Presented by Zia H Shah MD

Audio teaser:

Abstract

The contemporary intellectual landscape regarding the existence of the Divine is dominated not by disputes over cosmology or teleology, but by the problem of suffering—theodicy. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the atheistic fixation on pain, arguing that while this focus is rooted in a desire for moral rectitude, it often necessitates a cognitive blindness to the “Problem of Good” and the evolutionary utility of adversity. Through a rigorous examination of the psychobiographical work of Paul C. Vitz and the philosophical warnings of Friedrich Nietzsche, we explore the deep psychological roots of this fixation, tracing it to “defective father” complexes and the dangers of ruminating upon the “abyss.” Furthermore, the report posits that the very despair generated by the atheistic worldview acts as a paradoxical “pointer”—a “Dark Night of the Soul”—that guides the individual toward a more profound, non-conceptual spiritual maturity.

---

Part I: The Primacy of Pain in the Modern Atheistic Worldview

1.1 The Shift from Intellectual Disbelief to Moral Indignation

Historically, arguments against theism often centered on the sufficiency of natural laws or the lack of empirical evidence for a creator. However, the “New Atheism” that emerged in the early 21st century, spearheaded by figures such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, marked a distinct shift in rhetorical strategy. The core of their argument is less about the improbability of God and more about the immorality of the concept of God, given the state of the world. This shift has placed the question of suffering at the absolute center of the atheistic epistemology.

The fixation is not merely an intellectual observation; it is an emotional and moral indictment. The New Atheist does not just argue that the universe is empty; they argue that if it were occupied, the occupant would be a monster. This focus on the negative aspects of existence—disease, predation, natural disasters, and human cruelty—creates a specific cognitive filter. Through this lens, the universe is defined by its capacity to inflict pain, while the capacity for joy, beauty, and order is relegated to the status of a happy accident or an illusion of the mammalian brain.

1.2 The Rhetoric of “Pitiless Indifference”

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the most vocal proponent of this worldview, provides the foundational text for this perspective. His assessment of the natural world is uncompromising in its bleakness. In River Out of Eden, Dawkins famously asserts:

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”.   

This quote is critical because it reveals the metaphysical commitment of the materialist: the denial of objective moral categories (“no evil, no good”) coupled with a subjective moral complaint (“pitiless indifference”). Dawkins argues that “blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection”. For Dawkins, the sheer volume of suffering—the “total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation”—is the ultimate defeater for the hypothesis of a benevolent creator. He paints a picture of a world where “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music”.   

This rhetorical move effectively shuts down the search for higher meaning. By declaring the universe “pitiless,” the atheist absolves themselves of the burden of finding purpose in pain. However, this creates a psychological paradox: if the universe is truly indifferent, why does the atheist feel such intense moral outrage? The outrage itself implies a standard of “pity” and “justice” that the material universe cannot supply.

1.3 The Moral Prosecution of God

Sam Harris takes this argument further, moving from biological indifference to theological prosecution. Harris explicitly uses the suffering of innocents as a weapon against the concept of faith. He argues that “religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral—that is, when pressing these concerns inflicts unnecessary and appalling suffering on innocent human beings”.   

Harris frequently invokes the image of children dying in natural disasters to drive his point home. He writes:

“The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion. Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion… Thoughts like, ‘this might be all part of God’s plan’… are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous”.   

For Harris, the acknowledgment of suffering is the only path to genuine compassion, while the attempt to find meaning in it is a “childish refusal” to face reality. This creates a binary where one must choose between honesty (admitting the universe is cruel) and faith (pretending it is not).   

Christopher Hitchens, known for his polemical style, focused on the authoritarian implications of a deity who permits suffering. He viewed the traditional religious explanation—that suffering is a test or a mystery—as a form of masochism. He argued that religion “poisons everything” precisely because it sanctifies suffering rather than seeking to eliminate it. Hitchens described the universe not as a created order but as a chaotic environment where humans are “mere mammals who excrete and yearn, and who suffer from insomnia and insecurity”.   

1.4 The Exclusion of the “Problem of Good”

A critical flaw in this worldview, as identified by critics and philosophers of religion, is the systematic suppression of the “Problem of Good.” If the existence of evil is a problem for the theist, the existence of good is an equally potent problem for the atheist.

The “Argument from Beauty” suggests that the universe contains an abundance of aesthetic value that is arguably superfluous to mere survival. The “naturalistic fallacy” limits the materialist to describing what is, forbidding them from deriving what ought to be. Yet, the world is saturated with experiences of beauty, awe, and moral goodness that atheists often struggle to explain without resorting to reductionism.   

As noted in the research, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him” to explain the moral order, but equally, if the universe were truly random, the emergence of “gratuitous beauty”—sunsets, music, the elegance of mathematics—is an anomaly. The atheist focuses on the “problem of pain” (Why do bad things happen?) but ignores the “problem of pleasure” (Why do we derive joy from things that do not aid survival, like a symphony or a landscape?).   

The “fine-tuning” argument further complicates the atheistic narrative of indifference. The physical constants of the universe are balanced on a razor’s edge to permit life. The atheist dismisses this as chance or the result of a multiverse, yet they accept the “bad design” of suffering as conclusive proof against God. This represents an epistemological asymmetry: evidence of order is dismissed as coincidence, while evidence of disorder is accepted as fundamental truth.   

---

Part II: The Abyss Gazes Back — Psychological Consequences of the Obsession

The relentless focus on suffering, devoid of a redemptive framework, is not without psychological cost. Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th-century prophet of nihilism, foresaw the dangers of stripping the world of its divine mythos. The article “Interpreting Nietzsche’s Quote: And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you” provides a critical hermeneutic for understanding the modern atheist’s psyche.   

2.1 The Mechanism of Internalization

Nietzsche’s warning—”He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you” (Beyond Good and Evil, §146)—describes a process of psychological isomorphism. The “abyss” represents the void of meaning, the chaos of unredeemed suffering, and the reality of evil.   

When the atheist fixates on the “monsters” of religion or the “monstrosity” of the natural world, they risk internalizing the very darkness they oppose. The research indicates that this obsession leads to a “destructive transformation where the individual internalizes the very darkness they study”. This manifests in several ways:   

1. Adopting the Traits of the Enemy: In fighting the perceived dogmatism of religion, the New Atheists often became rigid, dogmatic, and intolerant. The crusade against “religious hatred” often spawned a “viral hatred” of the religious.   
2. Psychological Shaping: Nietzsche warned that the void starts to “shape and transform” the gazer. If one’s primary intellectual activity is cataloging the horrors of the world to prove God does not exist, one’s mind becomes a repository of horror. The “gloom stares back,” reinforcing a cynical and depressive reality.   

2.2 Rumination and the Distortion of Reality

Modern psychology corroborates Nietzsche’s insight through the concept of rumination. The constant focus on negative stimuli—obsessing over the “pitiless indifference” of the universe—creates a feedback loop. Research on rumination shows that “continually focusing on negative thoughts… can distort one’s mindset and lead to mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression”.   

The atheist who refuses to look at the “good” (the Problem of Good) and stares only at the “evil” (the Problem of Pain) creates a distorted map of reality. They see the cancer cell but not the immune system; they see the earthquake but not the outpouring of charity that follows. This selective attention acts as a cognitive blinder, trapping the individual in a self-constructed prison of despair.

2.3 Vicarious Trauma and Empathy Numbing

The report highlights “Vicarious Trauma” as a consequence of gazing into the abyss. Just as trauma therapists or soldiers can become desensitized by constant exposure to suffering, the atheist who intellectualizes the world’s pain risks “empathy numbing”.   

Hitchens and Dawkins often employed a rhetorical strategy that involved listing atrocities. While intended to shock the listener into rationality, this repeated exposure to the concept of suffering—divorced from any hope of justice or redemption—can lead to a “deadening of the spirit”. The individual becomes cynical, viewing humanity not as a species made in the image of the divine, but as a “virus” or a biological accident, essentially devaluing the very beings they claim to pity.   

2.4 Nihilism as the Inevitable Consequence

Ultimately, the gaze into the abyss leads to nihilism. Nietzsche observed in On the Genealogy of Morals that “Man would rather will nothingness than not will at all”. The New Atheist, having killed the “Father” (God), finds themselves in a universe that has no script.   

The research suggests that if people cannot find positive meaning (which requires a transcendent referent), they may “choose to identify with the abyss… simply to have a purpose”. This explains the aggressive, almost evangelistic fervor of some anti-theists; the destruction of faith becomes a surrogate purpose, a “negative meaning” that fills the void left by the absence of the divine.   

---

Part III: The Psychology of Unbelief — A Psychobiographical Investigation

If Nietzsche provides the philosophical warning, psychology professor Paul C. Vitz provides the clinical mechanism. The article “The Psychology of Unbelief: A Psychobiographical Investigation into the Works of Paul C. Vitz” challenges the intellectual purity of atheism, suggesting that it is deeply rooted in personal history, specifically the relationship with the father.   

3.1 The “Defective Father” Hypothesis

For decades, Freud’s theory that God is a “projection” of the infantile need for a father figure dominated secular thought. Vitz inverses this, proposing the “Defective Father Hypothesis”. He argues that “having a defective or absent father makes it much harder to believe in God, particularly in a personal God the Father”.   

The hypothesis posits a psychological syllogism:

1. A child’s understanding of “God” is conceptually linked to their experience of their earthly father.
2. If the earthly father is absent, abusive, weak, or dead, the concept of “Father” becomes associated with pain, betrayal, or absence.
3. Therefore, the adult rejects the “Heavenly Father” not primarily due to intellectual evidence, but due to an emotional inability to trust a paternal figure.

Vitz asserts that “an atheist’s disappointment in and resentment of his own father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God”. The atheist’s obsession with suffering is often a projection of their own childhood suffering—the specific suffering of abandonment or lack of protection.   

3.2 Psychobiographical Evidence: The Pattern of Fatherlessness

Vitz’s research  uncovers a startling pattern among the most prominent atheists of the modern era. The “Roll Call of the Fatherless” is statistically significant and deeply revealing:   

3.2.1 Friedrich Nietzsche: The Orphan of the Manse

Nietzsche is the archetype of the fatherless atheist. His father, a Lutheran pastor, died of a “softening of the brain” (likely a tumor or stroke) when Nietzsche was only four years old. Nietzsche witnessed the agonizing decline of the man who represented both familial and divine authority.   

• The Connection: Nietzsche’s philosophy is obsessed with the “Death of God.” Vitz argues this is a cosmic projection of the death of his own father. The “abyss” Nietzsche feared was the void left in the parsonage. His rejection of “pity” and his embrace of the “Superman” can be read as a defense mechanism against the vulnerability of the orphan.   

3.2.2 Jean-Paul Sartre: The Man Without a Superego

Sartre’s father died when Jean-Paul was fifteen months old. Sartre famously wrote about this, claiming that because he had no father to give him orders, he had no “superego” and was “condemned to be free”.   

• The Connection: Sartre’s existentialism—which posits that the universe is absurd and that existence precedes essence—mirrors the experience of a child who has no antecedent authority. His obsession with “nausea” and the burden of freedom reflects the anxiety of a child with no protector.

3.2.3 Bertrand Russell: The Lonely Logician

Russell’s father died when he was four years old. He was raised by a strict, emotionally distant grandmother.   

• The Connection: Russell’s famous quote, “Three passions… have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind” , takes on new meaning. The “unbearable pity” is likely the pity he felt for himself as a lonely child, projected onto the cosmos. His intellectual rigidity was a shield against the chaos of emotional loss.   

3.2.4 Albert Camus: The Silent Universe

Camus’ father died in the Battle of the Marne when Camus was one year old.   

• The Connection: Camus’ philosophy of the “Absurd”—the confrontation between man’s longing for clarity and the “unreasonable silence of the world” —is the philosophy of a son asking a question to a father who is not there to answer.   

3.2.5 The New Atheists

Vitz extends this analysis to contemporary figures. Christopher Hitchens had a difficult relationship with his father, whom he viewed as “pushed aside” and weak. Hitchens’ rage against “celestial dictators” and “virtual fathers”  is a clear rejection of authority figures he deemed unworthy of respect. Voltaire, though his father lived, had a hostile relationship with him, rejecting his name to create his own identity.   

3.3 The Control Group: Theists and Fatherhood

To validate the hypothesis, Vitz examined prominent theists and found a contrasting pattern. Figures like Blaise Pascal, G.K. Chesterton, Karl Barth, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer all had strong, loving, or respected relationships with their fathers. This suggests that the presence of a “good father” acts as a psychological bridge to the concept of a “good God.”   

3.4 Implications for the Obsession with Suffering

The “Defective Father Hypothesis” provides a crucial key to understanding the atheist’s fixation on suffering. If God is a Father, and the atheist’s experience of fatherhood is one of abandonment (death) or cruelty (abuse), then the existence of suffering in the world serves as confirmation of their internal script. The “pitiless indifference” of the universe described by Dawkins is simply the “pitiless indifference” of the absent father written large across the stars. The atheist is not just arguing against a theological proposition; they are arguing against a ghost.

---

Part IV: The Biological Necessity — Suffering as a Tool for Evolution

While the atheist views suffering as a moral scandal, the evolutionary biologist—if consistent—must view it as a functional necessity. The very “blind physical forces” Dawkins cites have utilized suffering as the primary sculptor of life’s complexity. A world without suffering, from an evolutionary perspective, is a world of stagnation and extinction.

4.1 Nociception: The Guardian of Life

At its most fundamental level, pain (nociception) is information. It is the biological alarm system that ensures survival. The research indicates that “in evolutionary models… the presence of pain provides an important indication regarding the safety of the organism”.   

Without the capacity to feel pain, organisms do not survive. “Congenital analgesia” (the inability to feel pain) in humans leads to severe injury, infection, and early death. As noted in the research, “knowing that one’s home is on fire is without doubt more conducive to one’s survival… than not knowing it”. Therefore, the “suffering” the atheist decries is actually a benevolence of nature—a mechanism designed to preserve life. To wish for a world without pain is to wish for a world where life destroys itself through ignorance of danger.   

4.2 The Squid and the Savior: Sensitization as Survival

Recent studies on squid demonstrate the evolutionary utility of sensitization—the process where injury makes an organism more sensitive to pain (hyperalgesia). This mechanism, which feels like “cruelty” to the sufferer, provides a massive survival advantage. Nociceptive sensitization makes the animal hyper-vigilant, preventing further injury and predation while it heals.   

This biological reality refutes the atheistic claim of “bad design.” The mechanism of suffering is exquisitely designed to maximize the probability of survival. The “cruelty” is actually a form of biological protection.

4.3 The Evolution of Empathy: Suffering as the Birthplace of Love

Perhaps the most profound evolutionary insight is that suffering is the prerequisite for love. The research on Mirror Neurons and empathy highlights that “observing another person’s… pain… can trigger parts of the same neural networks responsible for… experiencing those feelings firsthand”.   

Empathy evolved because of suffering. It is a social signal that recruits assistance. “The expression of pain symptoms likely evolved partly to signal to others that one needs help,” thereby creating the biological foundation for community, altruism, and self-sacrifice.   

Here lies the great irony of the atheistic position:

• The atheist values compassion and moral goodness.
• The atheist condemns suffering.
• But evolutionary history shows that compassion and moral goodness are the direct evolutionary byproducts of suffering.

Without the vulnerability to pain, there is no evolutionary pressure to develop care, bonding, or love. A species that cannot suffer has no need for a Good Samaritan. Thus, the atheist’s obsession with suffering ignores the fact that the very virtues they champion (love, pity, justice) are forged in the crucible of the very thing they condemn.

4.4 Post-Traumatic Growth: The Engine of Complexity

Psychological research into Post-Traumatic Growth (PTG) confirms that suffering is a catalyst for cognitive and emotional development. “The struggle to cope with a traumatic event could lead to… positive personal changes” including “appreciation of life,” “personal strength,” and “spiritual change”.   

Evolutionary psychologists argue that painful mental states (anxiety, depression) evolved to focus the mind on complex problems. Just as physical resistance builds muscle, psychological resistance builds character. This aligns with the “Soul-Making Theodicy” of John Hick, which posits that a world without suffering would be a “hedonistic paradise” incapable of producing genuine virtue. The atheist’s desire for a pain-free world is a desire for a world of developmental arrest.   

---

Part V: The Spiritual Pointer — Suffering as the Guide to the Real

The final and most paradoxical movement of this report is the realization that the atheistic obsession with suffering, when followed to its end, becomes a spiritual path in itself. The “Abyss” and the “Father Wound” are not just psychological pitfalls; they are potential portals to spiritual awakening.

5.1 The Wound Where the Light Enters

The 13th-century Sufi mystic Rumi encapsulated this truth with the aphorism: “The wound is the place where the Light enters you”. This statement completely inverts the atheistic view. For the mystic, suffering is not a barrier to the Divine; it is the means of access.   

The atheist’s obsession with the “senselessness” of suffering  is an unconscious engagement with the breaking of the ego. The ego demands control, explanation, and comfort. Suffering denies all three. When the atheist screams at the universe for being “pitiless,” they are experiencing the dissolution of the ego’s projection of how the world should be.   

5.2 The Dark Night of the Soul

The existential despair described by atheists—the “abyss” of Nietzsche—strongly parallels the Dark Night of the Soul described by St. John of the Cross. This is a stage of spiritual development where all conceptual frameworks of God are stripped away.   

• The Atheist’s Purgation: The atheist rigorously strips away false idols—superstition, tribal deities, the “virtual father”. They reject the “God of comfort.” This is a necessary spiritual act. As Meister Eckhart prayed, “God, rid me of God.” The atheist is performing this negation.   
• The Experience of Absence: The feeling of “pitiless indifference”  is the experience of the Via Negativa—the path of negation. It is the realization that the Ultimate Reality is not a benevolent human-like figure in the sky.   
• The Turning Point: The danger, as Nietzsche warned, is getting stuck in the abyss—nihilism. But if one pushes through the nihilism, as Eckhart Tolle suggests, the suffering becomes the fire that burns away the false self.   

5.3 Awakening by Fire

The concept of “Awakening by Fire” suggests that trauma and suffering are the primary mechanisms that “break the attachment to the Lower Self”. The atheist, in their intense focus on suffering, is often closer to this breaking point than the comfortable religious believer who uses faith as a shield against reality.   

The research highlights former atheists who found that their despair was a “precursor of awakening”. The realization that the materialist worldview leads to a dead end (nihilism) forces the consciousness to seek a deeper, non-conceptual ground of being. The “emptiness” becomes the “Emptiness” of Buddhism (Sunyata)—a void that is pregnant with potential.   

5.4 From “Why me?” to “Who am I?”

The atheist asks, “Why is there suffering?” expecting a logical answer. When the universe gives silence (Camus’ “unreasonable silence” ), the mind is forced inward. The question shifts from a theological query (“Is God good?”) to an existential one (“Who is the one suffering?”). This shift is the essence of the spiritual journey.   

The “pain as a messenger” concept in spiritual practice  suggests that the atheist’s outrage is a form of energy. If that energy is turned from outward blame (blaming religion, blaming the universe) to inward inquiry, it becomes the fuel for enlightenment.   

---

Conclusion: The Integrated View

The atheistic obsession with suffering is a multi-layered phenomenon. Psychologically, it is often a manifestation of the “Defective Father” wound (Vitz), a projection of personal abandonment onto the cosmos. Philosophically, it is a dangerous gaze into the “Abyss” (Nietzsche) that risks spiraling into nihilism and moral bankruptcy.

However, biologically and spiritually, this obsession holds the seeds of its own transcendence. Evolutionary science reveals that the suffering the atheist condemns is the architect of the consciousness and empathy they prize. Spiritual tradition reveals that the despair the atheist feels is the “Dark Night” that precedes the dawn of true understanding.

The atheist is not wrong to focus on suffering; they are only wrong to stop there. They stand at the threshold of the abyss, pointing into the dark, unaware that the darkness is the “Cloud of Unknowing” where the Divine is most profoundly found. The path forward is not to retreat into the “fairytales” of comfortable religion, but to dive fully into the abyss, past the monsters, until they find that the “pitiless indifference” is actually the “peace that passes understanding.”

---

Comparative Data Tables

Table 1: The “Defective Father” Pattern (Based on Vitz

)

Atheist Figure	Paternal History	Psychological Outcome
Friedrich Nietzsche	Father died when child was 4.	Obsession with “Death of God”; theory of the Übermensch to replace absent authority.
Jean-Paul Sartre	Father died when child was 1.	Rejection of “Superego”; philosophy of radical, unguided freedom.
Bertrand Russell	Father died when child was 4.	“Unbearable pity” for the world; emotional isolation; reliance on logic over relationship.
Albert Camus	Father died when child was 1.	Philosophy of the “Absurd”; focus on the silence of the universe.
David Hume	Father died when child was 2.	Skepticism regarding causality and divine order.
Christopher Hitchens	“Weak” father; distant relationship.	Rejection of “Celestial Dictator”; hatred of totalitarian authority figures.

Table 2: The Nietzschean Warning vs. Modern Psychology (Based on

)

Nietzsche’s Insight	Modern Psychological Correlate	Manifestation in New Atheism
“The Abyss gazes into you”	Internalization / Rumination	Becoming obsessed with the details of evil; depressive realism.
“Become a monster”	Identification with the Aggressor	Adopting dogmatism, intolerance, and aggression to fight religion.
“Deaden the spirit”	Vicarious Trauma / Compassion Fatigue	Cynicism; viewing humanity as a “virus” or purely biological machines.
“Will nothingness”	Nihilism	The conclusion that life is “absurd” or meaningless.

Table 3: Suffering in Three Worldviews

Dimension	Atheistic Materialism	Evolutionary Biology	Mystical Spirituality
Nature of Pain	“Pitiless indifference”; bad luck; tragedy.	Information; survival signal; “honest signal” for help.	The “Wound”; a messenger; the breaking of the shell.
Role of Suffering	Evidence against God; unnecessary cruelty.	Driver of complexity; selector of fitness; origin of empathy.	Tool for ego-death; purification (Purgation); path to Awakening.
Outcome	Despair; Nihilism; attempts to eradicate all pain.	Survival; Adaptation; Post-Traumatic Growth.	Enlightenment; Union; “The Light enters.”

---

Key Takeaways for the Reader

• The Psychological Context: Skepticism is often driven by personal history. The “Death of God” in a philosophy often mirrors the “Death of the Father” in a biography.
• The Evolutionary Paradox: To wish for a world without suffering is to wish for a world without evolution, intelligence, or love.
• The Spiritual Inversion: The very things that drive people away from exoteric religion (pain, silence, lack of intervention) are the starting points for esoteric spirituality.
• The Danger of Obsession: Focusing solely on the “problem of evil” without acknowledging the “problem of good” (beauty, fine-tuning) leads to a distorted and psychologically damaging view of reality (The Abyss).

This report concludes that the atheist’s journey is a valid and necessary phase of human development—a stripping away of illusions—but it remains incomplete if it halts at the station of despair. The pointer of suffering is directing them not to the void, but through it.

If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file: