*On Zizek's "The Only Way To Be An Atheist is Through Christianity"

"For some time now, Slavoj Žižek has been showing up as an author and editor of theology texts alongside orthodox thinkers whose ideas he thoroughly naturalizes and reads through his Marxist lens. Take, for example, an essay titled, after the Catholic G.K. Chesterton, “The ‘Thrilling Romance of Orthodoxy’” in the 2005 volume, partly edited by Žižek, Theology and the Political: The New Debate. In Chesterton’s defense of Christian orthodoxy, Žižek sees “the elementary matrix of the Hegelian dialectical process.” While “the pseudo-revolutionary critics of religion” eventually sacrifice their very freedom for “the atheist radical universe, deprived of religious reference… the gray universe of egalitarian terror and tyranny,” the same paradox holds for the fundamentalists. Those “fanatical defenders of religion started with ferociously attacking the contemporary secular culture and ended up forsaking religion itself (losing any meaningful religious experience).”

For Žižek, a middle way between these two extremes emerges, but it is not Chesterton’s way. Through his method of teasing paradox and allegory from the cultural artifacts produced by Western religious and secular ideologies—supplementing dry Marxist analysis with the juicy voyeurism of psychoanalysis—Žižek finds that Christianity subverts the very theology its interpreters espouse. He draws a conclusion that is very Chestertonian in its ironical reversal: “The only way to be an atheist is through Christianity.”

Read more here

Zizek is fun. The atheism he discusses here is, of course fashioned from the framework of Christianity. Given Zizek's background I'm sure there is much more Hegel and trademark Lacanian analysis that informs his understanding into theology, all of which go well beyond my competence: just nod and say 'ok' like the dumbstruck foreigner that I am - I could not possibly engage the argument on those levels let alone any meaningful discussion on theological merit. Instead I'll simply start with the premise: atheism is the negation of Christian theism. Or some form thereof. And using the clip above, and that alone, fully acknowledging that I may be totally wrong, take a stab at what Zizek is getting at and try to make an argument.

It seems like Zizek is arguing that because Christianity denies other forms of meaning - naturalism, evolution, "if you don't hate your father your mother, then you are not my follower" etc. etc. - the only way to be an atheist is to go through Christianity. It isolates everything into the "community of believers" no more no less. Just you and the holy ghost. And the negation of God leaves you with "true" atheism?

If my understanding is correct (and it may well not be), I find this talk about a real atheism interesting. It's like saying what a "true (un)believer" is or what a true atheist is as opposed to a false atheist. Orthodox atheism v. Heterodox atheism. In this sense, it seems that Zizek is arguing that true atheism is only possible with the negation of the last standing and sole source of meaning i.e. Christianity; just you and the holy ghost but then get rid of the holy ghost, effectively equating this approach to atheism with nihilism. Get rid of the "big other" through Christianity and then get rid of Christianity such that all that remains is atheism, just you. Of course, my initial point still remains. This is a discourse predicated on the premise of God via Christianity. If you do not accept this premise then this discourse of "true atheism" doesn't exist either. It seems like Zizek would interpret other forms of "big other" as forms of 'God', in almost a Durkheimian sense but instead of using 'society' as its representative we have 'science', 'evolution', or whatever suits your fancy of rationality. And this becomes the representative metaphor to worship. Perhaps this is justified for Zizek.

I wonder, however, within this context of obtaining a "real atheism" if it also negates the set of values that come with them. It is fully possible to reject Christianity while maintaining the values of compassion, empathy, charity, etc. etc. while rejecting the cosmological axioms and sacred postulates of the trinity or whatever theological formulation. If Zizek allows this, then it seems that a type of "big other" returns to the picture which resets the discussion whether forms of the "big other" are variations of theism. In other words, the negation of God via rejecting Christianity does not necessarily strip all values when negating certain axioms. One is not required to believe in Jesus as the son of God to have compassion. One is not required to believe in the Holy Ghost to have love. In this sense, is the rejection of Christianity as the path to "real atheism" negate the, for lack of a better term, divination of values? If it does not, then my inclination is to think that there is no such thing as "real atheism". That is, as long as there are values there is recourse to forms of "big other". I can easily place empathy and compassion within the context of evolution, or any other religious tradition, or philosophy without appealing to God in the Christian sense. We can talk about 'God' in a Durkheimian sense but that would be a different discussion. In this way, atheism becomes other forms of theism associated with the "big other" - whether one chooses an alternative philosophy, religious tradition, science and evolution, whatever one's gods may be. Different metaphorical frameworks, methods of discourse, and conceptual fashions for different folks. Depending on the perspective, it's real or not real; true or false; ethnocentric; anthrocentric; whatever.

So my random exercise here to playfully engage with Zizek, would have to conclude that there is no such thing as a "real atheism" and that all atheisms are valid Or 'God' is possibe in alternative forms outside of Christinaity and in those contexts 'God' may not be not called 'God'.

All of which, of course, will vary depending on what you mean by 'God'.

*I suppose it might help to watch what other renown scholars have said about 'God' as well - not sure if I have time for all 150 of them though...