love God.
One who hates God despises their neighbor. This is most evident in the case of Nietzsche, who hates the weak, the depressed, the poor, the marginalized, the forsaken, the humble, the penitent, the oppressed, the ascetics, the miserable, the sick, the old, the handicapped, the non-Aryans, the unfortunate, and the suffering because he is a blasphemous atheist who idolizes himself. Those who sincerely love humanity cannot help but base this love on the ground of loving God. To love man as if he were God is not true love but idolatry. Instead, where we see that man is loved, the one who loves him is certainly a believer in God.
Conversely, hatred for God is joined with hatred for being, since God is the very subsistent Being. Hatred for being is nihilism. Atheism is associated with nihilism. Hatred for being can mean different things: conceiving being as becoming in the manner of Heraclitus, being as contradictory in the manner of Hegel, being as founded on nothingness in the manner of Leopardi, being as something that must be changed by will as in Fichte, Marx, and Nietzsche, being as what Shiva wants to destroy, as in Hinduism, and as Ahriman in Manichaeism.
All of this means that, since man's ultimate purpose is eternal life, and this eternal life is acquired by believing in God rightly conceived and putting into practice His commandments, man is saved from eternal death only through faith in God. On the other hand, those who refuse to admit the existence of God rightly conceived and to obey His will, although voluntarily separating themselves from God, may achieve what they desire - and in that sense satisfy their own will. However, they continue to exist forever but forever deprived of attaining their true ultimate end and highest good. Therefore, they exist in a state of real eternal unhappiness or frustration, which entails eternal punishment, as eternal joy comes only from the eternal union with God in eternal life.
We know how much importance the Second Vatican Council has given to the issue of atheism [1]. However I have the impression that a certain style of dialogue between believers and non-believers has initiated an atmosphere of courteous and peaceful coexistence. While this is pleasing on the one hand, on the other hand, it gives the impression that believers and non-believers have lost that speculative and theoretical radicalism, a certain healthy restlessness that stimulates the search for truth, concern for the eternal fate of one's brother, the need to clarify and investigate, the interest in questions concerning the first principles and ultimate foundations of existence, or the discussion about the very concept of the first cause and ultimate end. Today, there is not that “healthy restlessness” on these issues, of which the Pope has spoken many times as a factor, sign, and stimulus of spiritual vitality and the pursuit of perfection.
Who today is truly interested in clarifying or seeking the truth about God? In understanding what the word 'God' means? In forming a correct concept of God? Who believes it is possible to talk about God? Who genuinely believes that everything that exists depends on, is governed by, and is created by Him? Who thinks that opposition to God is the ruin of humanity? Or can man live well even without God?
Who understands the close connection between the problem of God and the question of being? Who today is passionate about the truth of being? Who today poses the problems of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Heidegger, or Severino? Who is interested in discovering the origin of the universe, the foundation of everything, the meaning and the reason for existence, the first cause, and the ultimate end? Who is concerned with refuting errors concerning the foundations of thought and being? Who places importance on atheism, whether to support it, fight against it, or discuss it? These are the questions that would have been appropriate to present to the Synod of Bishops.
Many appear indifferent and uninterested in the question of existence and the nature of God. They remain silent. They would be the so-called 'agnostics.' They claim not to know whether God exists or not. They say the problem is too difficult. But is it true that they don't know? Or is it an excuse to justify every existential liberal payoff?
To others, it seems like either too abstract, insoluble, or incomprehensible a question. Whether God exists or not doesn't concern them. Their concerns lie elsewhere—in material, social, economic, ecological, technological, and political issues. But are they truly sincere in saying so? Is it true that they also don't have to reckon with God? These are the questions that would have been appropriate to present to the Synod of Bishops.
Today, we often hear the distinction between believers and non-believers. It is necessary to distinguish what can be meant by 'believer.' It can refer to someone who believes that God exists by expressing a subjective, debatable opinion that allows for opposing views. It is the Kantian position: God may exist, it is a hypothesis, but it is not certainty. An argument in favor can always be countered by an opposing one, without the possibility of reaching a definitive result that would overcome all objections.
This is also the thesis of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, according to whom in the conscience of every believer, there is always an atheist challenging them, just as in the conscience of the atheist, an objector is arguing in favor of the existence of God [2]. Now, in reality, the existence of God cannot be a mere opinion, but as it is rationally demonstrated, it can and must be an indisputable and unassailable knowledge. Once certainty is achieved, there is no reason to reconsider what has been acquired; rather, the duty is to remain faithful to one's conviction at any cost.
Alternatively, by the term 'believer,' one can mean a person of faith, someone who believes in God, who trusts in God, or who believes in what God reveals. It is the religious person, the devout individual. Conversely, the non-believer would be the atheist and the godless.
Definition of 'atheism'
Let's begin our discussion with a general definition that we can all agree on. Atheism is the denial of the existence of God based on the voluntary refusal to acknowledge His existence. The atheist claims to demonstrate that God does not exist, but deep down, he knows that his reasons are fallacious.
However, as noted by Maritain [3], there can exist a pseudo-atheism, where the one who denies the existence of God confuses the name, God, starting from a mistaken concept of God. In this case, the God being denied, not being the true God, assumes that the individual is a theist without explicit awareness, although at least implicitly, everyone knows that God exists and that they are accountable to Him for their actions, understanding that their eternal destiny is at stake.
Atheism, as Gian Franco Morra puts it,
[ Born in Bologna – Italy - on November 30, 1930, in 1960, he obtained the Free Teaching in Moral Philosophy. In 1971, he emerged as the winner, as the second-ranked, in the competition for the chair of Philosophy of History at the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy of the University of Rome. The judging committee was composed of illustrious professors, such as Guido Calogero, Marino Gentile, Augusto Bontadini, Pietro Piovani, and Pietro Prini.
He was a full member of the Section of Political and Social Sciences of the Academy of Sciences of the Institute of Bologna and a member of the Academies of the Incamminati of Modigliana, the Catenati of Macerata, Torricelliana of Faenza, the Filergiti of Forlì, and the Filopatridi of Savignano sul Rubicone.
He has been a member of the Institute of Sociology, later the Department of Sociology at the University of Bologna, since its foundation. For over twenty years, he chaired the Didactic Commission of the University of Bologna for Supplementary Courses in Teacher Training Colleges and Artistic High Schools (provinces of Bologna and Forlì). For almost twenty years, he represented the Faculty of Bologna in the Ph.D. program in Sociology administratively based at the University of Parma. His collaboration with various journalistic publications has been consistent and fruitful.
He received the following awards: in 1959, the "G. Gentile" award for a study on History in the thought of G. Gentile; in 1983, the national "Bassano" award for Catholic culture; in 1989, the FIDAE award for European school; in 1991, the international "Luigi Sturzo" award – Rome; in 1999, the international S. Caterina da Siena award.
He passed away in Forlì on May 27, 2021.
Source: https://www.gianfrancomorra.it/biografia/ ]
is not a theory but a practical postulate. It is not knowledge but a refusal to know. It is not something known but something willed, allowing individuals to feel justified in disobeying God. Here is an important point that perhaps many do not consider: the atheist knows that God exists but does not want to think about it because he wants to do his will and not God's. Simone de Beauvoir said, “I know perfectly well that God exists. My atheism is that I don't want to think about God.” This is not just de Beauvoir's atheism but the essence of every atheism.
No one sincerely ignores that God exists, just as I cannot sincerely ignore how many islands there are in the Philippine archipelago. Therefore, no one, at the moment of death, can approach God saying, “Forgive me, O God, but I didn't know you existed. I didn't know that by sinning, I offended You. Please do not blame me for my sins!”
Let's begin by considering the use of the word God. We observe that today some never use it. Why? Because they believe it refers to something that doesn't exist. Or because they think it's a word that makes no sense. Others, perhaps, do not use it because they don't know how to use it, feeling incapable of doing so due to the ineffable and incomprehensible mystery to which it refers.
Another issue regarding the word God is the following: in Hebrew, it corresponds to El, in German, Gott, in Sanskrit Brahman or Deva [4], in Chinese Tien [5]. How do we know that all these names refer to the same thing? Because with them, something is always expressed that we conceive as the origin or foundation or reason or principle or cause or purpose or end of everything—the absolute, the eternal, the infinite, the omnipotent, the creator.
We also observe that some material things or physical phenomena, such as the sun, fire, light, wind, clouds, water, and rock, lend themselves to symbolize God. Even some animals or plants can play the same role. According to the Bible, man is made in the image of God. This is not the case for other vile, coarse, corruptible, or destructive things like earth, matter, chaos, mud, dust, the underworld, earthquakes, and storms. If this happens in some religions, it is a sign of idolatrous, barbaric, and demonic religiosity.
The word 'heaven' can stand for God. This is found in the Bible (Shamaìm) and the Chinese language. This is understandable because heaven, due to its vastness, brightness, intelligibility, order, regularity, beauty, solidity, inscrutability, mystery, permanence, power, height, and depth, is well-suited to serve as an image of God.
The concept of God is connected to the notion of being
It is worth noting that, according to the biblical perspective, the 'name' is not a simple conventional or registry sign, as we commonly use today, but it indicates and expresses the essence or the proper function of a thing. Thus, the 'I Am' of Ex 3:14 designates the exclusively distinctive and unmistakable essence or identity of God, the 'face' of God [6]. In the Bible, God is portrayed as an elderly figure, ancient of days, seated on a throne in the heavens, with hands and feet (Dn. 7:9-12), clearly all symbols of divine attributes.
However, according to Ex 3:14, to conceive the divine essence correctly and properly, which remains mysterious nonetheless, one must make use of the concept of being, which we all naturally possess. But it is necessary to conceive God not as a mere being but as a subsistent being, as being made person, not as what is but as He Who Is.
This means that theism and atheism are linked to the question of being, namely the problem of the validity and meaningfulness of metaphysics. There is no escaping it. To deny or ignore being meant nihilism, as Severino has rightly said. And therefore, it means atheism because God is the ipsum Esse. Those who believe they can conceive of God by replacing the predicate of being with others, however noble, such as mystery, the absolute, good, or love, are thereby on the path of atheism.
In this essay, my intention is not so much to present evidence for the existence of God [7] but rather to focus attention on what the right concept of God should be, endowed with all His attributes [8]. There are false or defective concepts of God, either concealing atheism or leading to atheism.
This occurs, as we will see, if the concept lacks those minimal and indispensable elements below which the concept is so corrupted that it retains nothing of God, becoming a pure idol. The value of theologians is measured based on the perfection of their concept of God. St. Thomas, by explicit acknowledgment of the Church, stands out among all theologians for this reason. This does not negate that even less perfect concepts of God, especially those of the Doctors of the Church, can be salvific and reliable principles for a holy life.
Having become aware of the existence of God, man questions His nature and attributes. Once it is demonstrated that there is a first cause, the creative cause of the world, reason would like to know the essence of this cause but realizes that this is beyond its cognitive capacities.
God, with reason, can be known not in His nature but indirectly, through analogy, by observing His created effects. In this, reason is satisfied because it cannot do more. The sight of God, seeing Him 'face to face,' assures us the Bible, is a gift of grace, enjoyed in heaven—the beatific vision. Faith, which reveals the Trinitarian mystery through Christ, prepares us for this on earth [9].
Scripture, on the other hand, presents a dual set of texts that may seem contradictory. On one hand, the Psalmist aspires to see God, while on the other, in other books, Scripture asserts that God cannot be seen.
In the Bible, God is not flesh but spirit. Yet, He can become flesh or incarnate, to signify that He can assume a human nature in unity with the divine person, as happened in Christ, while remaining Spirit.
It is important to note that while the theist, the believer, is inclined to love God as his Lord and Creator, the atheist hates God and considers Him an enemy because He opposes the atheist's will to follow not the divine will but their own.
Conceptual Clarifications
The Bible asserts the existence of God (Psalm 14:1), the being of God (Exodus 3:14), and the essence of God (Cf 1 John 3:2). God exists; God is; God is an essence. Existence contrasts with non-existence, nothingness; being opposes non-being. Essence opposes another essence. Being is distinguished into real being and being of reason or representative being the concept. Being in the culmination of existence because it is not just the actualization of potential essence but the act (energheia) of the essence as potential-being (dynamis).
The existence of God is not the actualization of His essence because His essence is not a possible essence that needs to be actualized in reality, as believed by Leibniz. This is because it is an existence that, by its essence, is necessarily in act—an existence that, in God, coincides with His essence and His being. Therefore, Leibniz's proof of God's existence, which states that if God is possible, then He exists, does not hold, as we will see, because this is known only after proving that God exists based on creatures.
One must not reduce being (esse ut actus) to existence, that is, to the actualization (esse in actu) of a simple possibility, as happens in the metaphysics of those, like Suarez [10], who do not see the real distinction between essence and being as between potentiality and actuality. Possibility does not coincide with potentiality; the latter is already a reality. Possibility, on the other hand, is still within the realm of pure thought. The act of being is not mere existence, i.e., the simple actualization or actuality of a possible essence in reality, but it is the ontological perfection of the essence. The act of being not only adds existence to essence but perfects it in its being.
To exist is not yet to be. Beneath being, there is existence. Beneath existence, there is nothing. The entity of reason exists but only in thought; it is not yet being, as happens in reality. Thinking, contrary to what idealists believe, does not stand above being but is ordered toward being. Reality, as Pope Francis says, takes precedence over the idea.
Essence is what the entity is or that for which the entity is what it is. In itself, it is a pure possibility or thinkable. It can be actualized in reality and thus acquire real existence and become genuinely existent. Or it can remain in the realm of mere possibility. God truly exists: He is not, as Kant believed, an entity of reason, an idea. He is not only thinkable but genuinely knowable.
The entity of reason is not the entity as such but a true being, being related to thought, or produced by thought, or the rule or criterion of thought. It can also be called 'ideal.' The cognitive ideal is a representation of the real; the practical ideal is a model of the real.
Being and existing are connected: being implies existence, but existence does not necessarily imply being, as evident in entities of reason. Non-being can exist as an entity of reason: imaginary, intentional, mathematical, logical entities, nothingness, evil, the unreal, the absurd.
Only the contradictory cannot exist, although it can be thought of and exist as a concept or entity of reason. As long as thought is possible, the thinkable can always be given, even if it is something that absolutely cannot exist.
Affirming that God exists (Psalm 14:1) is not the same as affirming that God is (Exodus 3:14). Existence is not being. Existence is the act of the possible; being is the act of potentiality or potential being. The actual is the realization of the possible; the real is the act of potentiality.
God is the only entity predicated without a nominal predicate because He is in an absolute and infinite way. He is not this or that but being in its entirety. He is His being and has, for His essence, that of being. As Blessed Antonio Rosmini said, God does not have a being but is a being. His essence is determined by the fact of existing and being.
In so far existence can be predicated alone for every entity. Why this difference with the predicate of being? While being is diversified and multiple, allowing for the designation of being this or that, existence is a simple positive that opposes the negative without the need for qualifications or determinations, which belong to essence.
If by entity we mean that which has an essence actualized by being, like all entities that we know, God is not an entity or, if we prefer, is an extremely special, highest, and most perfect entity because it is an entity whose essence coincides with its being. Therefore, more than being an entity, it is the very subsisting being (Exodus 3:14).
There is a distinction between God and the concept of God. The Bible says: 'The fool says in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). There is a distinction between thought and being. What the fool thinks does not correspond to what is. In other words, it is a false thought. Thinking involves the opposition of true and false. The notion of being is therefore not yet sufficient to establish the notion of truth. In this, Heidegger is mistaken. Because for truth to exist, there must be a relationship between thought and being.
However, it is true that the disclosure (aletheia) of the entity to thought allows it to judge and establish the possibility of saying the true or the false. And if the entity is hidden, it does not become false or non-entity for that reason, as Heidegger seems to erroneously believe. Truth is not only that which is revealed but also that which is hidden, either because we are ignorant of it or because it surpasses our understanding.
Truth can certainly be synonymous with reality, true reality. We then have ontological truth, whereby knowing the truth coincides with knowing reality. The reality that stands before the intellect, the ob-jectum, the place-before, is certainly the objective foundation of truth, but the entity is true only insofar as it stands before thought or is determined by thought. Therefore, truth presupposes the primacy of the truth of thought (epistemological) over that of being (ontological).
Indeed, the entity presents itself as true to the intellect, but truth is prior in the intellect than in the entity because, as mentioned, it presupposes the intellect that conforms to the entity or adapts the entity to itself. Either the idea conforms to the real or the real reflects the idea. Truth cannot exist exclusively in the judgment of the intellect because then the real would be idealistically reduced to the thought or the idea. But it cannot solely belong to the real either, as this would be unreachable by thought [11].
End First Part (1/10) -
Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
Fontanellato (Italy), November 3, 2023
source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/ateismo-e-salvezza-prima-parte-110.html
[1] Gaudium et spes, nn.19-21.
[2] For a Church that Serves, EDB Editions, Bologna 1994, pp. 469-460.
[3] The Meaning of Contemporary Atheism, Morcelliana, Brescia 1954.
[4] See Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Asram Vidya Editions, Rome 1993, vol. I, pp.58,60.
[5] See the discussion on the name of God in Chinese in H. Küng, Does God Exist? Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Milan 1979, pp.659-60.
[6] Gilson has conducted an interesting study on the notion of God emerging from the famous biblical passage in Introduction à la philosophie chrétienne, Vrin, Paris 1960.
[7] This theme has been addressed for centuries by a vast and established literature, despite what Kantians and followers may say. See, for example: R. Garrigou-Lagrange, God. His existence and nature, Beauchesne, Paris 1950; Angelo Zacchi, God. Vol. II – The Affirmation, Publisher Francesco Ferrari, Rome, 1946; Pier Carlo Landucci, Does God Exist? Pro Civitate Christiana Editions, Assisi 1957. H. Küng's book Does God Exist? Arnoldo Mondadori, Milan 1979, deserves credit for presenting extensive historical information, but when it comes to answering, it adopts a decisionistic and voluntaristic attitude of “trustful abandonment to reality,” as according to him, “there is no logically binding proof of God's existence” (pp.640-641).
[8] The best and most comprehensive exposition of these attributes always remains that of St. Thomas Aquinas and his commentators.
[9] The aspiration to see God is, therefore, a supernatural aspiration that adds to the natural end of natural or philosophical knowledge of the first cause through its effects a higher and supreme supernatural end. This end does not replace but perfects the natural happiness procured by the philosophical knowledge of God, as presented by Plato, Aristotle, and the Bible itself in the wisdom books. Fr. De Lubac has thoroughly addressed this difficult issue with great erudition but, to highlight the supernatural end has underestimated the essential importance of the natural background. See Le mystère du Surnaturel, Aubier, Paris 1965. Cf also J. Maritain, Seeking God, Paoline Editions, Rome 1960, c.V.
[10] Cf Neotomism and Suarezism. The Comparison by Cornelio Fabro, edited by Jesús Villagrasa, Editions of the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, Rome 2006.
[11] This is the mistaken idea that Bontadini has of epistemological realism, contemptuously calling it "epistemology" or "epistemological dualism." He believes that the realistic thesis of being external to thought implies a being foreign and unreachable by thought, without understanding that realism ensures the intentional identity of thought and being. So, for him, the thought’s remedy apt to reach knowledge, reality, and truth would coincide with idealism, in the sense of ontological identity between thought and being. Therefore, he fails to realize that reducing reality to our ideas is precisely where we fail to grasp reality.