Religion Negates the Fundamental Principle of Existentialism Which Rejects Determinism (Term Paper Sample)

Existentialism
Student’s Name
Institution
Introduction
Existentialism is a philosophy that focuses on the analysis of the existence of an individual as well as choice and freedom. It presents the opinion that human beings hold the prerogative to think freely and make rational decisions that define their existence in an irrational world (Jones, 2014). It highlights human existence in light of the empty intimate feelings of absence of purpose at the center of life and existence. The philosophy is tied to the works of Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and its main belief is pegged on supreme emphasis on self- consciousness. Within the wider concept of human nature and general life struggles, religion is one of the main influences of existence. The philosophy does exist within the confines of religion as well as outside it. The two concepts, however, have so many differences that an observer would wonder how they can coexist complementarily. To that end, this paper seeks to delve into a comparative analysis of various tenets of religion and the philosophy of existentialism to determine the differences and incompatibility of religion and the philosophy of existentialism.
Religion Negates the Fundamental Principle of Existentialism Which Rejects Determinism
By principle, existentialism is based on the primary view that existence precedes essence and not the other way round (Joseph, Woodward, & Reynolds, 2011). Humans do not exist for any predetermined purpose but should rather create their own realities and eventualities as a matter of choice and will. Religion, on the other hand, has a predetermined path with a set eventuality that comes into direct conflict with the approach of existentialism by taking away the freedom and personal responsibility for humans to create their realities. Religion takes away individual free will and views human existence as a predetermined chain that compels one to live in a certain manner, taking away all independence and deliberate determination. The basis of determinism is that humans have limited influence on their future and eventuality and this is a view most propagated by religion.
Based on religion humans have a purpose and are supposed to behave and live not according to their own will but as per the will of an all knowing and all mighty supernatural being. The general religious emphasis on reward and punishment based on one’s choices, decisions, and actions means that humans must follow a given doctrine and strictly live within its confines, further curtailing human will and privilege to make rational decisions out of free will. In this regard, it becomes imperative that for true emancipation of the approach of realism to be completely expressed, religion must be out of the equation as it restricts and stifles some of the basic rationales of existentialism. Religion hinders personal understanding and the conceptualization of the meaning of life and living, personal experience, and the predispositions, perspectives and convictions that enable humans to create their own meaning by motivating them to think and act in a certain way, and discourages contrary views. Søren Kierkegaard, who was a religious existentialist, asserted that each person has a prerogative to make independent decisions and choices, which in turn constitutes his existence (Kenny, 2007). However, it is impossible to make independent choices while ascribing to a doctrine that has limited choices from which to choose from, and therefore restricts the extent to which one is able to freely engage with his or her conscience to make independent decisions.
Religion Relegates the Influence of Experience on Personal Choice
Other than religion, there are certain social constructs that determine people’s actions and thoughts. In fact, sometimes these social elements define people’s role in society, societal expectations, norms and values, beliefs, and the perception of wrong and right. It is important to note that the cultures individuals grow in as well as the experiences people go through have a considerable influence on the moral bearing and scope of possibilities. Friedrich Nietzsche opined that it is imperative that the individual makes a personal determination as to which situations can be considered as moral situations (Lewis & Staehler, 2010). In agreement with this assertion, it becomes clear that personal experiences and personal conviction horned after life- long associations with similar aspects of the situation at hand end up influencing decision making. Our lives are shaped by the experiences and associations we have gone through and the overall importance such cannot be understated on the influence they have in our decision making as well as shaping our realities.
The larger picture of the intricacies of a situation is best understood by one directly involved in that particular situation than any other observer, which makes the decision made by the individual in question, regardless of morality the most relevant given that situation (Macquarrie, 1972). Religion, on the other hand, tends to downscale the influential power of personal experiences. It supports some societal predispositions and gives a moral compass to an individual. It points one to the right possible decision to make without paying attention to the personal experiences and societal expectations, and judges the individual based on the decision arrived at. Limiting the influence of experiences makes religion incompatible with this major tenet of existentialism.
Religion Takes Focus from the Individual to Others
Existentialism gives supreme significance to an individual and what it means to exist as a person. In a world of disorder and moral chaos, with no finality to the conceptualization of what is wrong and what is right as well as conflicting human experiences and concerns, understanding what it is to be an individual is of greater essence to the philosophy of existentialism (Hitchens, 2007). This approach argues that it is incumbent on an individual to grapple with and make personal determinations and although the resultant decisions may affect other people, the individual has the sole prerogative to make any decision. The individual must deliberate at a personal level and have the free will to make decisions that would shape his or her reality. In such instances, such an individual would draw from personal experiences and one’s own understanding on what to make a decision based on and the final decision itself. The entire philosophy is expressed from a person perspective where an individual is of utmost significance to an extent nothing else matters.
Religion, however, delegates the need for personal evaluation to the feelings and consequences of one’s actions on others or according to the will of a supreme being. With religion, greater emphasis is put on others and empathizing with them (Robinson, 2002). An individual has to let go of all personal opinions and follow the religious emphasis on empathy for others and doing everything according to the will and directive of the Supreme Being. Religion propagates a viewpoint that limits the power of an individual to make free personal decisions by suggesting service to a greater force and serving others for a greater good without necessarily putting the individual first. This view is reinforced by Albert Camus, who warns that absurdity comes about when an individual’s longing for order meets the lack of order in real life. He argues that humans live in an indifferent, absurd and ambiguous universe where meaning is not ascribed by some natural order but rather created by individual understanding that inform interpretation and action (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2012). Consequently, therefore, the approach by religion to limit and restrict the powers and significance of an individual are impractical and inconsistent with reality as it is.
Religion is Not Definite and Consistent
Martin Heidegger, through his work, Being and Time, focused into aspects of the mode of existence and an analysis of human questions related to the need for authenticity and anxiety in real life (Bruce, 1999). He also introduces a crucial perspective, the worldview. The time and society in which one lives determines his general world view. This aspect of existentialism lays emphasis on reality, and what it means to be alive and the changing dynamics of this state. Jean-Paul Sartre also largely agrees with this view, declaring that if God exists, then man is not free (Sartre et. al., 2007). Religion, despite pushing for things that should determine the decision which should be made, does not weigh an array of possible situations and merely strives to lay out what should be right and what should not without delving into the possible scenarios. A religious approach to humanity in turn falls short when it comes to the depth of possibilities.
Various religious texts are also subject to theological interpretations which also require an individual to call upon past experiences and personal understanding to know what is required (Gutting, 2011). This means that there is no universal understanding of what God demands because it is generally subject to interpretation. Moreover, the religious texts have certain inconsistencies and unanswered questions that are usually filled in by faith and belief. Inconsistency is not an option in real life, merely having faith and believing may not be enough. Another thing that should be noted is that existentialism calls for everyone to control their lives, and take responsibility for their actions and decisions, whereas religion gives final authority to a supreme being, creating a notion of deferred consequences as God is to punish or reward at a later date depending on ...