I’m better off without God. (That would be the case if you didn’t exist).

Once upon a time there was a guy who wrote books on how He was better off without God. He didn’t have to prove that God didn’t exist because to Him what mattered was whether or not God existed for him or not, not whether or not he actually existed. In fact the truth didn’t matter to him unless it mattered solely to him so his advice cannot be considered mutually beneficial. Could you truly count as unbiased and beneficial a suggestion from someone who only considered true that which he found useful for his own benefit? As we found with the question on “What is God?” the inquisitive mind and heart a quest and therefore by definition existential. While a dog cannot intentionally go on a ketogenic diet it can contain a canine nature by which it values the ketogenic diet above all other diets. The human heart can intend to go keto, i.e. live on fat and fat alone. This is because human science can determine value but cannot create it. We have also seen that the moral high ground of an atheist is merely built on shifting sand. We as a human race must accept the mystery of iniquity (mysterium iniquitatis) to which we are bound. This binding even among atheists is typically caused by our own doing. Take for example the environment. The rampant pollution and therefore “Climate Change” (or whatever else they will refer to it by) was not caused by God. Most often the moral pollution acquired over time be it in lung cancer due to years of excessive smoking or an addiction to pornography are not caused by an unknown. No one can claim to be perfectly rid of all of these cancers in life. All can and should accept that life is bound by this mystery of iniquity. If one truly suggests himself to be rid of all the mystery of iniquity, please let him inquire with the author of this essay as he has yet to encounter one. 

Are we truly better off without the Divine? My basic logic is that we are. It is only with the Divine and revealed logic of life that we open ourselves to redemption. Some time ago an English teacher suggested (wrongly as suggested by our pop culture in the movie Matrix) that the word “virus” is derived from the Latin word for man (vir) when in fact it simply meant a slimy liquid or poison. On the other hand the allegory stands, we do ‘mess everything up’. Nothing we have ever done as human beings has ever been whole by our own designs and by our own efforts. 

Are we truly better off without the Divine? If we as human beings exist and do so intentionally and when encountering our bonds to the mystery of iniquity (what Christians often refer to as “Original Sin”) shouldn’t we pay heed to that fact first and foremost and surrender our lives to one who does have the answer? Even if in the banter we may not know who may have the answer shouldn’t our existence be towards discovering the one who does have that answer? 

To the scientist and this scientific society. I suggest that we let go of our egos and learn to humble our minds before what goes beyond the measurable. To the moralist and the society which seeks to know right from wrong. I suggest that we learn the historic lesson that we accept our ignorance as a society. We cannot redeem ourselves. Our minds are too weak and our hearts are too feeble. “Render unto Caesar what is of Caesar and render unto God what is of God” (Mt 22:21). To truly know what we are to do we require Revelation and to actually do what we must do we require Redemption. Finally, to the existentialist. I exhort you to truly exist. True existence is not one simply willed for oneself or for another. There simply must be more. To cut off the possibility of encountering the one who can provide the Revelation and Redemption is not to be an existentialist. It would mean to not truly live. 

“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (Jn 14:6)