Probably one of the first attributes most people associate with existentialism is
atheism. That makes sense when so many influential existentialists
(Nietzsche and Sartre) were atheists. But the fact that a lot of people ignore, is
that the father of existential thinking, Soren Kierkegaard, was an
extremely devout protestant.
Kierkegaard's perspective on Christianity is very appealing to me, he uses compelling logic to expand on his frustrations with
the church of his day, and common paradoxes of religions. For instance,
he really disliked when people tried to prove "miracles" in the bible
using facts and science. Just the attempt of explaining a miracle, to
him is an attempt to make something extraordinary into something that
could have happened naturally. I personally don't see why it matters
whether or not a certain miracle actually occurred. The bible is a book that
provides spiritual guidance, not historically accurate depiction of
events. It isn't a history book. His main point is that faith is faith,
and science is science, and attempting to combine the natural with the
supernatural is just one way to weaken one's faith.
The main reason Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism
however, has everything to do with how he practiced Christianity. The
way he viewed Christians, and most importantly, how to be a Christian was the main reason
he is considered an existentialist. Kierkegaard talked a lot about
existence, not in the sense that things exist physically, but how the
individual exists in a world that is inherently absurd.
To Kierkegaard, existence has everything to do with responsibility,
making decisions and making commitments. To him existence has to involve
taking a hold of one's life, making decisions and being passionate
about life. He went as far as making a distinction between this
existentialist way of living life and the herd mentality of the mobs.
These are the people that don't make "decisions", that just go along
with the flow of the crowd. He uses an analogy of a man that tries to
mount an untamed stallion and tries to ride it despite the stallion's
resistance. He compares this scenario with a scenario where a man just falls asleep in a
wagon, and is taken places by the horse pulling the wagon. To him. this contrasts the
active mode of existing to what most people do, which is to follow the
crowd, and just go where life takes you. People that just always take the path of least resistance. To Kierkegaard, finding his truth was much like finding that
stallion.
In more general existentialist terms, Kierkegaard's truth is what other
philosophers would substitute for meaning. Sartre's atheism often
negates religion, as he believes it to be something that consumes the
human passion to an absurd cause. But much like kierkegaard,
existentialism to me is a lot more general and subjective. I think my
passions and my truths are all part of who I am as an individual. And if
what I am includes a person with faith in a God, then I don't see how
this minimizes my own personal journey to self discovery. Personally, it is actually a bit of a challenge, since as a scientist I often find myself following logic and evidence to reach conclusions, which is most certainly not the ideal mentality most religious people to develop their faith in a higher and sometimes paradoxical power.
