Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Christian Existentialism

At first, it may seem bizarre to a new rationalist or a longtime Christian that there is nothing logically incompatible about absurdism, a broader rationalistic skepticism, and a genuine, holistic commitment to Christianity.  Absurdism is a type of existential philosophy acknowledging the fact that it is impossible to logically prove if objective meaning exists or does not exist.  Christianity, of course, entails that there are specific moral obligations grounded in the nature of the uncaused cause and that human existence, even when marred by sin, has inherent significance.  Absurdism, however, is about epistemological limitations that prevent knowledge of whether meaning exists, or if it is only illusory perceptions of meaning and a subjective desire for it that are a part of reality.

Christianity is not just about epistemology.  Absurdism is true because the existence or nonexistence of meaning, as opposed to perceptions and longings for meaning, is unknowable.  The existence of objective values is only a possibility that cannot be proven, as it is not self-evident like the truth of reason or one's own existence, nor does it logically follow from any logical or phenomenological facts that meaning exists.  If meaning was knowable, absurdism would not accurately describe the human condition.  Christianity is different.  It is a primarily metaphysical system that can be epistemological supported without being proven in full.  This means that Christianity could be true and absurdism would still be true in that nothing more than logical clarifications of what the concept of meaning is can be known.

The only reason the compatibility of these ideas is not more widely realized is that most people are shallow, unwilling to authentically pursue truth without assumptions, and do not even try to just look to reason and concepts without focusing on other people in the process.  People and their claims are secondary in philosophy; philosophy is about truth and knowledge, as well as how different ideologies fit together and overlap, deviate from, or outright contradict the only things that must be true (logical axioms and everything that follows from them).  If more people understood even just this, then it would be more common for people to realize that absurdism and Christianity do not contradict each other and not react with confusion or denial when someone speaks of this.

Given enough time, any Christian, rationalist, or Christian rationalist will have to intellectually stare down the way that logical possibility, epistemology, and values intersect.  It is folly to think that someone could ever avoid such things and some of the many issues connected with them forever except by sheer thoughtlessness.  Existential concerns can even spring upon someone who is not prone to naturally reflect on things philosophically.  One of the differences between a typical person and a rationalist is that the former will knowingly or unknowingly make assumptions to make themselves more psychologically comfortable, and he or she may even actively flee from directly thinking about the legions of philosophical truths and issues that are an inherent part of everything.

A thoughtful Christian will not flee from philosophical honesty and, if they care enough about truth, will settle for commitment to Christianity based on external evidences rather than actual belief that the whole of it is true--because it cannot be proven in full.  One possible consequence of this realization is the discovery of how absurdism is true.  Perhaps they would not know the name and historical movement of absurdism, but the concepts and the truth of them could be arrived at by any rational, willing person.  No Christian who confronts this side of reality and grapples with their limitations has to give up an evidence-based commitment to Christianity in order to acknowledge the inability to prove if actual meaning exists.  The rational approach to Christian existentialism encompasses theistic absurdism even if this would bring panic and confusion to all but a handful of genuine thinkers.

3 comments:

  1. What do you think of Sartre's idea of existence preceding essence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Existence preceding essence is an entirely true idea mostly in a sense Sartre didn't even mean by the phrase (as far as I recall from what I've read/heard of him). Without existing, a person or tree or something else cannot have certain qualities as a real thing, certainly, because, for example, a person cannot be selfish or selfless or introverted or extroverted without already existing first. Some of those qualities could even change over time. It is Sartre's atheism and loose relativism of values and broader metaphysics that are the problem.

      What Sartre is supposed to mean by existence preceding essence is that humans exist and gradually or intentionally shape their own nature, which cannot be true in the sense of values for unsurprising reasons:something isn't good or bad, oneself included, because one feels like it is or wants it to be. Then there is the even more fundamental error of the idea that humans are only what they want or strive to be whether or not actual obligations and value exists. Although the existence of the uncaused cause/God is verifiable, even if it was not true or knowable, no being could be anything it wants to be. Even God is limited to logically possible actions and desires, but humans have a certain metaphysical nature with its phenomenological and biological components whether or not we want to. It is true that a non-hypothetical example of something like a person must exist in order for it to have any qualities as a real individual, of course, but no matter what a person knows, does not know, feels, wishes, or does, there are other qualities that make them human, without which they would by necessity exist as something else instead. In these ways, the popular idea of existence preceding essence is outright false and asinine.

      I've said this before, but I'm sorry for not getting to respond sooner each time I end up having to wait a while. I hope you're doing well!

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I think I had more or less the same idea that there's a kernel of truth to it. It is the relativistic aspect that inevitably becomes an issue. It does kind of seem like Sartre leans more on the nihilism side than on the absurdist one.

      Haha it's all good! I'm definitely surviving. Hoping the same for you, buddy

      Delete