Human nature from time immemorial has questioned the substance of its existence. What is consciousness and why can it not satisfy the curiosity of what is one’s inner being? No matter the degree of philosophic intentionality of the self there is always a haunting reflection of another. Because of this human nature invariably turns to what seems the invisible within, an incomprehensible mysterious phenomenon that seems an integral element of whole being.

There are three epistemological paths to this mystery. First, is the popular tentative philosophic solution by ascribing this inexplicable phenomenon to God or an intelligent substratum. Second, is to sustain an endless inquiry agnostically and that at best doubt will still persist in the end Third, is to dismiss it outright atheistically as a mere haunting feedback of a lonely vacuum within being but nonetheless existential.

Nether of these warrant a value judgment since each is the unique psychological property of one’s makeup and should not be violated. An atheist, for instance, has an individual right to deny the existence of God within his own psyche, but has no right to overlay this denial to others who disagree and therefore cannot logically interpret his dismissive attitude that it become a socially universal reality. Nor can a theist extend judgment beyond his own individuated psyche, though he may engage in dialogue with a kindred sect to modify the public concept but must be careful not to impose it on others even though it is widely accepted. The agnostic, on the other hand, might logically induce practicum of the other two in order to probe their validity unless, of course, he is disinterested and lets the chips fall.

This is not to say that atheists among their kind are not permitted the privilege of believers who proselytize their faith without denigrating those of another faith or philosophic bias. Nevertheless, an atheist has a unique character in that it is in the quagmire of existential veracity that runs contrary to human nature’s tendency to wish a spark of divinity to render full meaning to its existence. Even the agnostic tilts in this direction, though he confesses he could be wrong or indifferent to the outcome.

The atheist, then, has to soft-shoe his bias because of its defiance of the course of human history, but is free to proclaim philosophically that the empty feedback within is a reflection of the emptiness of divine purpose in the universe. Within this framework, he cannot compete with faith since his is a philosophy, prohibiting him from comparing apples with oranges. Yet as a philosopher he is free to criticize annoyances such as “under God” or “In God we trust” but cannot claim the right to efface traditional symbols from society as long as they do not violate society’s laws; only those who believe and begin to question ecclesiastic proclamations and relics are in a position to delete them.

More important is that believers should not tread on atheism either, as if it were a competitor out to crush them. If as some believers perceive an atheist is godless, then those of faith run the risk of self-entrapment by precluding the grace of God in other humans.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 24, 2004.