Many atheists have this standpoint: Christians believe in an illusion. Surprisingly, Christians often think the same of Atheists.
But who's right? And does it matter?
Nietzsche had a very clear way of stating the fact, that if God does not exist, then there is no basis for an objective truth ... What is good and what is bad? Down that line, what we have left is own personal views: Multiple, diverse, and fluid perspectives. In other words, there is no absolute truth. Sartre later added, that if there is no absolute truth (above our own truths), then there is no boundaries concerning how we should live. We can live as we want to. And there is absolutely no way, that you can state that your truth is more true than, let's say, your neighbor's. Sartre explained very well, that if we indeed were created by God, we necessarily was made for a purpose. If you design a cutter for paper (his example) this cutter is only useful if it used to cut paper. It's not useful for anything else than cutting paper, and is used wrongly, if used on, let's say, marble. It would destroy the cutter. Sartre explains, that we were not created for a purpose, and thus, we can do as we see fit. Sounds familiar?
In a sense, as modern people, we are existentialists, in the way we perceive the world and how we should live. If there is no God, we can do as we want to, and nobody can tell us, whether what we do is good or bad.
But is that in balance with how we actually LIVE our lives? Do we live our lives, respecting other peoples truths? Do we present our political opinions without stating that these truths should be of benefit for everybody else?
In our own case, we might be fair to our selves and say: "Yes, I do believe I live according to my respect of other peoples opinions and truths". But when we look at other people, we might get a little closer to the matter. It won't take long for us to point out people, who do not live in balance with that worldview. And isn't that usually the case? We are good at spotting other peoples flaws, but when it comes to our own, then it's 'complicated'.
Sartre himself, was not living according to his own principles. The most of his life, he was accusing high and low, wide and narrowly on how people should behave, treat him and so forth. He was many times on the side of the communists, but drove them absolutely mad, since he was as many times disagreeing with them. Particularly on the absolute truth, that the communists often would claim, on behalf of the common good for the people.
So, being existentialists how do we look at the world? Are we, actually, seeing it as it is, or are we rather seeing it, as we want to see it? And if the latter is the case, what are we really seeing?
Or, to open up another discussion: If all have their own truths, and no true truth exists, then how do we make our decisions in life? Sartre explained, that when each of us set out on a journey to find our truths, the excitement and the challenge are there to grasp. He said, that he perceived this as total freedom.
But what kind of freedom is that? A freedom to establish your own truth amongst 5 billion other truths, is no truth at all. And neither is it freedom. How do we make our decisions? By consulting everything and everybody around us? Our closest friends? But their truths are arbitrary too, right? So, if truth is arbitrary, so will our decisions be. In a sense, our decisions will be changing with the headlines.
If this is the case, then how will a democracy function? How can a democracy exist on the basis of multiple, diverse truths? How do we know what to vote? Well, we simply don't. Our "own" truths will be subject to manipulation, since we have no-one or nothing to test it against, since everything else is arbitrary or diverse too. This corresponds well with the political apathy that you can observe in Europe and many other parts of the world. We don't care about politics. Why? Because we have no real basis for truth. So what's good, and what's bad?
Individualism is wonderful in many ways. It's a great ideal, and every man and woman should be treated equally. But equal towards what? What is equal today, will be thwarted tomorrow. And if we were real idealists, we would be focused on equality in let's say, the Middle East, or other parts of the world, that can't exactly brag about these things.
Back to the illusion of God. Does he exist? Yes or no? As discussed above, existentialist don't think so. If he don't, well, that's great. Because that means, that we can do whatever we feel like. We can practice all the sex we want, try all the drugs we want, abuse all the people we want, and kill all the people we want. "Kill"? ... If God don't exist, what should stop me? If good and bad are relatives, and I believe that killing is good fun, why should it be a problem? Well, luckily, most of us don't think killing is fun. We find it wrong. But wait a minute. Where does "Wrong"come from? If morals are relative, then we really have a poor basis for claiming one thing to be wrong and another to be right. And even more so, when it comes to good and evil. Evil doesn't really exist, anymore. But still, most people can agree, that killing is a pretty bad idea. But where does that idea come from? Most people have a pretty good idea on what's good and bad. But did we learn that from our parents, our culture? But then, how come we share this idea with most other people around the planet? Human beings have a gut feeling for these things. We sort of know what's right instinctively. But, we don't act accordingly.
How so? If we know what's right, how come we don't respond to that. How come we want to DO good, but end up making poor decisions?
Hold tight, because this is where the Bible quotes begin. Now, give me a chance here. It's not gonna hurt, and you're welcome to disagree.
At some point in the history, our ancestors had a choice. To love God or to refuse him. They had a choice. Why? They had a choice, because without choice, you can't have love. If God wanted creations he could control, he would have made robots. But robot's cannot show love, since they have no free choice to do so.
God gave a fair warning though. He said something like: "Don't mess with the knowledge of good and evil". That was the the only rule he gave his paradisical creation. That rule, our ancestors choose to break. By doing so, the Bible explains, our ancestors chose to worship themselves in stead of God. By doing that, they introduced death and the concept of sin into the world. Since they chose to get access to knowledge of good and evil, otherwise limited to their creator, they had to pay the following penalty: To live with the knowlegde of good and evil, in a world exposed to death and human mistakes.
Why is that important knowledge? What does that tell us, that has any significance today? Well, it tells us, unlike the enlightment thinker Rosseau, that we are born flawed. Rosseau meant, that man was born innocent, and that the rest was added to us, by our parents and surroundings. The Judeo-Christian approach to this is different. Rather, it's in serious contrast. The Bible explains from the Genesis and on, that man is born guilty, not innocent. Whoah! You might say ... "Guilty! That's a Christian idea that has caused human beings psychological traumas and headaches since year zero!" as a friend of mind puts it. Hold on to that thought for a second, and let's assume that guilt has been here always. With all people, at all times. Why? Because it makes sense. Hold on.
If human beings were born guilt-free, and any considerable guilt was given to us by our parents and (judeo-christian culture), how come we don't ACT as though we are innocent? Is it our PARENTS fault? Is it because of RELIGION and these thwarted ideas? Well, that used to be a pretty good exuse, but in post-modern Europe, this argument can't hold anymore, can it? And neither does it. Instead, people tend to blaim society, or in many cases, the social democratic idea or other humanisms. Christianity can no longer be in the front line of cultures to point fingers at, since it's no longer the dominant culture, not a leading figure. Existentialism however, is. Along other humanistic ideas, that basically stand on these grounds.
So who's fault is it? If it is not our parents fault, or our culture, who's fault can it then be? God's fault? That's a good one. Blame it on God. He created us, so he must be blamed, right? Don't forget, that God is not human, and certainly not an existentialist one. God is good. God is outside of time and space. If he was inside time and space, then he had to be both bad and good at the same time. Because that's how the world looks. There's bad, and there's good. If you disagree with that, read the papers. Well, yes it's not easy to find any good there, but at least it accounts for one half of the argument. So, if it can't be His fault, one option is left: Ourselves.
The Bible explains how we as human beings are not only flawed, but cruel. "Now, wait a minute", you might say. "I consider myself a nice person". Yeah, sure you're a nice person. But then look at OTHER people. Are they behavving right? Look at the world. Is it cruel? Look at NATURE. If you don't find nature cruel, go ahead. Go live in the mountains or forrests for a couple of months, and study nature. If you don't find nature cruel, well good for you. Good luck on top. Human beings are cruel. One look at the world, and we can see how it corresponds. But if human being are cruel, then we have a problem. How can we stand ourselves, then?
Well, we can't. This is where optimism comes in. "Everything will be fine". But that won't work either. Because everything certainly ain't fine in the news I read. This is when pessimism says: "Nothing really matters anyway". The pessimistic worldview is often closer to the truth than the optimist. But neither does the pessimist have an answer. Neither does the cynical. They see the world pretty clearly, but it only leaves them with dispair. For if the world is cruel and the human beings so, then how can you live in peace with that? Well, you can't. No person can live at peace with the understanding that they are cruel too.
The Bible explains how human beings are not only cruel, but also downright EVIL. Yup, that's pretty strong words. I certainly don't like to introduce myself as EVIL when I am introduced to new people. "Hello, My name is Per-Ole Lind, and I am EVIL" ... That would'nt exactly work for me. This minute, considering that statement is making me feel terribly uncomfortable. You might even have rejected the idea 200 words back. But the Bible explains, that we are also LOVED. Not because of all the things we do, but IN SPITE of. In spite of us being flawed, cruel and corrupt, God still loves us anyway. But why in the world would he do THAT? It seems pretty stupid, to love someone if they are corrupt, right? But don't forget, that God loves us, like a father loves his child. Say what you want, but I am pretty sure, that his mother loved Stalin right to the bitter end. In Spite of his attrocities. (Assuming she knew about them).
So God loves us, not because of SOMETHING, but just because He loves us. A concept a little hard to grasp, I think. But again, it's helpful to remember that God is not human. And God is not limited by time. If you pray to Him in to weeks, he can hear it two weeks ago, and help you from that point if He wish to.
Allright, so now it becomes a little too Christian? Fair enough. Let's get back to the point. Does God then exist, yes or no? As discussed, the existential worldview does not correspond with how the world looks. Neither does any other humanism, that basically rests on existentialism with a few deviations. The easy answer is this: It's a matter of faith. It's an easy pick, since science is nbot gonna help us here, even though it would make philosophical discussions somehow shorter.
God's existence cannot be proven, since it's simply not possible to measure or weigh or calculate anything spiritual. Pseudo-science makes a pretty good effort, though. Often, there's a good giggle to find there, if you look hard enough. Not to appear arrogant, but science it ain't. How the world began, is a matter of faith, basically. Yeah, there are theories ... Pretty good theories too, but you cannot prove, that the universe began with a bang. Calculations show, that it's pretty miraculous, that the bang was not a couple of megatons bigger, because then it would be likely, that the universe would have collapsed. That's not religion, mind you. That's science talking. Neither can it be proved, whether a personal creator was behind the scenes of that dramatic moment in time and space. But the Bible does not stand against a big-bang idea. In fact, it supports it. The Big Bang started with energy. The Bible says "Light", which is basically what energy is.
So how did it begin? With a personal creator, or by pure incident? What do you think? What is the more plausible of those two? Interestingly enough, calculations show, that there's a higher possibility for a personal creation. But this is where it becomes murky. 'Cause how can science say something like that? Well, let's just skip that, and get back to the basic question: Yes, it's matter of faith.
The harder answer is, that it's a personal choice. It's every persons choice. We are back in the garden of Eden in this respect. Do we choose to love God back, or do we choose to love ourselves? If we choose the latter, we are left to ourselves. Which is basically the Christian understanding of Hell: Seperation from God. Not the fiery purgatory, which is no where to be find in the Bible. But a speration. A life without God. Left to ourselves, we must, like Sartre, find our own way.
Is God an illusion? I would claim, that it's the other way around. No worldview other than the Christian, correspond with the fact, that man is cruel yet noble. A world without God is easy to imagine, Mr. John Lennon, but impossible to stand. Why? Because left to our own devices, and our own cruelty, all we have left is our wealth and our succes. And it's not enough. It's not enough, if you want to explain the miracle of LOVE. Where does it come from. Or the NOBILITY or GENTLENESS of humans WHILE humans are CORRUPT at the same time? And how come, we are the only known species in the universe who can actually ask those questions?
Is it down to an incident and evolution by chance? Or is there more to it?
Philosophers have been breaking their skulls on these questions, and so have every human being, that have dared to ask them. Maybe most people have tried. At least in their teens. Maybe they've given up, and said: "Later". Still, in the decisions we make in life, these questions have significance. Do we act out of shear arbitrary emotional input? Or do we act according to a truth greater than our personal truths?
