On Tuesday, we considered whether or not it is possible to be an existentialist and still believe in God. Before we did, though, we tried to nail down some of the trademarks of existentialism, beginning with the ways in which Samuel Beckett’s play, An Act Without Words, illustrates the absurd. By creating a character who, despite continued reflection, gets no closer to the carafe of water he is reaching for, we come to realize he is engaged in a completely futile activity. Likewise, the existentialist argues that as life unfolds, we often come to realize much of it is a rather pointless activity despite all of our efforts to make it otherwise. Thus, the fact that we keep trying is fairly absurd. Beckett illustrates the pain associated with realizing the absurdity of life quite beautifully at the end of the play when the defeated character puts his face in his hands as the curtain falls.
However, we also discussed how in realizing this absurdity, the existentialist argues we also recognize our freedom and the possibilities that come with it. Though the existentialist suggests there is nothing inherently meaningful about life, the freedom life’s absurdity gives us makes it possible to inject our own tailor-made meaning into it. Camus demonstrates this in his discussion of Sisyphus. Though Sisyphus has been eternally condemned to push a bolder up a hill, Camus argues that in continuing to do it, Sisyphus does what only human beings are capable of - he makes meaning out of meaninglessness. By forcing meaning into the experience, “[Sisyphus’] fate belongs to him. The rock is his thing…The universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile…The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus is happy (198). In other words, although life is absurd and our action seems futile (as Beckett’s character suggests) we are free to create meaning in our lives, which makes it all worthwhile.
Upon discovering these existential nuggets, we were led to the question of whether or not it is possible for the existentialist to believe in God. Kierkegaard, our resident Christian existentialist, argues faith in God is in fact the very thing that brings the absurd to light. For instance, in the case of the binding of Isaac, Abraham had to suspend all of his rational beliefs about the nature of right and wrong in order to obey God. “As the individual, he became higher that the universal: this is the paradox which does not admit of mediation” (17). Thus, by exercising his faith, Abraham engaged in a sort of absurd, but beautifully human activity. Like the other existentialists, Kierkegaard argues that coming face to face with this absurdity creates a sort of anxiety. However, unlike the others, he suggests that only faith can soothe it.
The problem with this, and the question we raised in class, is that it seems we lose something fundamentally existential when God enters the picture. If there is a God, it means there is something that can make sense of the world, thereby negating the absurd and taking away our freedom to make life meaningful on our own. Insofar as this kind of freedom forms the backbone of existentialism, it seems the true existentialist cannot put it by the wayside. Thus, although the religious existentialist can develop ideas of the absurd and anxiety in relation to God (the way Kierkegaard does), I wonder if it is possible to fully recognize the sort of freedom necessary to be an existentialist while also being a theist. Though my intuitions say no, I would really like to hear everyone’s thoughts, as the issue seems pretty important to establishing what the existentialist is really committed to.
Upon discovering these existential nuggets, we were led to the question of whether or not it is possible for the existentialist to believe in God. Kierkegaard, our resident Christian existentialist, argues faith in God is in fact the very thing that brings the absurd to light. For instance, in the case of the binding of Isaac, Abraham had to suspend all of his rational beliefs about the nature of right and wrong in order to obey God. “As the individual, he became higher that the universal: this is the paradox which does not admit of mediation” (17). Thus, by exercising his faith, Abraham engaged in a sort of absurd, but beautifully human activity. Like the other existentialists, Kierkegaard argues that coming face to face with this absurdity creates a sort of anxiety. However, unlike the others, he suggests that only faith can soothe it.
The problem with this, and the question we raised in class, is that it seems we lose something fundamentally existential when God enters the picture. If there is a God, it means there is something that can make sense of the world, thereby negating the absurd and taking away our freedom to make life meaningful on our own. Insofar as this kind of freedom forms the backbone of existentialism, it seems the true existentialist cannot put it by the wayside. Thus, although the religious existentialist can develop ideas of the absurd and anxiety in relation to God (the way Kierkegaard does), I wonder if it is possible to fully recognize the sort of freedom necessary to be an existentialist while also being a theist. Though my intuitions say no, I would really like to hear everyone’s thoughts, as the issue seems pretty important to establishing what the existentialist is really committed to.
16 comments:
Good post. The issue of where religion fits into existentialist thought (or whether it does at all) is something that has given me a lot of trouble throughout the semester. It seems that a lot of existentialist thinkers have come to see religion as somewhat of a "cop-out" for humans. In other words, religion is our way of explaining the un-explainable or the absurd. It eases our anxiety about why we exist and allows us to justify our ways of life, which can differ depending on which culture/religious background we grew up in. In very simple terms: religion is comforting because it gives us a set of beliefs to live by and to live for.
Is religion justified though? Is it really an itelligent decision to believe in someting which we cannot prove, and in doing so are we negating our freedom as humans?
My answer to these questions has changed numerous times throughout my life in high school and college. I have gone from being ultra Catholic to ultra aetheist and everywhere in-between. One idea which I have thought a lot about over the past couple weeks is something I like to call the "why not" view. Its hard for me to completely dismiss religion as an option when it seems to mean so much to so many people around the world. Can something which makes so many people so happy really be an incorrect answer? Existentialism, at its' roots, relly attempts to address a very simple yet very complicated question: why are we really alive and why are our improbable and temporary lives so meaningful to us? Most existentialist writers agree that this really is the unanswerable question. Is it really incorrect to believe in something that seems to give us the answer we are looking for? I sometimes feel like existentialism puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of not believing in a god in order to fully exercise ur freedom. It certainly seems that there are more non-religious existentialist thinkers than there are religious existentialists.However, I often think that religion is no less of an answer thn aetheism. Despite all of the thinking that has been done on the matter, the basic questions of existentialism have not been answered. So why not? Why shouldn't we believe and have faith in something? If it makes life meaningful and gives us something to strive for, why should we neglect it? Maybe we should accept that religion is simply another way to explore the basic questions of exisstentialism. Maybe we should allow people to believe in whatever they feel is true and realize that this is the best we can do.
However, this is just a thought.
I think you're right. If religion is simply another way to inject meaning into what, from the outside, looks to be a fairly meaningless existence, why not just accept it as another way to answer existential questions? I am curious to hear what you have to say about about the issue of freedom, though. Do you think it's possible to be free in an existential sense while also partaking in religion? In other words, I wonder if by swearing allegiance to a higher power, you then sacrifice your ability to freely explore existential questions. This is the part I really get hung up on when trying to fit religion into existentialism (or existentialism into religion, for that matter), and I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.
Jen and Michael...really interesting thoughts...
I am wondering about your idea about "swearing allegiance" with regards to a religion, and I suppose this ties into "freedom" as well---I guess I don't see religion as swearing allegiance to anything; it seems to me that we are so radically free to deny God's existence that it is frightening (even absurd?) I see how religion could be problematic with regards to existentialist thought if it means denying the self in order to put ultimate responsibility onto God; however, for me religion is not about swearing allegiance but about the self accepting responsibility to care for the human race. I don't mean to argue on the side of religion, I just wanted to pose the idea that religious existentialism is perhaps less of a "cop-out" of responsibility and more of an accepting of responsibility--a passageway for the self to accept and subsequently begin creating future responsibility and thus pave the way for an ethic? Does it matter for the existentialist that the responsibility is initiated with the divine and not the self?
--Michael, I also want to comment specifically on your "why not" commentary, and say that I think it is beneficial for these kinds of conversations; why not religion? why not atheism? And it seems to me, that because we are able to ask the why not, the self, (whether theist or atheist...) still has the freedom to create within herself meaning in her world. It does not seem satisfying to say that in order to fully exercise your freedom one cannot believe in a higher power or creator, but I wonder how the ideas of freedom and imagination are related with regards to a God--and whether when exercising your full freedom you are also exercising your full imaginative power--would that include a higher being? Maybe not for Nietzsche but for Unamuno it would I think--and perhaps this is my point, that because human beings are always free to ask the question, I don't think that we ever sacrifice our ability to explore existential questions...
hmmm...thoughts?
I think that it's important to draw a distinction between organized religion and the idea of religion itself. Kierkegaard rejects this organized sort in favor of personal connection with a deity.
The doctrinal focus of organized religion is what repels so many people, including existentialists. So, in the sense that religion an organized set of moral codes and dogmatic principles, it is completely incompatible with existentialism. Following these codes in pursuit of a good afterlife is exactly what Nietzsche has in mind when he talks about life-denying mindsets.
The other sense, though, is where it gets tricky, and that's what we're really struggling with. If people can skip the ethical sphere and move directly to the religious sphere, which is an intensely personal relationship with god, then it seems that we can retain the core individuality and freedom inherent in human being.
The problem is that turning to a higher being to give life meaning entails that something external to ourselves gives meaning. But maybe it's not so simple as allowing an external being to assign meaning: by submitting to a belief in god, we give god itself meaning. I think this helps the argument for religion to some extent, though it does lead me to wonder why god would be necessary if we give it meaning ourselves.
I definitely agree with Mark in that I have always felt that there is a HUGE distinction between organized religion and personal religion that has often been neglected. When we talk of God, what exactly are we talking about when we consider hundreds of religions and ideas of God? Organized religion is pre-established beliefs and morality which many are born into and never have any control over their own practices and beliefs, despite the fact that they believe in this higher power or not. As a result, I have always disregarded organized religion as a means of mobilizing the masses, either into action or complacency. With this sort of organized religion in perspective, I certainly believe that a religious existentialist can not exist as meaning is top-down.
However, I do believe that some sort of higher being should exist in order to fulfill a personal spirituality, which is why I have always opted for a personal religion. No, I have not written my own set of commandments, but I do have confidence in my own decision making and judgment of what is right and wrong that dictates how I interact with people. I exist in the manner that I do because I believe in *thoughtful* relativism and gaining perspective through trying new things. This concept is embodied in my own personal religion because I think this way of living contributes to a greater good that I believe in. And yea, this may not be yours which is why I don’t press it on you. Okay, you want to listen to your music, that’s fine, just thought I’d offer my own if you wanted to try something new. So not to talk about my own personal religion too much, but I think that it’s the only way that one can truly become a religious existentialist, that is defining your own values and applying them for a greater good (which you also define).
**This is an existentialism class and so I thought it would be appropriate to discuss individual beliefs, so feel free to criticize as I’m putting myself out there.
I’m a little bummed that I missed this discussion in class, but over all I think Mark and Leslie got to the point of things. I’ve been wondering all semester how religion or a god really fits into existentialism and I haven’t really figured it out quite yet. To me, it seems that the typical idea of God and organized religion stands completely apart from existentialism.
Mark’s point that we give god meaning in the first place seems very convincing to me. But I still feel its only on the personal level that we can believe in a god and still be considered existentialists, and even then, only in some cases. Are there any inherent characteristics that come with God, even if you believe on a personal level? Leslie, I’d be interested to know how you fit god into your personal religion.
I was not brought up going to church every Sunday or even to have a strong faith. It was never a priority in my family to read the Bible or say prayers before going to bed. Whenever I wanted to go to a Wednesday night youth group with a friend, that was never an issue either though. I love that I was not raised in religion because I get the chance to chose for myself what I really believe in and I know why I believe.
To me, existentialism just makes sense. I don’t know what’s going to happen to me after I die, and I don’t need to believe in heaven as motivation to lead a good life here and now. And I’m still not completely convinced that god has a place in existentialism…
I really like this post and all the comments are really great and I too am disappointed that I missed this class. After reading the post and the comments I still believe that there really is no room for God in existentialism. God does, as has been said above, provide a sort of "cop out". Instead of making meaning for yourself in your life you might rely on "God's plan" to steer you in the right direction. This could hinder your freedom because its not for yourself, its for God and the goal to get into heaven. I like what Brittany said that heaven does not need to be the motivation to live a meaningful life. There should be an incentive to live a meaningful life regardless of what happens when you die.
I hope this does not at all sound critical, I certainly do not mean it to be--I am just playing devil's advocate with this argument a little bit---I think you all have really thoughtful things to say here.
With regards to the role of God in existentialism, I am not entirely convinced that there is not a place for this role. It does however seem to be perhaps more of a theological issue than a philosophical for me though, in the sense that I read an article yesterday about the role of Jesus within anxiety, and the article's argument claimed that because Jesus was fully human and experienced the full anxiety that we face, it provides a different sort of lens through which to view Existentialism; it separates anxiety into two categories, one being secular anxiety and the other religious anxiety. It seems clear to me that Kierkegaard's philosophy is existential by nature apart from the fact that there is a universal sphere, but that sphere allows for the teleological suspension of the ethical--which appears most relevant to the existentialist. It provides choice, responsibility, ultimate freedom, the "laying bare of finite ends", and anxiety. These are all deeply existentialist concepts that even Sartre deals with on some level; he simply removes the god-man dialectic from the picture. I wonder if there are simply two kinds of Existentialism, and we are trying to mesh them inappropriately.
I hate to do this, but I want to toss some Hegelian dialectic in here. It seems to me that your fundamental conflict (God vs. Existentialism) isn't really a conflict at all, as Kierkegaard shows us. I feel that part of existentialism does not require complete and universal freedom in all aspects. Creation by a God (or even the existence of one) does not, in and of itself, diminish one's existentialist potential. Existentialism, it would seem, is merely a focus on starting from the bare fact that we exist before we have any meaning that can be attributed to aforementioned existence. So it would seem that the conflict here can easily be resolved through a synthesis of what one considers God and what one views as existentialist thought. In many ways, religion is an existentialist concept, insofar as it attempts to give our existence meaning.
Yeah, but does religion or belief in God give you something other than yourself to look towards in order to find meaning? And if so, is it still possible to be fully responsible for the decisions you make (which I take to be one of the fundamental tenants of existentialism)? I guess my concern is not so much with whether or not religion can give us meaning, but rather, with whether it can give us the right kind of meaning.
I guess that is entirely subjective-what is the right meaning for you may in fact be a totally different meaning for me. It seems that the question of the human should not whether it is the right kind of meaning, but if they are making meaning or not? I think I would rather live in a world full of meaning-making individuals, I think specifically if everyone created meaning in a different way, than to live in a world where no one any made meaning at all, because we were too worried about finding the right kind of meaning. Are you fulfilled by your life? Is the meaning you are creating enough to negate some of the absurdities in life, and encourage you to continue in existence? This seems to be more in line with Camus' revolt; we are to revolt, we are to make meaning; but the manner in which you choose to do so is your choice--the point is that you are free to make that choice, so choose to make meaning.
I've really enjoyed reading the blog and many posts that it's created. I'm so glad that we're talking about how God and Existentialism fit together, because I've been thinking about it since we read Kierkegaard.
I wanted to comment about the issue of whether or not religion is a cop-out for the questions that arise from existentialist thought (the biggest being, "where does one find meaning?" and "how does one create meaning?"). I don't think that religion PER SE is a cop-out to these existential questions. I agree with Lacey that existentialism is centered around finding meaning, but not necessarily finding the "right" meaning, because this will be different for person.
My opinion is that many times religion is used as a means (or crutch) to explain away difficult questions of individual meaning without actually dealing with the issue. For some people, the reliance on a cultural significance of Christianity "allows" these individuals to avoid questioning their essence with seemingly cop-out concepts such as "faith" and "God's Will"and "assurance in eternal salvation".
Nevertheless, just because some people choose to hide behind the front of religion to keep from answering their own existential questions does NOT mean that God and religion necessarily have to be severed from existential thought. Sure these things can be used as cop-outs, but so can so many other things. One can depend on things such as race, gender, economic status, beauty, etc. as a crutch do define their essence. One might argue that these things are not the same as religion because the answers religion assumes to answer bigger questions (like what happens after death). However, defining oneself and determining ones actions according to these external conceptions do exactly what religion is proposed to do, which is to define oneself and one's essence in such things and act as a distraction for not answering the question of how one truly creates meaning in life.
I hope this makes sense...at least, it made sense in my head :)
Reading over my comment, I just noticed that I used a "two wrongs make a right" pseudo-argument when I said that religion does not have to be considered a cop-out because there are other things that can be considered cop-outs as well. Oops!! I just meant to point out that other things can be used to dodge answering existential questions, not just religion.
I think that religion can go hand in hand with religion as long as one infuses meaning into it, and not the other way around. As Jen brought up earlier, there must be personal freedom in one's use of religion to create meaning. I think that this is critical to one's understanding and use of religion. As it so happens, I am writing a paper in another class that basically argues that if one uses metaphors for God that are not flexible and imaginative, one is being idolitrous to the conception of God. It's kind of a side note, but i think it's worth mentioning that there are many people, claming to be religious, that say that religion is based upon imagination and freedom, not standardized rules and sayings.
Kierkegaard’s perceptions of Christianity are too idealistic in my opinion. While the teleological suspension of the ethical to rise above the universal sphere describes the ideal Christian, how often does this actually occur and this concept praised among Christianity at large? I think not. I think the difference still continues to be on an individual scale as Kierkegaard’s knight of faith holds value only in himself without any universality – again the difference between a personal religion and a mass religion. Kierkegaard’s description of God is an individual one.
In response to Lacey's december 1 post:
I think you may be totally right Lacey. I would say that the fact that we, as humans, are totally free means that to an extent we are always existentialist thinkers to an extent. Because we are people who think and cannot help this reaction to ceratin things, we will always question what we cannot know or prove. Those who don't believe in God are sure to have times when they think that God may exist just as those who do believe may have times when they don't. Our freedom to think and choose means that we are always existentialists to an extent.
Post a Comment