Why existentialists are atheists
Just Google the words ‘existentialism’ and ‘religion’ and you’ll notice there is quite some debate whether existentialism should be equated with atheism or not. To me, the answer is ‘yes.’ Existentialists are atheists by definition. And the reason is simple: Existentialism is in many ways the complete opposite of religion. Nevertheless, some people maintain there is such thing as ‘religious existentialism.’
One of the most famous existentialists, French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, said there are ‘atheist existentialists’ and ‘religious existentialists’. “What they have in common”, he stated, “is to believe that existence precedes essence.” Now Sartre uses a very limited definition of existentialism here, taking one of the existentialist maxims and conveniently leaving aside the other core ideas of existentialism (we will talk about those core ideas in a bit).
Sartre was not very consistent about his view on religion (neither was he about the term existentialism). He did claim though that “existentialism is a humanism”, and he has repeatedly expressed that he did not believe in the existence of a God (as in a divine being). And just like that other French existentialist philosopher, Albert Camus, Sartre rejected moral and ethical frameworks based on religion.
Compare that to Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who is often considered to be one of the first existentialists. He was one of the first philosophers who came up with some of the ideas that are central to existentialism. But there is a large ‘but.’ Kierkegaard assumed the existence of God (not surprising in the nineteenth century) and tried to unite that with ideas about freedom, authenticity, existential anxiety, etc., which we also encounter later in the thinking of the twentieth-century existentialists.
But that does not make Kierkegaard an existentialist. The Danish philosopher addresses existential questions, but does so within the framework of religion. What Kierkegaard advocates, in my opinion, is a ‘religious philosophy of existence’. Which is not the same as ‘existential philosophy.’ Therefore I would say Kierkegaard can be seen as a predecessor of the existentialist philosophers of the twentieth century.
For sure, religious people can have views about existence that show similarities to the ideas of existentialist philosophy, but that doesn’t make them existentialists. Because the fundamental ideas and maxims of the large monotheistic world religions are incompatible with the core ideas of existentialism. Like I said, in many ways they are complete opposites. Let’s take a closer look at this, reflecting on the four key elements, the core ideas, of existentialist philosophy: meaning, freedom, responsibility and authenticity.
Meaning
According to the monotheistic religions, life (in general, but also your life) has a predetermined meaning. You were put into this world (by God, apparently) for a specific purpose. As humans we follow the path God has set out for us. Existentialists, on the other hand, believe life has no inherent meaning. This is the first key element in existentialism. The world is contingent and so is your existence. According to existentialists, there is no ‘reason’ why we exist. There is no divine plan and life doesn’t have a God-given purpose or meaning. Existentialists argue that you have to create your own meaning. Life only has the meaning you choose to give it. It’s obvious that these two visions could not be more different.
The existence of God is itself an assertion that seperates existentialism from religion. The monotheistic religions state that the world and the universe were created by an almighty God. This God created man in his own image (God is apparently a man, although there is no evidence for this). Existentialists, on the other hand, are rationalists in the sense that they belief that idea that God created the universe, the world, life, and man, is contrary to the historic and scientific facts and should therefore be rejected.
The existence of a divine/supernatural being who is the source of meaning and purpose is irreconcilable with the fundamental ideas of existentialism. I guess it would be an existentialist thing to say that in the search for meaning, man created God after his own image, instead of the other way around. Existentialist thinking aligns with the consequence of the Nietzschean idea that ‘God is death’: without a God, humans have to figure out their meaning and purpose in life themselves. You don’t need a God to be a good person and to lead a meaningful life. Not an almighty God, but humans are ‘signifiers.’ Meaning is something that people assign, it is a uniquely human concept.
Freedom
The second key element in existentialism is the idea that people are fundamentally free. Existentialists believe people are self-determining beings: we become who we are by the choices we make. And existentialists believe that we are fundamentally free to make our own choices and by doing so shape our lives. Whereas this freedom is a cornerstone in existentialism, religion on the other hand comes with a set of rules to live by. The monotheistic world religions all prescribe how to live, what is ‘a good life’ and what is ‘sinful’. As a believer, you only have to follow those rules obediently. It is not for nothing that God is often presented as a ‘shepherd’, which implies that believers are the ‘sheep’.
Existentialists are not sheep. They are not confiormists, and they dislike herd behavior, blindly following whatever rules for life they are told. Religeous teachings that prescribe how to live take away people’s fundamental freedom to make their own choices. Contrary to religion, existentialism does not provide one clear answer to the question how to live. Nor does it provide a set of rules to live by or guidelines on how to live a good life. It doesn’t say ‘you must do this’ or ‘don’t do that.’ Existentialists believe it’s up to you to figure out which path in life you choose to follow.
A path that is finite. Existentialists are aware that life is temporary and humans are mortal beings. This is another aspect that seperates existentialism from religion. Religious people believe in life after death. Life does not end, our earthly existence is not even what it is all about. Our soul, our essence, is immortal. In some religions that soul goes to a heavenly paradise, in others the soul reincarnates and then returns to earth in another body. Existentialists, on the other hand, don’t believe in an afterlife, in heaven or hell, or in reincarnation. You only get to live once. You get only one shot. This is it.
Responsibility
The religious denial of our fundamental freedom has profound consequences for the way people approach life. For existentialists, freedom always comes with responsibility, the third key element of existentialism. You have to take responsibility for your own life and for the choices you make. You are in the driver’s seat of your own life and you get to choose how you want to live it, according to your own convictions, hopes and desires. And you have to take responsibility for those choices.
Compare that to the religious belief that it is the almighty God who gives your life meaning and purpose. Religious faith puts God in the driver’s seat instead of you. Religion does not only denies our fundamental freedom, it takes away our personal responsibility in shaping our own lives and the choices we make. It allows people to avoid taking responsibility, shifting responsibility to some power outside themselves, a.k.a. God. And it also allows them to accept that things are as they are (God intended it that way). It promotes resignation. Do not resist. Do not deviate. Just resign yourself to your fate. After all, it’s all ‘God’s will.’
Authenticity
Imposing a pre-determined meaning of life, denying our fundamental freedom and undermining our responsibility inevitable makes it impossible for people to live authentically, the fourth key element of existentialism. Living authentically means living the way you want and become who you want to be, through the choices you make. The opposite is inauthenticity, or what Sartre calls ‘bad faith.’ Inauthenticity is the denial of the fact that you are fundamentally free and deliberately avoiding the responsibility that comes with it. It’s inauthentic to say you believe things because that’s what you have been told. It’s inauthentic to live your life the way other people do, because ‘that’s what one does’.
Religion demands the opposite from people: subservience. Accepting the religious teachtings about God and creation and all, gloryfying his almightiness, submitting yourself to his omnipotence, and admitting you are sinful – just because you were born and some made-up story says so. Religion requires you to obey divine authority (which of course is human authority dressed as divine). Living a life according to the values imposed this way would be considered ‘bad faith’ by existentialists.
What about morality then? Doesn’t religion call on people to act ethically, fight injustice and violence and all, striving to make this world a little better? Sure religion provides a moral and ethical framework, tells you what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’ (albeit founded on questionable sources and arguments); however, existentialists would argue that religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morality. Rejecting morality based on religious teachings, existentialists base their moral compass on their humanity (hence Sartre’s “existentialism is a humanism”). In my opinion this is a much more powerful vision; if we are intrinsically motivated to act righteous and ethically, according to a morality that stems from our humanity, instead of acting that way because that’s what some religion teaches…
Existentialists acknowledge that people crave meaning, and that they want to make sense of the world and the universe. They would agree that there is a lot we don’t know and which science cannot (yet) explain. That’s exactly where man’s invention of God(s) stems from; the need for answers and security. But making things up doesn’t provide any answers. An existentialist can’t see how one can find security in believing in a supernatural being that defies logic. Instead, existentialism encourages us to accept and deal with the harsh realities and uncertainties of life, instead of trying to escape them by believing in fantasies, delusions and speculations.
