…it is worth mentioning that the atheism of Nietzsche is very different from, say, that found in Dawkins. Instead I want to outline my own position very briefly, which might be more accurately described as incarnational a/theism.
By “Incarnational a/theism” I am referring, not to an intellectual disavowal of God, but to the felt experience of God’s absence; an experience that must be distinguished from the idea of a mere absence of experience. To understand the difference take a moment to think about the difference between the absence that exists before you meet someone you later come to love and the absence you experience once they are gone. In both cases the person is absent, but the first is a mere absence of experience while the second is an experience of absence (there is a third experience which relates to the experience of a person being absence when they are present).
More than being the felt experience of Gods absence the phrase “incarnational a/theism” also refers to the idea that this traumatic experience brings us into the very heart of what it means to affirm God’s presence (hence the use of the dash). This is then the type of “atheism” I affirm as central to the Christian event.
“If we can stay with the tension of opposites long enough—sustain it, be true to it—we can sometimes become vessels within which the divine opposites come together and give birth to a new reality.”—Marie-Louise von Franz
“Jesus said, “If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”—The Gospel of Thomas