“
The statement that the essence of the human being consists in being-inthe-world likewise contains no decision aboutwhether the human being in a
theologico-metaphysical sense is merely a this-worldly or an other-worldly
Creature.
115th the existential determination of the essence of the human being,
therefore, nothing is decided about the "existence of God" or his "nonbeing," no more than about the possibility or impossibility of gods. Thus
it is not only rash hut also an error in procedure to maintain that the interpretation of the essence of the human being from the relation of his
essence to the mth of being is atheism. And what is more, this arbitrary
classification betrays a lack of careful reading. No one bothers to notice
that in my essay "On the Essence of Ground" (1929) the following appears
(,,, 2~, note I): "Through the ontological interpretation of Dasein as beingin-the-world no decision, whether positive or neptive, is made concerning
a possible being toward God. It is, however, the case that through an illumi-
.,tion of transcendence we first achieve nn adeqrcnte concept of Dnsein, with
respect to which it can now he asked how the relationship of Dasein to God
is ontologically ordered." If we think about this remark too quickly, as is
usually the case, we will declare that such a philosophy does not decide either for or against the existence of God. It remains stalled in indifference.
~hus it is unconcerned with the religious question. Such indifferentism
falls prey to nihilism.
Rut does the foregoing observation teach indifferentism? Why then
are particular words in the note italicized - and not just random ones? For
no other reason than to indicate that the thinking that thinks from the
question concerning the uuth of being questions more primordially than
metaphysics can. Only from the truthofbeing can the essence of the holy he
thought. [I~z] Only from the essence of the holy is the essence of divinity
to he thought. Only in the light of the essence of divinity can it be thought
or said what the word "God" is to signify. Or should we not first be able
to hear and understand all these words carefully if we are to be permirted
as human beings, that is, as eksistent creatures, to experience a relation of
God to human beings? How can the human being at the present stage of
world history ask at all seriously and rigorously whether the god nears or
withdraws, when he has above all neglected to think into the dimension
in which alone that question can be asked? But this is the dimension of
the holy, which indeed remains closed as a dimension if the open region of
being is not cleared and in its clearing is near to humans. Perhaps what is
distinctive about this world-epoch consists in the closure of the dimension
of the hale [des Heilen]. Perhaps that is the sole malignancy [Unheil].
But with this reference the thinking that points toward the truth of
I)eing as what is to be thought has in no way decided in favor of theism. It
can he theistic as little as atheistic. Not, however, because of an indifferent
attitude, hutoutofrespect forthe boundaries that have heen set forthinking
as such, indeed set by what gives itself to thinking as what is to be thought,
1)). the truth of being. Insofar as thinking limits itself to its task it tlirects
the human being at the present moment of the world's destiny into the
primordial dimension of his historical abode.
”
”