Is Existentialism compatible with Christianity?
These are simply some initial considerations, based on a discussion in David E. Cooper's book, "Existentialism: A Reconstruction"
How is existentialism seen as being in conflict with Christianity?
1. ‘the idea of God is contradictory’
Cooper argues (on behalf of Sartre and Nietzsche) that the theistic God represents a being ‘For-Itself’ and ‘In-Itself. To be a ‘For-Itself’ God must be a ‘lack,’ or a ‘nothingness’ dependant on a reality present to His consciousness. To be an ‘In-Itself’ God must not lack nor be dependant upon anything. Cooper raises the typical Scholastic question, ‘how could a God who is complete and perfect need or want to create a world?’
:: the religious existentialist who embraces the Christian God usually embraces the typical paradoxes therewith. For example, the incarnation is what Kierkegaard calls the ‘absolute paradox.’ However, this paradox is one which should inspire the ‘leap of faith’ which he writes can enable to ‘discover something that thought cannot think.’
2. ‘a Creator-God is incompatible with human freedom’
The theistic God furnished us with an ‘essence’ – a predetermined way of being – so that we are all preconceived by God (and hence have purpose). Cooper argues that this is incompatible with the Existentialist belief that ‘existence precedes essence,’ and that man is what he makes of himself. At this point, one could also note that the Existentialist does not believe in a universal human nature (see previous post).
:: my thoughts with respect to purpose: I am thinking about Psalm 139. I would argue that creation necessitates purpose, and that purpose implies importance. For example, if I create a hammer, it is with the purpose of hammering something. Without the need to hammer something, the hammer would cease to be important. The hammer is only important in that it fulfills a particular purpose. Now, in comparing human-existence to a hammer, I am certainly not trying to dehumanize humanity in addition to the measure it has already suffered; however, I see that in having a purpose, we have a ‘thing’ to which we must adhere, live up to, and a reason to be. I don’t know. I have a hard time believing that God would simply create humans with absolutely no purpose at all.
:: my thoughts with respect to universal human nature: From where do we get our view that there is a universal human nature? Is the Existential view really in conflict with the Christian belief that humans (Adam, and hence his descendents) were ‘created in the image of God,’ and that ‘all men have fallen short of the glory of God’? Do imago deo or 'fallenness' constitute a universal nature?
:: Discussion?
How is existentialism seen as being in conflict with Christianity?
1. ‘the idea of God is contradictory’
Cooper argues (on behalf of Sartre and Nietzsche) that the theistic God represents a being ‘For-Itself’ and ‘In-Itself. To be a ‘For-Itself’ God must be a ‘lack,’ or a ‘nothingness’ dependant on a reality present to His consciousness. To be an ‘In-Itself’ God must not lack nor be dependant upon anything. Cooper raises the typical Scholastic question, ‘how could a God who is complete and perfect need or want to create a world?’
:: the religious existentialist who embraces the Christian God usually embraces the typical paradoxes therewith. For example, the incarnation is what Kierkegaard calls the ‘absolute paradox.’ However, this paradox is one which should inspire the ‘leap of faith’ which he writes can enable to ‘discover something that thought cannot think.’
2. ‘a Creator-God is incompatible with human freedom’
The theistic God furnished us with an ‘essence’ – a predetermined way of being – so that we are all preconceived by God (and hence have purpose). Cooper argues that this is incompatible with the Existentialist belief that ‘existence precedes essence,’ and that man is what he makes of himself. At this point, one could also note that the Existentialist does not believe in a universal human nature (see previous post).
:: my thoughts with respect to purpose: I am thinking about Psalm 139. I would argue that creation necessitates purpose, and that purpose implies importance. For example, if I create a hammer, it is with the purpose of hammering something. Without the need to hammer something, the hammer would cease to be important. The hammer is only important in that it fulfills a particular purpose. Now, in comparing human-existence to a hammer, I am certainly not trying to dehumanize humanity in addition to the measure it has already suffered; however, I see that in having a purpose, we have a ‘thing’ to which we must adhere, live up to, and a reason to be. I don’t know. I have a hard time believing that God would simply create humans with absolutely no purpose at all.
:: my thoughts with respect to universal human nature: From where do we get our view that there is a universal human nature? Is the Existential view really in conflict with the Christian belief that humans (Adam, and hence his descendents) were ‘created in the image of God,’ and that ‘all men have fallen short of the glory of God’? Do imago deo or 'fallenness' constitute a universal nature?
:: Discussion?
posted by kris @ 1:13 a.m.
1 Comments:
At 10:32 a.m., February 12, 2005,
Anonymous said…
Well I've been delaying commenting here for a while because it's been a while since I've read anything on Existentialism, and I don't like posting incomplete ideas but here goes...
Is Existentialism compatible with Christianity? I don't know, but I'm not sure if it matters. Should the question be "Is X compatible with Y?" or should it be about what's true? Yes, that's a trite BS comment I'm making, but it fits with the whole post-modern outlook on life.
But I'm not sure I agree with one of your statements about the "Christian" perspective. "The theistic God furnished us with an ‘essence’ – a predetermined way of being". Really?
I like Psalm 139, and I dont' think it means that God pre-determined us. He created us and he knows us. It doesn't necessarily follow that he determined our way of being. Creation doesn't always imply determination.
People can't create non-deterministic creations. Nothing we create has a will of it's own. (Except children, but then we don't really "create" them). If God created us with true free will, then we are non-deterministic. God created us, but has not pre-determined our actions. He knows what we're going to do because he knows the future, but he didn't decide or determine them. So to put it in Existentialist terms, I don't think that God furnished as with a pre-determined state of being.
Also having a purpose mean you have a pre-determined state of being? I don't see why it should.
Response?
Post a Comment
<< Home