Atheism and God

Living with the promise means to live in faith, but not faith in God who has completed known. This faith in the flaws and weaknesses, ceaselessly endeavor , patience and trust, because God is a God who will come, God in the absence. From here we know : the atheists have been misinterpreting. They claim God as figure who attended and supported by certainty. Actually, they are also affected by delusions, deceived by idols. — Al-Ghazali in al-Maqsad al-Asnâ.

Atheism begins with language difficulties. And, if we read the book of Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, we'll know: there is also misinterpreted.

Atheism does not come from mere intelligence, but also on shaky legs and pressed body. The uncertainty of religion that is being looked now reminds us of the atmosphere after religious wars in Europe in the decades of the 16th century.  Religion was almost synonymous with violence, arbitrariness, and narrowing of the mind. From this was born the Enlightenment spirit : there were works of Montaigne and Descartes, as fruit of radical skepticism. Religious doctrine was placed in a distance.

Now, waving of "revivalism" sometimes in the form of "fundamentalism", and of course, the violence caused a similar reaction: Hitchens book published, close to The End of Faith by Sam Harris (2004). Also The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, a biologist. One quote by Dawkins: "When someone is suffering from delusions, then the symptoms will be called crazy. When many people suffer from delusions, then the symptoms will be called religion."



However, it seems it's not because of delusions when during the last three decades there is "another significant motion" : philosophical approach to faith. In the "postmodern" motion toward God is reappointed a phenomenological approach of Heidegger who described "meditative thinking", or more specifically, "poetic thinking", which is different from the way of thinking that gives birth to metaphysics and science. Along with that, there's criticism of Heidegger to "god according to the philosophy", or god in metaphysics, which for him should be abandoned. "By leaving it," Heidegger said, "People will be closer to the" Lord of the divine"(Göttlicher Gott)."

Maybe then we can understand Derrida. He called himself an atheist, but also said, "God fixed in my life, who is called by other names".

It is clear, "looking back on the religious" motion is not a return to the old principle of atheism. In Philosophy and the Turn to Religion, Hent de Vries summarized the trend in a French word that contains two meanings: á Dieu : 'to God', or adieu : 'goodbye', "a motion toward God, toward the word or the name of God ", which is also the greeting of "dramatic goodbye to the canonical and dogmatic interpretations", on the meaning of 'the same God'.


Here, obviously, there is only one meaning in the name of "God". Even since the poststructuralist approach to language develops, we increasingly realize how unstable the meaning of words. The word of God is simply a "marker" that its new meaning we "find" but in the sense of something different from, for example, "creature". This difference will occur continuously. Therefore, the meaning of "God" will never ever stop.

The marker never find signatum or what is marked. Signatum will appear later, later, and later, because the word of God will forever be involved in a relationship with other markers.

So, every time we call "God" actually we do not mention God. I remember one sentence, "Buddha is not Buddha, and therefore Buddha is Buddha." For me, it means that when we realize the "Buddha" or "God" that we refer to the word, actually it is not represented by that word. We will be aware also of the "Buddha" and the "God" who is not represented by the word.

Presumably that is what is meant in Islam when translating shahada with the fundamental spirit of monotheism: "I testify there is no god but God alone". In other words, the name "Allah" is simply signans, and can not be confused with unattainable signatum. If it is mixed, then as it is often the case, as if "God" is a god among other gods, which is contrary to the notion of monotheism itself.

In the 13th century, in Germany, Meister Eckhart, a preacher of the Dominican Order, prayed with calling Gottes (god) and Gottheit (Supreme God). The first is approximately equal to the "sense" of God, a concept. The second: Something unattainable by the concept. So, Eckhart whispered, "I pray so that I kept away from the Lord".  In 1329 Pope John XXII accused him of "heresy". He was tried and found dead before sentencing.

Language problems make creed and theology becomes problematic. Theology is always limited, even oblique. Jean-Luc Marion said, " Theology makes its author become a hypocrite." The authors pretend to talk about holy things, but they are certainly not the saints. The authors inevitably will speak beyond their means and capabilities. Thus, Marion said, "We have to get forgiveness for each treatise in theology".

Theism tends to ignore it. Theism generally starts from the assumption that there is a settled meaning in language because the signatum presents and affordable, the assumption of "metaphysics of presence".

It will be seen when we say "God almighty one". Thus we are not just assuming that the meaning of "God" is a sure thing, but the word "almighty one" refers to something can be calculated. If "God" can be calculated, then, practically, "God" is the same as the object. When we say "God is One", we actually are making God is more than one.

That's how atheism begins. Slavoj Zizek tried to discuss it by using Alain Badiou's ontological thesis. In his writings -- which offers a "materialist theology" in the Angelaki journal edition April 2007 -- Zizek said, ""One" is a notion that comes later."

Zizek referred to Badiou: "many" (which also means "every") or the multiplicity is a fundamental ontological category. Multiplicity is not derived from the "One" and can not be summarized into "One". Opponents of this multiplicity is not "one", but "Zero" or ontological emptiness. "One" appears only at the level of "representing", just a representation.

Monotheism does not see the status and role of the "One". Inevitably, monotheism which presents God as "One" allows people to contrast "One" with "Zero". So, people are easy to remove the "One" and gain the "Zero". Thus, here, an atheist is born. Just like what was said by Zizek when he concluded, "Atheism is only conceivable in monotheism".

However, it is not easy for us who grow up in the Abrahamic tradition to accept Zizek's materialist theology. Generally it is not easy for the Muslims, Christians, and Jews to accept Badiou ontological argument which considers "One" just a representation, although with so then they have treated God is congruent with God's representation, one thing that is actually contrary to the basic fundamentals of Tawheed in Al-Ikhlasin the Qur'an, which asserts that "Nothing whatever to equal God".

The monotheistic is always in a contradictory position. Moreover, for them, God the One is also a personal God.

Furthermore, Emmanuel Levinas strongly criticized Heidegger. We know, Heidegger often spoke reverently about "Sein". "Sein" is what causes things appear to exist. For Levinas, with such description as if "Sein" precedes and above all things that exist (existents). Its meaning, in the ontology of Heidegger, "Sein" mastering them all, just like the "imperialist domination". It seems, Levinas considered Heidegger -- a German thinker who supported the Nazis -- talking about exist  as a kind of impersonal God. Also when Heidegger called the Divine (das Heilige).

According to Levinas, it showed a tendency to "paganism". Without basing Existing and Holiness in interpersonal relationships, Heidegger had brought himself to "forever primitive form", not to "higher form of religion".

Levinas -- with his philosophy characterized by the Jewish faith -- seemed only understand religion with Abrahamic monotheism paradigm. Of course it is not adequate. Levinas is not only wrong in understanding the meaning of "Exist" in Heidegger's thought, but he is also not consistent with his own philosophy, which accepts the Other as the Other, without putting it into a category "Ready", whereas by using the Abrahamic faith as a model, Levinas put other beliefs -- Buddhism and Taoism for example --  into the box. If for him, other religions are "primitive", then it's because the other religions are not in accordance with the standards of Christian and Jewish. He concluded: At the end of "primitive religion", there is nothing "to prepare the advent of a God".

Levinas does not see, even with the absence of "a figure of god" in "primitive religion", atheism becomes irrelevant. In other words, the problem lies in the theism itself.

I am reminded of Paul Tillich. This theologian considers theism reduce human relationships and their God to the level of relationship between two persons, one of them is "divine". From this reduction atheism is born as the antithesis. Thus, Tillich endeavor is to reach "God above God in theism".

Now Tillich voice (died in 1965) is rarely heard. At least, for me. But his intention to reach "God above God in theism" and his words that God "does not exist" -- because God is beyond "essence and existence" -- I find its reincarnation in Marion's thought. Marion, such as Heidegger, denying God for atheists which -- starting from Thomas Aquinas until Ibn Rushd with his arguments of al-Inaya al-ikhtira' -- confirmed the existence of metaphysical argument. For him, God which is regarded as causa sui, uncaused cause, is God which is reduced to an idol. God only be the last point of reasoning about "exist". God only giving reasons (and collateral) for the presence of the happenings, becomes ultima ratio to complete the argument. But, that's where metaphysics is inadequate.

God is not the result of our desire or the conclusion of our discourse. God really does not have to exist (n'a pas á justement être). He is addressing the exist problem, not included in existence. He is able without exist. For Marion, God comes to us with God's independence, because God's love is abundant, as the gift of the revelation.

We met at the moment which was given by manifestation les phénomènes saturés. In the presence of the phenomenon of surplus that exceeds my intention, it was impossible for me to capture and understand the object, even if it could still be called "object". In fact, I was shaped by it.

We also experience a similar phenomenon in aesthetic experience when viewing the paintings of Matisse, for example: An experience that can not be condensed into a concept. Moreover, experience with the divine, in revelation: only with the icons we can reach it.

Here Marion can be very charming, but he is not free from criticism. By using the revelation as "fles phénomènes saturés" paradigm, Marion -- as well as Levina -- talk about "religion" with Ibrahimi glasses.   How is he going to accept Buddhism, which is not thrilled by the revelation of the "top", but the enlightenment from within? For Marion, idols occur only when the concept reduces God as "presence". However, can he offer theology which is completely free from the tendency of idolatry?

With a typical view of a Catholic, he talked about the icon. But, it could be, an icon -- also God -- is on the top of what he introduced to us, as Gottheit to be achieved by Eckhart -- degenerated into an idol, as long as the name, the word burdened by residues of theism history which -- if viewed from the perspective of Zen Buddhism -- still departs from a personal God, not from the shakes of absence.

Here we need Derrida. Marion thought "God without existence" as he urged could be free from the history and language, but with Derrida we will remember: we forever live with the language that we inherited, from interpretation to interpretation. "God" has no meaning in attendance.

Then Judaism, for example, tends to not mention the name of the God. In the name, God always escapes. Dieu déja se contredit.

So, it is better to live with the limitations due to the language. In other words, to live with the promise: soon there will be the "Meaning of Light", no matter how impossible it is. Living with the promise means to live in faith, but not faith in God who has completed known. This is faith in the flaws and weaknesses, ceaselessly endeavor, patience and trust, because God is a God who will come, God in the absence.

From here we know one thing: the atheists also have been misinterpreting. They claim God as figure who attended and supported by certainty. Actually, they are also affected by delusions, deceived by the idols.
***

Uh, by the way,
Is this an idol or a monkey?
Mmm ... this is definitely a mistake in the laying of an unidentified object.
If you think you will automatically become a saint just because you are wearing Santa outfit, then you may think you will automatically go to heaven when you die.
Well, and all the above premises are wrong all! Hooray... ehehhee ...
I love you seriously. Merry Christmas, dahling. Mwah!
You do not need to reward me with expensive items on Christmas day. I'm still busy searching for the true meaning of Christmas celebrations. Sorry.

[CZ-lacalifusa/Xmas2014]