Atheism, like many other beliefs, undergoes social and cultural selection pressure in a way that resembles biological evolution. If atheism is taken to simply mean a lack of belief in God, then there is little about it to hold external interest. So, a slightly more interesting version developed into a positive view that there is no God, and with all of the subsidiary counter-apologetics and Promethean fantasies about a semi-utopian post-faith world of science, reason and rationality (especially in the past 50 years, where technological advancements have given rise to unprecedented, improved living standards, and greater global connectivity).
But these are fast proving to be superficial anticipations based on shallow considerations – nothing of the sort has happened or will happen. Quite the opposite, in fact; the attempted erosion of the Christian faith has created a deeply unsatisfactory void - a kind of spiritual vacuum that has left people discontent and spiritually hungry, where substitutes brought in to fill the void have shown themselves to be intellectually hollow, spiritually empty, morally inadequate, and an assault on many of the long-standing metaphysical qualities (like truth, facts, knowledge, freedom, purpose, meaning and wisdom) that form the bedrock of our Judaeo-Christian-Aristotelian culture.
In a good cop-bad cop critique, the bad cop in me would say that consequently, because atheism fails to provide the solution to the deepest and most profound human needs and desires, it becomes less and less interesting the more it persists - to the point where, for most of its loudest and most strident commentators, it has really become an ideological and spiritual wasteland left in the hands of cynical, myopic individuals who seek attention and validation, and whose primary way of making atheism seem compelling is to lash out at religious belief with dismissive resentment, mockery and scorn. And the more the atheists sense in desperation that what they have to offer is not very interesting anymore, the more resentful, mocking and scornful their comments become in order to grab the attention and conceal the mediocrity of their arguments, all in the service of trying to stay relevant and interesting.
The good cop part of me would cushion it by conceding that I understand that atheism can offer a powerful framework for many people, especially those seeking clarity, intellectual honesty, and a life grounded in reason and empirical evidence. At its best, it can encourage thoughtful questioning, personal responsibility, and a deep appreciation for the natural world. For many, it's a meaningful path away from beliefs that may have felt constraining or inconsistent with their lived experience, and for which I have much sympathy. The passion that some atheists express - though at times it may come across harshly - often stems from real disillusionment that their own personal experiences of Christianity have not been much better.
Ultimately, atheism just doesn’t strike me as very interesting anymore. It lacks the narrative depth, existential richness, and imaginative scope that once gave it a provocative foot in the door. In a world still grappling with meaning, morality, and transcendence, atheism rather feels like yesterday’s rebellion. Its imaginative power is largely spent.
EDIT TO ADD: I had a further thought of elaboration, where I think atheism being uninteresting is also due to how the underpinning subject frameworks are nested together and the relationship they have. Perhaps for illustration you can think of it like a dynamic feedback loop, where each is feeding back on the other – rather like an ecosystem, where science, morality, value and psychology are like interdependent species - each sustaining the others in the complex, life-giving web that is Christ’s truth. If you dislodge one, the health of the whole becomes unstable and begins to fray.
The breakdown is like this. Christianity speaks the truth about God, so it underpins science and philosophy in terms of truth and values, it underpins morality and ethics in terms of goodness grounded in God’s nature, it underpins economics and socio-politics in terms of facts and values, and it underpins psychology and psychiatry in terms of human nature, purpose, healing and transformation.
It is the latter that I think speaks most profoundly about the malaise and psychological detachment of atheism, because it becomes uprooted from any of the above fundamental groundings, and is ultimately inimical to fulfilment and satisfaction, even if it deceives in offering temporary succour or purpose. Psychology and psychiatry are essential tools in the moral and spiritual framework for understanding truth, values, restoration, the relational nature of humans, healing, and the renewal of the person – which is also grounded in the empirical sciences. And in the same loop, Christian truth and spiritual formation are essential components of the renewal process in psychology and psychiatry – always indirectly, but in many cases, directly too.
I think that, in the end, is why atheism seems ultimately uninteresting and underwhelming once the novelty has worn off. It lacks the tools to connect meaningfully to the deep questions that matter - not just what is true, but what is good, what heals, what restores, and what fulfils – because it stands outside and severs itself from the life-giving web.
You could think of atheism as operating on a kind of inverted supply and demand curve for existential comfort. The perceived benefits it offers - intellectual autonomy, moral self-determination, and freedom from Christian accountability - are always likely to be in high demand in materially prosperous, politically free countries, precisely because they satisfy immediate, surface-level needs, subjective ethical flexibility and perceived psychological independence.
No comments:
Post a Comment