God and Atheism

Atheist philosophy plays a big role on the study and analyzing religion particularly the existence and dependence of human kind on a higher being called God. Though the ideas of those atheists contradict theists belief on the way we look on God and religion, we can not deny that those kinds of philosophy have valid points that we can consider to reflect on. We should be open minded before we totally reject their ideas without studying and analyzing first their ideas because we have no right to reject ideas which we do not have the knowledge of it. Some of the known atheists are Ludwig Feuerbach which known for his idea of anthromorphism, Friedrich Nietzsche and his Ubermensch, Karl Marx and Marxism, Jean Paul Sartre and Existentialism, and Albert Camus and the absurd. I will try to discuss their points one by one and I will give my analysis for those points.

The first philosopher that I will discuss is Ludwig Feuerbach. According to him on his book “The Essence of Christianity,” men have different perceptions and definitions about God. It is the case because men are not born perfect and they are projecting in their minds a being which they could depend on. Being that can fill the inadequacy of their ability and possessions. Being that can make them feel perfect because of the belief that that being is helping and doing ways to solve some sort of troubles in their lives. And that being he is trying to say is God. An example would be, a bar examinee who is not that intelligent who will take the bar exam, to fill up his weakness, we will ask for God’s help to give him the right intelligence to pass the bar exam instead of trying to pass the exam on his own abilities. Another is a girl who needs comfort because her boyfriend left him. She would seek comfort by praying to God to make her feel better because of that weakness of not feeling well in that certain situation. That situation is what he call athromorphism will men project on their mind a being which is a perfect version of their own. Feuerbach has a conclusion of theology is only anthropology because the attributes of God that men are trying to project is just a mere idealized version of man. If in the Bible it is said the God created man in his own image and likeness, Feuerbach would say that man created God on his perfected version. Those points of Feuerbach really make sense because I realize that God should not be a pain killer and crutch to the inadequacy and compensation to human limitations.

The next philosopher is Karl Marx which is obviously the main proponent of Marxism. Marxism explains about the exploitation of the ruled class by the ruling class and one main weapon of the ruling class to rationalize their exploitation is religion. He said the religion is the opium of the masses. Because of religion, the workers let the capitalists exploit them because of the belief that there would be a reward from God afterlife if they experience suffering on earth. They work willingly without complains because of that belief. In the Philippines, it started when the Spaniards came here and introduced Christianity and that’s the start of exploitation using religion as weapon. And it is still the case in the Philippines in the present. As we see, Filipinos are very religious and just accept the exploitations of the capitalists. They don’t fight for their rights like not receiving enough wages because of the belief of getting a reward from heaven due to the suffering in earth. I think that the masses should open our minds on that they are already being exploited without knowing it and they should not allow the capitalist to exploit them in that way. They should rethink if God really gives reward on the sufferings and allow the capitalist to exploit them. I think that if he is really a God, He will not allow this kind of exploitation and that belief of religion having a reward on the suffering and allowing the capitalist to exploit the workers is very illogical and stupid.

The next would be Friedrich Nietzsche who is famous in his line “God is dead.” God had died in Nietzsche’s world and He did not claim the responsibility for the killing, but he was enthusiastic about celebrating the wake. The Modern world was also inhospitable to heroes, the half-gods, and godlike men who might redeem life through their greatness. For him, the bane of modern life was just a denial of the heroic, the denial of all greatness, the deprecation of all striving. His purpose was to instill a passion of greatness in a world without God. There is a problem on morality if religion or God not exist but Nietzsche has a solution for that. He said that there are two kinds of morality: The master morality and the slave morality. Slave morality is the kind of morality that many people has. Morality on that manner is driven by rewards and punishments. Many people are just doing good acts and avoiding bad acts because of the rewards and sanctions they would get in doing so. It is like when a man is doing the the Ten Commandments say because it is written and it is the law. If there is no law particularly the divine law, those people who practice slave morality would do evil things as they do because there is no one who is looking at them. An example would be when a girl saw a chocolate on the refrigerator and she knows that that chocolate is not hers she still eats the chocolate because she don’t know who is the owner of that chocolate. But when her sister came and looks for the chocolate in the refrigerator, she asked if who eat her chocolate. The girl replied that she eats the chocolate because she doesn’t know if who is the owner of the chocolate at that time and she also don’t know that her sister owns it. In that particular case, we should consider even without rules or people who is looking for us, we should still do the right thing. We should have a self honesty. Another example is when you are next in line in the ATM then the person withdrawing money at your front is finished. When you see the machine, you saw the machine is saying that “Do you want another transaction?” not yet inserting your card. That means, you could withdraw the money of the person in front of you earlier that easy. What would you do? Withdraw the money because no one will know that that thing happened or just push the button “No” because you know what is right to do even though no one can notice that you will be doing such crime. As Nietzsche said, we should have self-honesty and not be practicing slave morality. According to Nietzsche, to be a “superman/ubermecsh,” a person should Transvaluate the values and practices the master morality wherein man should act reasonably regardless of rules, rewards and punishments. We should do the right thing because it is right and not because of the rewards we could receive from God.

Jean Paul Sartre will be next in line with his existentialist philosophy. Existentialism promotes authenticity and the main opposite of authenticity is conformity. Conformity, as existentialists say, is the lost of identity because you are doing things because you want it to do but you are doing things because you like to be accepted by the society by doing what society said you to do. I believe that I should not be dictated by society but rather, I and only myself should dictate myself on what should I do and I hope to other person it applies. In conformity and lost of principle, I believe that the sense of responsibility of a person deteriorates because in conforming, the person tend to blame society or his family if why he is doing those particular things. Example would be when I guy is a two timer and it also happened that his father adulterates in the knowledge of the guy. The tendency of the guy is to blame his father’s adultery to rationalize his action of two timing. I think that the guy has no right to blame his father because it is the guy’s choice to have a two time relationship and his father’s choice. I believe that the guy’s action is irrational if he blame his father for it. The two beings has there own separate lives and dictating his son or conforming on his father is an irrational decision. I don’t say that we cannot imitate. The guy may imitate his father as long as it is own choice and he will take the responsibility for it and not on his father. It is also true in conforming in the rules of the Church such as being virgin before marriage. Let us make these two virgins, Virgin A and Virgin B, as examples. Virgin A is virgin because she is said that in is in the rule of the Church while Virgin B is virgin because she wants it to be a gift for his future husband. I think that Virgin B is better than Virgin A because she doesn’t do good did just because the rules says so but she does good things because it is her choice. Virgin B is authentic. Sartre also emphasizes that existence precedes essence in the case of human beings. We are not like ball pen that has already an essence which is used as writing material before it is made. Man has no manufacturer unlike ball pen that does have. And that said manufacturer which is believed by many is God. Man is the script writer of his own life and it is contracting on the ideas of God’s plan and God’s time. Man is condemned to be free and all the things happened in our life are the choices we made and not the plan of God. Example in an exam, you pray to God that you wanted to pass but you didn’t study. You will absolutely fail the exam in that case because you are the one who chooses not to study and it is not the choice of God. Another thing is the concept of death due to accidents. Some say that he died because it his already to die as God’s time said. Sartre says that there is no such thing as accident because that man chooses the way he drives, what car he would use, what way he will take, what speed he will run and many more. Sartre even says that death except for the absolute death is in our hands because we choose our lifestyle, we choose what we eat, we choose whether we will take the medicine or not, and finally we can do suicide. The main point of Sartre’s philosophy is that we should not blame God on the misfortunes we had because we ourselves are the one who chooses the decisions that lead to that misfortunes.

Now, the last point is the idea of Albert Camus about the absurdity of life which is one of person’s limitations. That point is very important for us because knowing what really life is will give us more freedom. The point said that life has no meaning at all and we must accept the reality that it is it. Many people are attempting the real and absolute meaning of life but I think those people are just wasting their time of doing so. The most common answer to the question of the people of what’s the meaning of life especially the Christians is our life should be offered to God. I think that those people are just fooling themselves telling that they are depending on God and that depending to a God is what Camus called a “philosophical suicide.” That other people who depend to a God is just escaping from the reality and finding out some sort of security by creating to their minds a being not present in the material world. Just like Nietzsche told “Live Dangerously,” we should accept the reality that we cannot do anything beyond the present reality can offer. Camus also said that life is incomplete that’s why it’s absurd. But, it is not advisable to commit suicide knowing that life is absurd; that act is also a form of escape from the reality. We should just accept life as absurd. We should not hope for miracles or anything that is more likely impossible to happen in our situation. “Less hope less pain.” OK, miracles may happen but we are not certain of that. We must expect for the worse and if it happens to be that miracle occurred, I think that’s more advantageous for us not expecting for it rather than expecting for it but it didn’t happened at all. We should just depend on whom/what we are sure to be existing like family/friends, money and others according to Camus. God should not be an escape route if we could not think of anything anymore.

Now, I already discussed the points of those atheists but this is the question: Do those points can prove that God does not exist? I think that the answer is no because though those points are true and logical, they don’t have empirical evidences to disprove God’s existence just like what agnostics say. What they have are just reasons on why we should not depend on God or why God is contradicting to freedom. I admit that those points make sense and true and I think that we should change a bit our actions towards God. God will understand what we do if He is really a God.