SANCTUM MUSINGS
ARE THERE ATHEISTS?
[From The Rosicrucian Digest May 1934]
NOTWITHSTANDING the continual
clamor of self-styled atheists and the alarmist propaganda of some religionists
that society is drifting toward atheism, it can be conscientiously asked, Are
there atheists? If we confine ourselves to the exact definition of the word,
then all who deny the existence of a God are atheists. In reality, however, is
the denial of a God sufficient to give one the appellation of atheist?
Let us presume that we
intentionally engaged one designated an atheist in controversy, the object being
to analyze the point of issue. An atheistic view, it is generally presumed, is
negative. It is thought its purpose is the refutation of theism. Hardly ever is
it conceded that atheism may be the positive presentation of a conception which
negates theism only because of its contra views. In other words, it is
generally accepted and held that the final end of atheism is not to contribute
a different conception, but to be a direct attack on the existing religions and
theism generally. Therefore, the theist or religionist usually approaches a
polemic discussion with an atheist by vehemently asserting the virtues of
theism and frantically strengthening every possible weakness that may exist in
the structure of theistic theory. The entire presentation is usually one of
preparedness as if awaiting an attack from the atheist, rather than the
presentation of a different conception free from malice.
The procedure is commonly,
first, the assertion of an unqualified belief in God; second, following with a
personal definition of what God is. As a rule, the definition of God does not
exactly correspond with the inner conviction the theist has of God. This fact
he may reluctantly admit, and if so, is quick to state that it is because of
his inability to ordinarily find adequate words for the definition of God. The
interpretation he gives is usually borrowed and hardly ever original. It is
usually the orthodox definition of a creed or sect, or the more quaint
terminology of an individualist, which gives the user distinction without the
effort of originality. In fact, the defender of theism confidentially admits
quite frequently to one of his own clan that his argument falls short in words
of his inner convictions. There is a gap between the inherent appreciation of
the existence of divinity and any forceful, rational presentation in words of
this feeling. This inability of expression is comparable with relating a dream,
the details of which we cannot recollect, and the emotional effects of which
still linger with us.
If the religionist's
definition of God were words, the meaning which each conveyed being part of the
very nature of his sense of God, then the refutation of them would be the
quelling of the emotional surge inciting the belief. The sheer logic and
rhetoric of his opponent may at its best but destroy the illusion of the
visualization of God, for a word description is the religionist's humble and
crude attempt to portray his emotional responsivity to an intangible influence
he senses--an afflatus.
A basic doctrine of theology
is the sameness of divinity in all men. If all men could appreciate, be
conscious of this essence alike, and alike rationally define its nature and
function, there would be a unification of all religion. Alas, this is not so!
So we have religions, and each religion its God. Each has its prophets who
profess to be divinely inspired and who bequeath to their followers an ideal of
God obtained through direct communion. The ideals clash. Religionists oppose
and denounce the ideals of each other.
Is God an imperfect factor?
Is He moving forward toward an eventual attainment and final excellence? Such
an hypothesis would not be approved by modern theology, nor even the religious
conception of a barbarian people. It would detract from acknowledging His
supremacy and His omnipotence. A review, however, of the history of religion
and an examination of the doctrines of even today's sects reveal a startling
similarity to such an hypothesis because of the discrepancy in the definitions
of the nature of God. We find that the splendor attributed by theology today,
to God, surpasses in many respects that attributed to Him in past ages. Further
we find that His accomplishments of today are manifold in comparison to those
ascribed to Him in other eras. Where once He was multiplicity of form, man now
has Him as a single entity and even beyond that as an impersonal intelligence
pervading all. It is, however, declared fervently by the creeds and sects of
today, that nevertheless, the God of yesterday, today, and of tomorrow is the
same. They declare He is the only unchangeable factor in a universe of change.
If He be unchangeable, perfect and excellence supreme, how can the religionists
reconcile that with the obvious difference of nature ascribed to Him by all who
recognize Him? Obviously, all conceptions cannot be right. Some must be
erroneous.
If one group of human minds
cannot interpret the divine impulse in their own nature correctly, then all men
can possibly likewise err. In defense of the religionists it can be said that
some more nearly perceive the divine in their nature than others and their
realization more closely participates in the divine reality. But who are they?
What criterion is there to ascertain the accuracy of man's perception of God?
Sincerity of purpose is not a sufficient criterion to judge the accuracy of
one's conception of God. Man in his sincere endeavors to persuade his fellowman
that he or his sect alone has envisaged God and is the medium for His word,
resorts to the strangest fanatical practises--practises which in themselves
detract from the sublimity of God, the sublimity one feels rather than
knows. Which is of the greater value to man, the ideal of God that he must
endeavor to approach, or the expression of that ideal in a form composed of
words? Man can never know God from without, no matter how alluring and
magnificent the description given him if he lacks within himself a responsivity
to a spiritual urge. Man cannot accept the God defined by another if the
description does not invoke within him a sympathetic appreciation. The eyes of
the artist and a physicist may view the same dawn, but the idea engendered in
the consciousness of each is different. One appreciates the mechanics of what
he sees, the physical law accounting for the phenomena, and the other, the
artist, feels the harmony of the color, its balance, its proportion, and the
exhilaration of true beauty which actuates the sensitivity of his soul. Both
could comprehend the idea of what the other perceives, but neither would have
the same emotional feeling toward that idea as if it were his own.
To every man who is a theist
God is the Summum Bonum, and he instinctively endeavors to pattern his
life in accordance with the good he sees in life and human conduct. This is
religion's greatest duty--the defining of what constitutes the good in human
action and in all things perceived by man. Because of this, religion could
easily be unified. But when it attempts to limit God to form, to describe His
nature, then does confusion arise and then also arise those who are said to be atheists.
Will it not be agreed that a
man is not godly, no matter how loudly he professes to be, if his conduct and
life are not compatible with the good ascribed to God? Shall we be hypocrites?
Shall we place the mantle of sanctity upon one who is ostentatious in his
exhortation of God, yet is ungodly in his personal conduct? A man is truly
godly when he acts in accord with the acts ascribed to divinity. What of the
atheist? A man whose personal life exemplifies the highest good and whose
conduct toward his fellowmen corresponds with that spirit of righteousness,
which all godly men are said to possess, is truly living a spiritual life. This
man, however, when interrogated on God may loudly denounce your conception of
Him and say that to him there is naught of that nature. Wherein does the
difference lie? Can it not now be seen that it is in the illusion man has of
the nature of God and not in godliness? For one to be atheistic in respect to
godly conduct would be to renounce all that society and that human emotions feel
to be just and good. An atheist in respect to defiance of all spiritual conduct
would need degrade himself below the beast. How many self-designated atheists,
or those pointed to as such by society, are actual violators of the chastity of
women? Or failed to honor their parents, or are unjust in their material
affairs? Truly, but few! Therefore, if this ignominy does not constitute the
very fabric of atheism, then all purported to be atheists are not ignoble.
History reveals numerous glorious characters who suffered the opprobrium of atheist
because their conception of the divine or first cause was misunderstood, or did
not conform to the popular conception.
Copernicus, Thomas Jefferson,
and even Luther Burbank and many of the present day men of the school of
science were and are declared to be atheists. As for many declaring themselves
to be atheists, this is ignorance on their part of the true meaning of the
word. Realizing that God, as most men conceive Him, does not satisfy their
personal appreciation or perception of the universe and its primary cause, they
permit themselves to be so named for want of a more adequate term. They refer
to themselves as atheists to indicate an utter disapproval of the present
conception of the first cause of all things held by the mass of men. Who is to
blame for this? It is the religionist, the theist. He permits of no
intermediary interpretation of God, no gradual approach to his particular
understanding. Either, he says, you contend that God is as I say or my sect
defines, or you are clearly out of the realm of theism. You are an atheist.
Some opposing sects look upon each other as being of atheistic tendencies
merely because of opposite views. Thus orthodox religion prescribes what the
mental garb of atheism is. Up until a century ago and even today in some
instances it prescribed what constituted a heretic. Those so declared three
centuries ago to be heretics would today be considered undoubtedly as leading
Christians.
He who recognizes a cause,
whatever its nature, which cause accounts for all being and its order, is not
truly an atheist even though he may declare that cause not to be God. By
recognizing a cause he is first conforming to his own nature, for his own
nature is the effect of a cause, and he admits thereby that he is a part of a
process, if not a plan. He does not consider himself a factor apart from
everything, and as being able to function independently of all things. This
reasoning produces a state of humility and respect upon his part and a sense of
unity with all being, the first requisite of theism. This cause he may define
as mechanical, emotionless but orderly. Order is also one of the
characteristics of theism, for no one ever conceived of a God as reigning
supreme over a chaotic existence. As to intelligence, he may deny the cause as
being intelligent, but today the fuller meaning of intelligence, which is
becoming better known, may be acceptable to him. Then, perhaps, he would admit
the cause as being intelligent, though not conscious. Intelligence does not in
its final sense mean conscious knowledge, but rather conformity to an internal
order. As an example: Let us take the order of the life of a plant. The plant
is intelligent in its perseverance and growth, but it lacks consciousness of
the acts which make perseverance and growth possible.
Instead of merely
reprimanding, condemning, and ostracizing those who fail to recognize God in
the sense you define Him, and thereby causing them to believe their conception
the opposite of God, attempt to understand their views. Admit that what they
declare as "mechanical causes" are truly Cosmic manifestations, as
recognizable and perceivable by you as they are to them; but you define the
characteristics of those manifestations as the works of God. Gradually you will
see that those thought to be confirmed atheists will admit that if what they
have found to be fact in nature you do not deny but merely give the appellation
of God, then God it must be. If, however, you set up an interpretation of God
which is inconsistent with human perception of the manifestations of God, then
you will find many atheists, for many persons will renounce the God you
expound. It is not so far in the past when all religions asserted God to be a
personal entity, a being in form like unto man. Such an impossible ideal was
not acceptable to the more profound students of nature, and they rejected it
and immediately were acclaimed atheists. Today, only the most impossible
religionists are anthropomorphists. Today the average religionist realizes that
any conception of God that limits Him to form, limits His sphere of
omnipotence. Religionists should realize that theism has changed with time and that
this change has not destroyed it, nor has it detracted from its glory.
Therefore, the different conceptions of today held by others may not be harmful
to theism but may be progressive and should be analyzed unbiasedly, not
suppressed, nor should those who expound them readily be called atheists.
As to the one who states that
there are neither effects nor causes in the universe, being or non-being,
natural process or unity of all substance, nor natural law, is not only an
atheist but a fool. The theist and the agnostic both look upon him
contemptuously. Such a person is an abnormal being and is to be pitied, not
censured.
Hesitate before hurling the
cognomen atheist at another, lest it return to settle upon you later
when time has tempered your reason and broadened your spiritual perception.
|