Postmodern atheism
By Edwin Vargas
Christian & Postmodern Theology Examiner
Atheism, which Etienne Borne defines as “the deliberate, definite, dogmatic denial of the
existence of God,” is one of the major components of postmodernism's philosophical belief
system.
The postmodernists, however, appear to be more subtle than many of their fellow atheists in
their disavowal of the reality of God's existence. Though their denial of the existence of God is
in many ways deliberate, the postmodernists are simply not prepared to admit that they are also
dogmatic and definite about their own brand of atheism.
What is more important to note at this point, however, is that they seem to be in full agreement
with Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim that the God of the Judeo-Christian theism has now become
unbelievable, in the same manner that rigid rationalism and scientific empiricism of the old
Enlightenment regime have suddenly become undependable and indefensible in the
postmodern-infested popular culture of the 21st century world.
Classical theism according to postmodernists
For according to postmodern pragmatist Richard Rorty, classical atheism itself is as untenable
as classical theism. This, at least, is the postmodernists' general assessment, as classical
atheism by definition operates according to the dictates of the Enlightenment's own version of
objective reality – that is, the reality, so-called, that everything that exists in the universe
consists of matter, energy, time and space, and nothing else.
For the postmodernists, the central point of the issue is not only that the existence of God is
unverifiable in the material universe. For them, the very notion of objective verifiability is all
by itself dubious, and for that reason, it must not be given any space whatsoever in the
postmodern universe.
This explains the reason why leading postmodern thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Michel
Foucault, and Rorty himself resort to play post-structuralism’s language game and operate
according to the epistemological notion of indeterminacy and ambiguity, if only to get rid of
issuing absolute statements in reference to the non-existence of God. Unlike their fellow
atheists, most especially the proponents of the so-called new atheism like Richard Dawkins,
Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Samuel Harris, the postmodern atheists, according to
Rorty, treat “moral and scientific beliefs as tools for achieving greater human happiness, rather
than as representations of the intrinsic nature of reality.”
Unbelief
Regardless of their differences, however, both the postmodernists and their fellow atheists meet
at the same dead end of the road called unbelief. On the one hand, the Enlightenment-oriented
atheists' unbelief surfaces in their absolute denial of God as they positively affirm the major
tenets of Darwinian evolutionism. Unwilling to seriously consider the availability of evidence
and the tenability of arguments that point to the reality of God's existence, they created their
own god after the image of the autonomous self and erected its monument in the secular
modern city of man.
The postmodernists' unbelief, on the other hand, is hidden beneath their pretension of
agnosticism, their defiance of absolute, objective reality and deliberate refusal to commit
themselves to any transcendental point of reference. They would rather consign themselves
within the bounds of radical relativism instead of subjecting themselves to universal truth
principles, or resign themselves to meaninglessness instead of living within the parameters set
forth by an absolute moral law that is only possible if God indeed exists.
This reminds the Christian believer of the words of the apostle Paul in the New Testament book
of Romans:
What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power
and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,
so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him
as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened (Rom. 1:18-21 NIV).
Here then is the very essence of unbelief, whether of the classical or postmodern form, whether
atheist, deist or polytheist. It proceeds not from the unavailability of evidence about the truth
of God but from the willful suppression of it by human wickedness.
References:
• Borne, Etienne. Atheism. New York: Hawthorn, 1961.
• Noebel, David. Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Competing
Worldviews (2nd Edition). Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 2006.
• Rorty, Richard. Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought In Twentieth-Century America.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
• Zacharias, Ravi. Can Man Live Without God. Nashville, TN: W Publishing, 1994.
Postmodern atheism
By Edwin Vargas
Christian & Postmodern Theology Examiner
Atheism, which Etienne Borne defines as "the deliberate, definite, dogmatic denial of the
existence of God," is one of the major components of postmodernism's philosophical belief
system.
The postmodernists, however, appear to be more subtle than many of their fellow atheists in their
disavowal of the reality of God's existence. Though their denial of the existence of God is in
many ways deliberate, the postmodernists are simply not prepared to admit that they are also
dogmatic and definite about their own brand of atheism.
What is more important to note at this point, however, is that they are in full agreement with
Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim that the God of the Judeo-Christian theism has now become
unbelievable, in the same manner that rigid rationalism and scientific empiricism of the
old Enlightenment regime have suddenly become undependable and indefensible in the
postmodern-infested popular culture of the 21st century world.
Classical theism according to postmodernists
According to postmodern pragmatist Richard Rorty, atheism itself is as untenable as classical
theism. This, at least, is the postmodernists' general assessment, as atheism by definition
operates according to the dictates of the Enlightenment's own version of objective reality – that
is, the reality, so-called, that everything that exists in the universe is matter, energy, time and
space, and nothing else.
For the postmodernists, the central point of the issue is not only that the existence of God is
unverifiable in the material universe. For them, the very notion of objective verifiability is all by
itself dubious, and for that reason, it must not be given any space whatsoever in the postmodern
universe.
This explains the reason why leading postmodern thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Michel
Foucault, and Rorty himself resort to play post-structuralism’s language game and operate
according to the epistemological notion of indeterminacy and ambiguity, if only to get rid of
issuing absolute statements in reference to the non-existence of God. Unlike their fellow
atheists, most especially the perpetrators of the so-called new atheism like Richard Dawkins,
Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Samuel Harris, the postmodern atheists, according to
Rorty, treat “moral and scientific beliefs as tools for achieving greater human happiness, rather
than as representations of the intrinsic nature of reality.”
Unbelief
Regardless of their differences, however, both the postmodernists and their fellow atheists meet
at the same dead end of the road called unbelief. On the one hand, the Enlightenment-oriented
atheists' unbelief surfaces in their absolute denial of God even as they positively affirm the major
tenets of Darwinian evolutionism. Unwilling to seriously consider the availability of evidence
and the tenability of arguments that point to the reality of God's existence, they created their own
god after the image of the autonomous self and erected its monument in the secular modern city
of man.
The postmodernists' unbelief, on the other hand, is hidden beneath their pretense of agnosticism,
their defiance of absolute, objective reality and deliberate refusal to commit themselves to any
transcendent point of reference. They would rather consign themselves within the bounds of
radical relativism instead of subjecting themselves to universal truth principles, or resign
themselves to meaninglessness instead of living within the parameters set forth by an absolute
moral law that is only possible if God indeed exists.
This reminds the Christian believer of the words of the apostle Paul in the New Testament book
of Romans. The very essence of unbelief, according to Paul, proceeds not from the
unavailability of evidence about the truth of God but from the willful suppression of it by human
wickedness.
“What may be known about God,” says the apostle, “is plain to them, because God has made it
plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power
and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Rom.
1:18-21 NIV).
References:
• Borne, Etienne. Atheism. New York: Hawthorn, 1961.
• Noebel, David. Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Competing
Worldviews (2nd Edition). Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 2006.
• Rorty, Richard. Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought In Twentieth-Century
America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
• Zacharias, Ravi. Can Man Live Without God. Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 1994.
