The Possibility of Atheism

Is atheism possible? This seems, in a sense, an absurd question to ask when one is surrounded by so many people who define themselves as atheists. The basic question, however, is this : What is a-theism? The most common definition of atheism is the rejection of any belief in the existence of a supra-spatiotemporal entity. In my opinion, however, this definition does not go far enough. To be a 'true' atheist, I submit, one would have to say : 'Absolutely everything in this world is completely and utterly meaningless and pointless'.

Does such an atheist exist? It is logically impossible for such a person to go on living. Only someone who is two seconds away from committing suicide would count, according to my definition, as an atheist. In other words, atheism, as I understand this term, is the rejection of all 'meaning' whatsoever. True atheism, in other words, is synonymous with nihilism. Most atheists, however, try their best to stop half-way down their slide on the slippery slope of nihilism. So they invent 'meaning' in activities such as the family, politics, painting, literature, music, poetry, trekking, emailing, blogging, rowing, film-making, speech-writing, and so on and on, and such activities thereby become a 'pseudo-God' for them.

A lot depends, of course, on how we define words. If 'God' is defined as 'the source of meaning', then the only consistent atheist is that nihilist who is on the brink of suicide. All other so-called atheists still cling to some source of (invented) meaning or the other, whether it is the family or sports or music, and are themselves yet to truly come to grips with the possibility that there might not be any 'meaning' to our existence, the possibility that they are so fond of accusing religious believers of denying.

In a (fundamental!) sense, then, I am a 'fundamentalist'. By this term, I refer to my conviction that there are only two logically consistent ways of being 'human'. Either you are a religious believer, or you are a nihilist (and, consequently, two seconds away from suicide). It is for this reason that I find myself strongly drawn towards the world of classical Upanisadic Hinduism, the mediaeval world of Roman Catholic Christianity, and the current world of Islamist Saudi Arabia. For all their vices, these worlds appeal to me because they are based on my central conviction : either you believe in God or you become a nihilist (and commit suicide); there can be no via media, no middle position between these two. If 'God' is dead, then absolutely everything is meaningless too.

I myself, however, am neither 'religious' nor 'nihilist'. Perhaps that is why I must try so hard every day to keep up the pretence of being 'human', try to carefully disguise my 'fundamentalism' in an Academic world which does not 'tolerate' any such 'intolerant' views in its 'naked public square' which it oversees. I must perhaps go on living in spite of what I believe, and in spite of even not knowing what that 'must' means.