What I would like to do is summarize some of the salient points we have been discussing throughout the letters and maybe make my position clearer as to what I have been trying to say. And what I want you to do is not be governed by some nebulous feelings but follow the arguments rationally, wherever they may lead. The reason why I believe is not because of some nebulous feeling – it is because I honor and cherish rationality and thinking although atheists feel that they are the ones with a monopoly on these values.

The first consideration is the following: either god (whatever his properties may be) exists or he does not, and not entertain some in between position. So, let us rigorously consider one of these options – let us say that god does not exist. What are the consequences of accepting this position?

There are serious repercussions if we try to live the philosophy that god does not exist. This is almost never considered but what it underlines is the fact that it is impossible to live without belief in god or a substitute for god. This substitute can be power, money, glory and many other things that people will kill for and pursue. There really are no true atheists – there are only idolaters.

Modern science implies, so atheists claim, that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. Modern science implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society. There is no ultimate meaning for humans says William Provine, historian of science.

Who besides rapists believes that rape is not wrong? But, why is this so? When it comes to living their lives, atheists wish to act uprightly and expect to be treated fairly. But why should this be so? Atheists live in an intellectual schizophrenia

What are the repercussions for saying that there is no god? One often hears that atheists can be considerate, humane people. No one really claims that they cannot be caring people. But there is an underlying question which is rarely addressed. On what do we base our humaneness and respect for other people? For atheists there is no basis and if you think this is just a trivial point just consider two historical facts. The two systems based on atheism – the Russian Soviet system and the German Nazi system – brought about the combined deaths of approximately 100 million people which surpasses logarithmically what any other system of governance had achieved in the past. To have no basis for a morality means that morality can be changed at a whim of a dictator with disastrous results for many. There is no lasting and unchangeable basis for moral behavior.

The other point that is frequently omitted is the question of reason and rationality. Why is it that rationality enables us to open the universe to us and to formulate the laws that describe its behavior? The atheist’s reply is that it is simply like this and here stops any further discussion, but this is a totally unsatisfactory reply to our question. And there is absolutely no doubt that the universe is ordered and behaves in a predictable manner.

There are some interesting comments made by Nietzsche in his strange and puzzling book Thus Spake Zarathustra on the question of the existence of god. He describes a story of a madman declaring that we have killed god. But it is this ‘madman’ who realizes the implications of living as if god does not exist. The ‘death of god’ is not mere unbelief but a destruction of the human conception of the world. God, as an idea at the very least provided mankind with a basis for order and meaning in life. With the ‘death of god’ this belief is exposed as a sham, an elaborate game of make-belief.

“What did we do when we loosed the earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us?”

With the ‘death of god’ all hope for meaning and purpose have evaporated and cannot be cobbled back together. All is meaningless and this terrible but false sensation is countered by countless attempts to dull this pain through ‘entertainment’, through drugs and through all sorts of diversions. We answer our hunger through consumption and through acquisition and yet, in the end, we come to the terrible realization that we are empty, we are a shell with no substance.

One of the first things to succumb to the onslaught of atheism is the promulgation of the idea that there is no significant difference between the beasts and humans. Look at the DNA of chimpanzees and humans – it is not very different. Conclusion – humans and animals are not that different. If modern science is blind to the difference between humans and animals, the reason for this is that the domain of science excludes considering this difference. The study of the uniqueness of humanity is beyond the limits that science sets for itself, as are many other things.

In a sense science studies and – is very good at it – the ‘outside’ features of you. How your body functions, how to treat diseases, how the universe operates and many other marvels that have been opened up by science. But it does not, and cannot, address some fundamental experiences of humans. We can say that a beam of light has a certain frequency but we cannot go any further. Our ‘inside’ being knows this light as blue or red, for example, with all the meaning and significance that this has for us. This is just one seemingly trivial illustration but there are many other aspects such as morality and honor and love and respect that are totally beyond the ken of science and hence, atheism.

But it is exactly this ‘inside’ of us that harbors our deepest characteristics as humans that has been excluded from science as something that is subjective and of no real value. We have lost our moorings and this hidden truth, that we hide from ourselves through much futile effort, is slowly coming to the surface as we see that we have no ‘above and below’, as Nietzsche already pointed out in the nineteenth century in the parable of the ‘madman’.

Many of us still live off the vestiges of belief in residual religiosity and religious sentimentality. We live a parasitic existence still gathering the benefits of religion, although many of us have drifted far away from belief. We go far by disparaging our history and the contribution of faith to that history as Europe’s recent denial of its Christian history attests. Christianity, in Europe, in the best traditions of communist ideology and practice, has been totally expunged from the European Charter the foundational document of the European Union. But we are realizing that this is bringing disaster because it is living a lie and this is what atheism confers on humanity. And it will not last because the knowledge of living this lie will come back with vengeance.

We justify our actions through the elevation of a new idol – tolerance – as if this is the ultimate value of our society forgetting that tolerance is the refuge of those with no values. Our faith offers a much more powerful goal – love of our neighbors and this is something that can form the basis of a strong and lasting civilization.

So, what do we do if ‘god has been killed’?

One possible answer, one that was suggested by Nietzsche is that we await for the Ubermensch, the ‘overman’ who is to guide us. We have dropped god in favor of an idol, because we cannot tolerate the vacuum created by unbelief, the vacuum created when we killed god. We will set up and follow strong men who will lead us into further blindness as Hitler and Stalin did and atheists will, and still, continue to justify them. Authoritarianism will increase on the world stage as the restraining power of faith fades. We will repeat and prolong the error that the Israelites were chastised for – the worship not of God but of idols.

You may have noticed that I have used the lower case for the word god in this letter. The reason for this is quite simple. I propose that we can arrive at the idea of god through rational discourse and argumentation. We can come to the conclusion that there is a ‘mind’ behind all that there is and we can refer to this intelligence as god. But, reason can only get us so far, and no further, in terms of the characteristics of this god and his/her/its interactions with humanity. To go further we need the revelation of faith but this is a further step to be taken once we have come to accept ‘god’.

Sincerely,
Bar-Abbas