How is Atheism Possible?

Might as well ask how possibility is possible. But is it necessary?

I suppose atheism is not possible unless we have free will, or in other words, unless human beings are somehow liberated from necessity. 

The intellect must also be immaterial, since belief of any kind is a spiritual act. But if it's a spiritual act, then... well, it doesn't necessarily prove the existence of God, only of spirit. 

But what is that, and how does it get here? What is its sufficient reason, since matter cannot be the cause of the immaterial. Put conversely, how is it possible for spirit to disprove the existence of spirit? We'll wait. 

I'm not arguing -- yet -- I'm just sayin'. But let's think this through. According to White, human beings have the capacity or potential for atheism

not because they are physical things but only because they themselves have immaterial capacities for intellectual and voluntary autonomy by which they can insulate themselves spiritually from within by a kind of rationalist immanentism...

Which essentially repeats what was said at the top, which comes down to the freedom to know truth, knowledge and freedom being quintessentially immaterial. Therefore,

However sincerely intended, the autonomy and intellectual error that atheism represents is a spiritual phenomenon that is distinctively human in kind, something that other animals are incapable of, due to the absence in them of any spiritual soul or immaterial faculties. 

Can atheism be saved, or is it a non-starter? For it seems that there is no way around the conclusion that only a human being is capable of atheism, and that "Other animals lack the intelligence to be capable of atheism."

Therefore, it seems that belief in atheism requires a little intelligence, but not too much, otherwise it will recognize the performative contradiction it entails. 

But that's not entirely fair, since there are plenty of highly intelligent atheists with IQs that dwarf mine, for example, Stephen Hawking, who comes in at 160. On the other hand, Einstein's IQ is estimated to have been as high as 190, and he was not an atheist (although not a conventional believer). 

So, if intelligence neither supports nor refutes atheism, what does? White hints at it above with his remark about "autonomy" and insulation from spirit, which amounts to a self-sufficient vertical closure. Some things, it seems, are hidden from the wise. For example, wisdom.

Just as animals cannot be atheists, nor can angels; the latter have "too high and enlightened a form of intellect to be capable of atheism." Interestingly, White mentions in passing that humans "alone can appreciate ironical ideas in an imaginative way," a capacity which is not possible "for angels or non-rational animals."

Ha!

I can see why angels would be incapable of atheism, but why would they be incapable of irony? Whatever the case, based on what was said above, it seems that there something deeply ironic about atheism. In other words, I get being an "atheist," but an atheist without the scare quotes? A little self-awareness please!

Back to vertical closure, White suggests that "the quest for autonomy is the principal driving factor in the atheistic cast of mind." Such self-enclosed persons "reach no terminus beyond themselves."

But what if there is a terminus -- a transcendent telos -- beyond ourselves? I say, how could there not be? It's just that the atheist 

represses his or her own native aspiration to transcendence, which is the deepest and most vital inheritance of the intellect, apart from which the human being's true vocation as an intellectual remains indecipherable.

Thanks to Freud, we know all about repression. But in the past I have spoken of vertical repression, and why not? Let me google myself (that tickles!) and find out what I meant; this one has an extended rant by Petey, which I will edit down to something more manageable and maybe even amusing:

Yes, there are higher and lower worlds. I guess this isn't obvious to a leftist, but if any of you saw those Occupy Wall Street [or more recently, pro-Hamas] encampments, you know all about people who inhabit a lower world. Their language, their music, their feelings, their hygiene, their childish understanding -- all emanate from a lower world. Ironically, most of them aren't even from the earth plane, but a notch or two below that....

This is why the flatlanders can become so enclosed in their absurcular delusions. In a way, their worldview is complete (on its own level), and yet, it is radically incomplete (with regard to the whole)....

As Steinsaltz describes it, 'the sinner is punished by the closing of the circle, by being brought into contact with the domain of evil he creates.... as long as man chooses evil, he supports and nurtures whole worlds and mansions of evil, all of them drawing upon the same human sickness of the soul.... as the evil flourishes and spreads over the world because of the deeds of men, these destructive angels become increasingly independent existences, making up a whole realm that feeds on and fattens on evil.'

This is why you and I play such different roles in the cosmic economy. You actually have the tougher job, which is to say, because of your 'many-sidedness' and your 'capacity to to contain contradictions,' this makes it possible for you to 'rise to great heights,' but also to fuck up big time, neither of which is true for me. Rather, the angel is 'eternally the same; it is static, an unchanging existence,' 'fixed within rigid limits.'

So, atheism is like a dysfunctional angelic intelligence? That's ironic.

UPDATE: For fun, I've been putting my posts into Google Gemini, and here's what it says about this one:

Counterpoints to Consider:

• This is a theological view, not necessarily shared by all atheists.
• Many atheists lack belief in God due to a lack of convincing evidence, not a rejection of spirituality.
• The existence of an "immaterial soul" is highly debatable and lacks scientific backing.
• The idea of a hierarchy with "higher" and "lower" beings is a religious concept, not universally accepted.
• Atheists can be moral and have meaning in their lives without believing in a higher power.

Additional Points:

• The passage uses Stephen Hawking as an example of an intelligent atheist, contradicting the claim that high intelligence leads away from atheism.
• The comparison of atheism to a "dysfunctional angelic intelligence" is a metaphor specific to this religious perspective.

Overall, this passage offers a thought-provoking viewpoint on atheism, but it's important to remember it's just one perspective among many. Atheism can have various reasons, and it doesn't have to be a rejection of spirituality.