A brief excerpt by Marcel on Atheism and Theism

The question, 'Do you believe in God?' is one of those which, according to the common belief, can be answered by a simple 'Yes' or 'No'. But a deeper analysis would enable us to lay bare the invariably illusory character of these answers. There is a mass of people who imagine that they believe in God, when in fact they are bowing down to an idol to whom any decent theology whatever would undoubtedly refuse the name of God; and on the other hand there are many others who believe themselves to be atheists because they conceive of God only as an idol to be rejected, and who yet reveal in their acts, which far transcend their professed opinions, a totally inarticulate religious belief. It follows from all this that the answer to a referendum on the question, 'Do you believe in God' ought to be in the great majority of cases, 'I don't know whether I believe in God or not--and I am not even quite sure that I know what "believing in God" is'. Note, carefully, the contrast between these formulae and those of the agnosticism of the last century: 'I don't know whether there is a God or not'.

I have long held the vague notion, which Marcel makes more explicit here, that one can be an atheist for the right reason and a Christian for the wrong reason. For example, one could be a Christian out of the selfish desire to save oneself from eternal torment. In doing so, one clings to the proposition "God exists" loudly and as if any doubt, even in a believer, was not only a cause for reprimand and an example of weakness of faith, but risking eternal damnation. Honest doubt is squelched, one clings to a "faith" that is reduced to the acceptance of certain propositions as "God exists" without evidence, or at least certain evidence. This is the caricature of faith men like Richard Dawkins ridicule, and take as the norm. The full mystery of faith, as a thing neither a rational nor irrational, but mysterious and resplendent, is leveled down to a certain type of verifiability.

Now consider the atheist to whom God is proposed as a being who, though able, does not help children in need, one who even eternally damns those who do not believe he exists. Certainly an atheist would be correct to reject this God! As Ivan Karamosov observed, if God builds the edifice of his kingdom on the tears of a child, we are morally required to return our ticket to heaven. The atheist who disregards a sadistic God does so justly, and should be admired for his courage. Further, those who reject the God of continental or even classical philosophy are likewise justified. This God is limited to a being which exists in this world, missing entirely the ineffable transcendence of God. The atheist is correct here too, for this is a false God. But in a sense, these atheists are closer to the truth than the Christian given in the earlier example. They disregard false or evil images of God, and while they do not set forth a positive image of their own, by their practice they can experience him. The Christian who clings to propositional truths and is incapable of doubt, however, worships a false God as a result of selfish desperation.


Technorati Tags: Marcel, existentialism, atheism, theism