Atheism

Atheism and theism are not opposed to one another but belong together. Each theism has its own atheism, and every atheism its own theism.

Atheism of the Word

There are three ways I can see of speaking about God: as a being, an idea or a word. That there are very important distinctions and differences within and not just between these ways of speaking goes without saying. Think of what Aquinas does with Aristotle's proofs of the existence of God, for example, where he speaks of God in terms of existence rather than essence, even though He is still a being.  Moreover, there are always minor writers within them  (all the mystical traditions within the religions, to name but one type of minor writing)  that cut across these traditions both conceptually and historically. What I am particularly interested in is the third way of speaking about God, because it is closest to my problem. What if God were only a word and neither a being nor an idea? In one sense one would say that this is the sign of the disappearance of God, but in an other,  perhaps not. Hasn't religious belief, or a least a certain kind, only every related to God as a word (a mysterious magical one), and not as a being or an idea? It is only philosophy that has entertained the latter definitions and its atheism has been maintained by their destruction. Is there an atheism of the word? My supposition is maybe not.

My Own Stupidity

It is about my mistake that I want to write to you about today, but don't let that fool you. Don't think that I now have the answer I lacked previously. When it comes to God, I keep feeling that I come to a point and I can't go any further. It just drops away from me. Not because I think there is some mysterious mystical meaning I can't fathom or am unwilling to make the leap for, but quite the contrary. There is something I cannot think here, something I cannot see, and this is all because of my own personal stupidity.

Religion and Philosophy

This is a particular problem for me, because my own entry into philosophy (entirely fortuitous, as anyone's), rather than just knowing about the history of philosophy, is Levinas. I believe it is completely impossible (though some think you can, and maybe even he did at one stage of his work) to separate his philosophical from his religious writings. When I had given this up, I thought about it negatively and naively, and their inseparability meant that he was susceptible to the same Nietzschean critique as Kant, but now I think that I am entirely wrong about that, because it puts the meaning of God in Levinas in completely the wrong place conceptually and historically.

Stupidity

Perhaps you should only think where you are the most stupid, for only there are the most interesting problems going to lie for you. 'Interesting', because you don't know the answer to them. Of course your stupidity is a very personal matter. One person's stupidity can be an embarrassment for another, but for them it might be their hidden strength. 'Why are you being so stupid,' they might irritatingly remark, 'can you not see the answer to the question?' But your relation to your own stupidity is a far different affair. It is not enough that you are stupid, as seen from the position of the other, you have to feel your own stupidity. This means that you know there is something missing in your response. My stupidity lies with entirely within the word 'God'. I do not understand why people believe in God, but at the same time, my absence of belief seems entirely stupid to me. I don't have the insouciance of those who quite happily call themselves atheists. I don't know what it means. I have more time for those who think the entire discussion is useless, that you shouldn't talk about God at all, whether you believe in Him or not, than those who either assert his existence or don't. For example, when Jean Luc Marion defends himself in his preface to the English translation of God without Being against the theologians that he didn't mean that God did not exist and that He certainly does, I find his ability to simply pronounce that God exists entirely baffling (I know his book explains why he can say that, but it doesn't help me). At the same time, militant atheists like Dawkins and his ilk, are entirely laughable. They haven't even read Kant or Nietzsche. It's as though we have been transported in a time machine to the 17th C, and yet the proclaim themselves to the most up to date, the most modern, knights of reason against the oncoming hoards of irrational believers, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever.

The History of God

You imagine writing a history of God. Not a history of religion, nor even a mythical person (if you can speak like that), but of a philosophical concept. You see this history as the story of a disappearance. The more philosophical, the more rational, the concept of God becomes, the more God actually vanishes to become finally nothing more than a thin vapour and then nothing. The truth of the philosophical concept of God is atheism. You think then that Nietzsche's famous 'Death of God' is not outside this history but its proper culmination. And yet, after all this, when this history comes to an end, something remains. It is this remainder that interests you. Nonetheless, it still seems absurd that anyone would write about this now. What possible reason would there be to write a philosophy of religion today? Your only reply is that it is in the face of the question of God that you feel the most stupid and inadequate. Your own atheism is a paltry thing in comparison.

The Infinite and the Indefinite

You need to distinguish between the indefinite and the infinite. The indefinite is the bad infinite. It is the infinite of capitalism, the endless repetition of the present. What is the other infinite? It is the infinite as the emptying of the future into the present, the explosion of time. As though water would flow back into a pouring vessel until it bursts.

In the indefinite, the future is merely what persists. It is the endless repetition of the present without change or difference. The infinite future, on the other hand, is the creative power of the present. The present as a productive ontological power; the new, as opposed to the endless repetition of the same.

You need to distinguish between fate and redemption. Fate is synonymous with cynicism. Dead time and cynicism belong together. Time is at the heart of all moods. The time of cynicism is the endless repetition of the present. What will happen has already happened and will happen again. This is why it is fatalistic. Why bother with anything since it has already happened. The difference between fate and redemption is both one of time and moods. The time of redemption is one of the future to come, as opposed to the endless dead repetition of the present, and its mood is one of hope, rather than cynicism.