The God Desire

David Baddiel—a London-based writer and comedian—initially presents The God Desire: On Being a Reluctant Atheist, a volume of 94 pages, as a philosophical argument for atheism. In his mind, it is a different sort of argument for atheism insofar as it is psychological rather than philosophical. Put in a nutshell, his argument is that the human desire for God to exist proves that God does not exist. It is a “God-doesn’t-exist-because-anything-so-deeply-desired-must-be-fantasy argument” (21). Baddiel sees this desire rooted in our awareness and fear of death. Yes, he writes, God provides us with a story, a narrative, by which we can organize the chaos of life. God thereby also provides our lives with meaning. Our individual lives, our families’ lives, the life of humanity: all are significant because God is taking account of them, the way a parent does. So God as a parent pulls together all of these benefits. However, in the end all these benefits “wouldn’t be so necessary if we never died, or if, like animals, we didn’t know we die” (11).  This is why he thinks the the God desire is all about death.

However, Baddiel recognizes that this is not really a good argument, conceding that it is possible that the things you wish for do exist. So he refines his “argument” to note that the “God Desire is an urge for something to exist for which there is no existential proof, and that no one has, in concrete terms, experienced” (20). In other words, God is “invisible”; no one has seen, heard, smelled, or touched God or, for that matter, recognized or located God through any sort of artificial intelligence. Here his argument seemingly is circling back to something like a philosophical argument against the existence of God based upon the lack of concrete evidence, even though earlier Baddiel had dismissed such arguments as indecisive. He tries summing up his position at this point with a simple equation: desire + invisibility = God (20). What he means to say with this equation is, unlike other things that we may want (food, riches, sex), there is no evidence of God; we will him into existence, which, of course, we cannot do. There is no God.

If this seems inconsistent and a bit question-begging, it is. Contrary to his stated intention, Baddiel is not really making an argument. Instead, this book is best read as an autobiography, a confessional. It begins with his obsession with death and his admission that he loves God or, more accurately, that he loves the idea of God (6). The writing style is informal, conversational, like a stand-up comedian making observations—about himself and others. Baddiel is at pains to explain himself: why he is an atheist, what kind of atheist he is, and how this relates to other parts of his life, including the people he knows or has read. So, for instance, he thinks there “is something a little macho in atheism” (7) to the extent that traditional atheists do not admit to a fear of death or all the other insecurities that religion serves to relieve. He, on the other hand, freely admits that he is flawed, shallow, scared, and often in need of comfort. That leads him to characterize his own atheism as masochistic, since God’s non-existence is depressing to him yet he refuses to invent some version of God that works for him. Elsewhere he characterizes himself as a “fundamentalist atheist,” that is, someone that knows that God does not exist (rather than someone who merely believes that God does not exist) (46).

Baddiel also notes that he is a fundamentalist atheist insofar as he has no need of wonder in his argument for atheism.  He argues that, because the God desire is so fundamental to our psyches, atheists try to replace him by portraying the cold, unfeeling universe as something magical, fascinating and wonderful.  Nature or the universe becomes their God.  Baddiel will have none of that, because “wonder, like God, is a projection” (51). In addition, he thinks he is unlike most atheists in that he has a lot of respect for religion; he is not dismissive of religion (and by religion he means the Abrahamic traditions; Baddiel does not display any knowledge of Asian religions). He argues that religion is a fundamental aspect of people’s identity, and that it is “impossible to understand humanity without religion” (47). His respect for religion is also due in part to the fact that he is Jewish and respects his Jewish heritage and its traditions.

Occasionally, Baddiel touches upon arguments for and against the existence of God, but he tends to brush them aside by bringing them back to his psychological explanation for belief in God, or else just dismisses them without much comment. For example, as already noted, he brushes aside pantheism as mere projection.  He characterizes the “There are no atheists in foxholes” sort of argument as “an argument for the existence and the power of fear, not of God” (14). Likewise, he explains away the “epiphany” that was the basis for the faith of the late writer and critic A. A. Gill as a “psychosomatic event” in which something deeply desired—comfort, meaning—came into being (23). At the same time, he rather quickly dismisses the problem of evil as an argument for atheism, noting that God does not have to be nice and because “God’s moral compass would of course be beyond human understanding” (68). Baddiel thereby overlooks the fact that his and the other Abrahamic traditions portray God as righteous, loving, and caring, and that many in those Abrahamic traditions have thought they could understand God’s moral compasss. Ultimately, Baddiel contends that logical arguments for and against the existence of God are pointless on both sides. For believers, arguments are merely for show, as they believe God is beyond logic and reason. Thus, atheists pointing out logical flaws in these arguments will not change believers' opinions, as they see God as beyond logic and reason.

However, if logical arguments for and against the existence of God are pointless, then this book would appear to be pointless, unless it is understood, as noted earlier, as the confessions of a Jewish fundamentalist atheist.  If you are looking for a substantive, or even entertaining, discussion of the reasons to be an atheist, you will not find it here.

Robert S. Gall is a professor of philosophy and religion at West Liberty University.

Robert S. Gall

Date Of Review:

February 29, 2024