Futurism logo

The Absurdity of Both Religious and Scientific Worldviews

How Answers Are Not Necessary to the Living of an Authentic Life

By Sigurd l'ErmitePublished 6 years ago 20 min read
Like

Many existential philosophers stress the importance of a balance between a scientific and a religious worldview. In society, science is seen as providing objective truth, found through experimentation and reason, whereas religion is seen as providing a subjective truth that is based entirely on faith. As science has come to the forefront of society, religion has lost the power that it once had. Religion is often portrayed, today, as being an inconsistent form of knowledge, and a detriment to the modern world. This critique of religion stems from the fact that many religions rely almost entirely on faith for the justification of their worldview. In Albert Camus’ book, The Myth of Sisyphus, he explains that the absurdity of life stems from a disconnect between what human beings want from the universe, and what the universe gives back. Camus furthers this idea by stating that humans often commit philosophical suicide, by ignoring this disconnect, and believing that the universe is giving them what they want from it: answers. Religion is often cited as being the only form of philosophical suicide, creating a reality of rationality and order, but is religion the only form of thought that seeks to do this? In this sense, what would Camus, and other existential philosophers think of modern scientific figures such as Richard Dawkins? Dawkins, along with other atheistic scientific figures, claims that religion and faith have no place in modern society, and that all things in the universe can be understood through science. Knowledge should not be based solely on faith, but, conversely, should knowledge be based solely on scientific evidence either? Knowing all of the answers to life and the universe is not going to change the way things work, just like knowing the meaning of life does not mean that one will be automatically become happy. The meaning of existence is ambiguous at best, relative and always changing, so a certain amount of absurdity has to be accepted in life if one is to live authentically.

One of the deepest desires in human beings is the want for clarity. People want to know why they are here, why bad things happen to good people, or what their piece is in the grander scheme of things. All of these questions, to Camus, are ultimately meaningless. Camus lays out his concept of the absurd more specifically in his book The Myth of Sisyphus. He starts off this book by stating that “there is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide… whether life is or is not worth living” (Camus MS 441). This comes across as merely a pessimistic outlook on life, but this question is also fundamental to life: if one decides that life is not worth living, then why ask any further questions at all? Why bother with the major inquiries of philosophy, the investigations of science, or even just the mundane routines of daily existence if it is not worth something in the end, even if it is simply a personal fulfillment? This question that all people ask themselves at some point is important, but it is also a question that leads to a more problematic one: do we need a reason to live in order for life to be worth living? Most people feel that they need a reason to live in order to be happy, but, as Camus states, “it often happens that those who commit suicide were assured of the meaning of life… logic seems so desirable” (Camus MS 444). Everyone wants to believe in, or devote their lives to a purpose. Even if that purpose is not what a person wants it to be. There is comfort in being assured of answers because answers quiet anxieties. But, when people find out that the world is truly absurd it is enough to break some people. At the conclusion of Camus’ book The Stranger, the main character, Meursault, is being spoken to by a chaplain as he awaits his execution. The chaplain wants Meursault to turn to God in his impending doom, but Meursault does not see why he should: “What did his God or the lives people chose or the fate they think they elect matter to me when we’re all elected to the same fate… What would it matter if he were accused of murder and then executed because he didn’t cry at his mother’s funeral?” (Camus TS 121).

Camus’ most famous analogy gives the title to his work The Myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was a Greek character, who tried to cheat the Gods by escaping death. In return he was condemned by the gods to roll a boulder to the top of a mountain, only to watch as it rolled back down again, for eternity. Camus states that it could be easy for Sisyphus to fall into despair, or to try to search for significance to his task. Ultimately, however, these actions would be fruitless. Sisyphus can agonize all he wants over his task, but in the end, he will still have to keep rolling his boulder back up. The only thing that he can do is to just be happy: “If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him?” (Camus MS 491). Sisyphus is a metaphor for every person who answers Camus’ fundamental question, that life is worth living: looking for a purpose, some significance to our lives, is never going to change the fact that we will still have to get up tomorrow morning and go to work or class. Ultimately, we just have to be happy with the insignificant lives that we lead.

Religion is an obvious institution to point fingers at as a means to comfort these anxieties of not knowing, but it is not the only thing that people turn to for this kind of comfort in today’s society. Science, as a tool, has helped to improve society immensely, and has been an asset to humanity in countless ways; that is not the argument. Science is an excellent tool for explaining the natural world around us, and creating ways to improve life, but it is when science starts to be thought of like a religion, often referred to as scientism, that things begin to get problematic. This idea of scientism is relatively new in respects to science, and is often focused on scientific figures that function as prophets of this new quasi-religious mode of thought. An excellent example of one of these prophets of science is Richard Dawkins. In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins frequently resorts to ad homonym attacks on religion, and instead of discussing why religion is detrimental, argues why it is false. If his main concern with religion is its factuality then why not let others believe what they want, as long as it does not hurt others or society? This way of looking at society in a divorced way from religion is a very Eurocentric point of view; in many parts of the world there is no distinction between science, religion, and philosophy, so to claim that all people of the world must conform to your way of viewing the universe is outright xenophobic. Religion is so interwoven into culture, that to deny someone the right to believe in their religion is to strip them of their culture and heritage, and, ultimately, their freedom. Every human being has a unique perspective on the world, so who is to decide which one is superior?

This idea that no perspective should be seen as superior to another was explored by William James, a nineteenth and twentieth century American philosopher and psychologist. James argued that even truth contains an element of subjectivity, and that what we take to be true is merely a reflection of what we want to believe, or the way that we see the world. To illustrate this this argument, James lays out a scenario: a person sees a squirrel on a tree, and as they go over to investigate the squirrel it climbs to the other side of the tree. The person, wanting to examine this squirrel, then chases the squirrel around and around the tree, until they give up, having never quite seen the squirrel up close. The question that follows then is, has the person circled the squirrel? The person has been to the north, east, south, and west of the squirrel, so in that sense they have. The person has, however, never actually been behind the squirrel, since the squirrel was always facing the person; in a way they have, simultaneously, not circled the squirrel and circled the squirrel at the same time. Depending on the definition that one holds, the explanation could vary; two people holding these different explanations, though, will not disagree on the reality that just happened. Both people can agree that the person has just ran around the tree in pursuit of the squirrel, but can disagree on their interpretations of what it meant to circle the squirrel. Either interpretation does not change the reality that a person chased a squirrel around a tree; the interpretations are superfluous to the events that actually took place. This is similar to the idea that an atheist will see a mountain as evidence of the beauty of geological processes, while the theist while see it as evidence of the beauty of God’s creations: both people take evidence as a different truth. In this way, truth should be thought of as more of an adjective rather than a noun, a definitive thing; it is, ultimately, subjective.

This idea is known as perspectivism: that how we shape reality in our minds is not necessarily reflective of an objective reality. Humans can never escape the fact that we see the world through human eyes. Our pasts, our presents, our aspirations, all play a role in how we interpret the world around us. Every person contains a unique perspective, a unique set of implicit biases, and there is nothing wrong with this fact; humans can never escape the way that the see the world, but what can be done is to recognize what one’s individual perspective is, and how it shapes their interpretation of reality. If one can understand how their biases affect their judgements, maybe they will still make the same decisions, but at least they will have more respect for those who disagree with them. Scientists know this, though it is not often thought about in this way. Science, like many fields, is in a constant state of reform: each new generation of scientists refines, questions, or simply disproves the works of previous generations of scientists. As genius as Isaac Newton was, his laws of gravitation were eventually proven to be fundamentally flawed when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity. Scientists know that their findings most likely will be proven to be false or flawed one day, but, for now, science tries to come as close to Truth as it can. In this way, even science admits, although maybe not consciously, that Truth is subjective, that what is taken to be True is merely a reflection of what best suits the needs of the finder. Each scientific breakthrough is not “the Truth," but merely “a truth.”

All of this is not to say that religion offers a better solution to the issue of absurdity, but that science has started to become a religion in itself. Camus is very explicit that he is himself an atheist. In his book, The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus straightforwardly criticizes Søren Kierkegaard, a well-known Danish existentialist and theologian, for his rejection of the absurd. Camus claims that Kierkegaard as simultaneously the man that he respects the most and someone who disappoints him. Camus respects Kierkegaard because of his embrace of the absurd, but is ultimately disappointed in him because in the end Kierkegaard aspires to make a leap of faith and unquestioningly accept God. Camus praises Kierkegaard because he “does more than discover the absurd, he lives it; ... he refuses consolations, ethics, reliable principles, ... [and] is careful not to quiet [his] pain” (Camus MS 19). Camus believes that these are the essential ways to living an authentic life: that people need accept the anxiety that the universe brings, and reject any form of thought that tries to quiet our anxiety because there is nothing wrong with feeling anxiety and even terror. In the face of meaninglessness, “Despair…” to Kierkegaard, “… is sin before God” (Kierkegaard 208), but to Camus “The Absurd is sin without God” (Camus MS 469)

Religion to Camus satisfies this definition of a form of thought that seeks to quiet our anxiety, but how does science do this? Nietzsche, as opposed to Dawkins, does not reject Christianity based off of its falsehood, but instead because of the views and ethics that it spews into the world. So, while Dawkins opposes Christianity because he views it as false, Nietzsche opposes Christianity because he views it as morally detrimental to society. J. Thomas Howe states that, “Running throughout Dawkins’s proposals for a meaningful life in a godless universe is the gleeful optimism that the truth will, indeed, set us free” (Howe 148). Free us from what exactly, though? The anxiety of constantly searching for a meaning and purpose? Dawkins criticizes religion for trying to create a seamless picture of the universe, where everything fits into a grander scheme, yet himself falls victim to this same urge. In his book, A Brief History of Thought, French philosopher Luc Ferry points out that “modern physics was entirely founded on the premise that nothing, in the world, occurs without reason…everything must be rationally explicable, sooner or later; every event has its cause, a reason for being, and the role of science is to discover these reasons” (Ferry 209).

This is the exact thing that Camus criticizes Christianity for espousing, and exactly what William James was arguing is irrational in its nature. For Camus, this is where Kierkegaard falls short, instead of embracing the anxiety that he would never find a truth, he puts his faith in God. Kierkegaard thinks that he is accepting the Absurd by giving up a hope that he will find a purpose, but by leaving this up to God he is contradicting himself. Any form of God will, ultimately, accept that the universe has some sort of rationality. Dawkins states that once we rid our eyes of the myths and illusions that religion offers then we will finally see the Truth, but what truth is this? His truth? The truth that science wants to see? Truth does not bring happiness, as Camus argues, we, human beings, have to create happiness in the face of the anxiety that the universe is constantly raining down on us. In the moment that we watch our stone roll back down the hill every day, we have to accept that there will be no last time that the stone will roll back down, no accomplishment to strive to in the end, just life.

The authentic life is a concept pursued by many philosophers, from many schools of thought. Ultimately, Camus, and every philosopher who touches on this subject, aims to provide an ideal way of being in this world. Humans should not forget the freedoms that are inherent in our nature, but not deny the limitations that we face. Kierkegaard described what the authentic life should be in terms of religion best in his work Fear and Trembling. Kierkegaard proposed that there are, in general, three ways of living: the aesthetic life, the ethical life, and the religious life. The aesthetic life is hedonistic, focused on the present, and what benefits the individual personally at that moment. To Kierkegaard, this is the least ideal way of living, because of it shortsightedness, and personal focus. The ethical life is one step up for Kierkegaard. The ethical life focuses on the family and the community. A person living the ethical life makes decisions based on their benefit to the people around them, but also based on the approval of the community. The ethical person would detest murder because of its nature of killing, but also because it would cause them to be ostracized by the community. The highest form of living for Kierkegaard would then be the religious life. Kierkegaard explains that, put in this situation, the person living the aesthetic life would look for some way that this sacrifice would benefit them, while the ethical person would look for some way that this act would benefit their family and community. The thing that sets the person of the religious life apart here is that they need no justification for this act, other than that it was asked of by God. This is Authentic living through a religious, specifically Christian, lens: putting all faith in God, doing everything He asks, even if it is as hard as sacrificing one’s only son.

For Dawkins the idea of an authentic life is very different, yet echoes the same basic premise as Kierkegaard’s. In The God Delusion, Dawkins is quick to criticize Christians who claim that without God there would be no morality in the world: “Do you mean to tell me that the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward… That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up…” (Dawkins 226). This could be seen as a criticism of Kierkegaard’s religious life because Kierkegaard claims that the person in the religious life follows the commandments of God, not because they appear ethical, but simply because God asks of it. Dawkins is convinced that if religion were to disappear then people would still behave in relatively the same way, that morality lies deeper than religious doctrine. Dawkins uses a story from Steven Pinker to illustrate his point. In the story, Pinker tells about a day in his youth when the Montreal police went on strike; within a few hours the city was in complete chaos: stores were broken into, fires had been started all over the city, and people even died. Dawkins concludes that if religious teachings were truly the heart of people’s morals then people would not have behaved in this way as soon as the police were gone. He then quotes H.L. Mencken, who says that “people say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police” (Dawkins 229). Morality without someone looking over your shoulder is integrity, that is what Dawkins thinks religion is missing. But, if morality is given by a God, and it still exists to Dawkins, then where does it come from? Dawkins views morality in more scientific terms, that it is more of an attribute that is always present in societies by definition. He uses the example of lying to illustrate his point: most people can agree that lying is a bad action, but if this was reversed, and lying were made the ideal, then lying would fall apart in on itself. The act of lying relies on the aspect of truth, so if everyone was lying then lying would cease to have any meaning. Similarly, he states that “[he] cannot wish that everybody would adopt selfish parasitism as a moral principle, if only because then I would have nobody to parasitize” (231). In essence then, Dawkins’ authentic way of living revolves around actions that make for a stable society; people should not perform actions that, if everyone was doing them, would lead to the collapse of society or the significance of the action itself.

Both of these ideas of an authentic life vary significantly from the existential authenticity described by Camus, and other existentialist such as Martin Heidegger and Simone de Beauvoir. While Kierkegaard focuses on becoming true t oneself through teleological suspension and the leap of faith towards God, and Dawkins focuses on pragmatic morality and the complete embrace of science, being true to one’s self in Camus’ opinion simply consists of an embracement of the Absurd and an acknowledgement of one’s freedom. Camus’ character Meursault, in The Stranger, is not meant to be an ideal of morality, but Camus would agree that Meursault was living a more authentic life than most people. In the end, Meursault owned up to his actions: he did not feel sorry for the murder that he committed because feeling sorry would not change the past, he did not try to make excuses for why he did any of the things that he did, and he did not try to look for some justification for why he was ultimately sentenced to death, not for the murder that he committed, but for the indifference that he showed to his mother’s death. Meursault accepted the Absurdity of his life, and that ultimately the only thing he could control was the attitude that he showed as he met death: “for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world… I felt that I had been happy, and that I was happy again” (Camus TS 123). Like Sisyphus, Meursault found that authenticity lies not in the actions that we perform, but in the attitude that we chose to espouse towards the world that we find ourselves thrown into.

If authenticity lies in the acknowledgement of our human freedom, then no belief system is ever going to produce an objectively correct set of morals or ways to live. Any group that claims to have done such is false because, as humans, we will always be bound by our perspectives. One set of morals may be pragmatic for a certain society at a certain point in time, but no system of morality will ever be universally true; truth is relative. Claiming that the truth of the universe is that it has no knowable truth, is slightly hypocritical. How can one preach not to listen to people who claim to have the universe figured out, without claiming that they have it figured out as well? That is exactly the difference, Camus is not claiming to have it figured out, and he does not want to have it figured out. In the end, the universe is like William James’ squirrel: it does not matter what we conclude about it, the universe will continue to roll on, indifferent to what we believe about it. We want there to be an answer, an explanation, to this life that we find ourselves thrown into, but ultimately life does not come with a how-to guide – “Existence for Dummies: How to Human.” The human experience is so complex, so immensely diverse, that we can never make one; we just have to work that out ourselves.

Works Cited:

Berthold, D. (2013). Kierkegaard and Camus: either/or? International Journal For Phhilosophy of Religion, 73(2), 137-150. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezp.lib.cwu.edu/10.1007/s11153-013-9400-y

Camus, A. (1983). The Myth of Sisyphus. (G. Marino, Ed., & J. O'Brian, Trans.) London: Random House, inc. .

Camus, A. (1988). The Stranger. (M. Ward, Trans.) New York: Random House, inc.

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press.

Ferry, L. (2010). A Brief History of Thought. (T. Cuffe, Trans.) New York: HarperCollins.

Howe, J. T. (2012, March). AFFIRMATIONS AFTER GOD: FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE AND RICHARD DAWKINS ON ATHEISM. Journal of Religion and Science, 47(1), 140-155. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.cwu.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01243.x/full

Kierkegaard, S. (1974). The Sickness Unto Death. (W. Lowrie, Trans.) Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kierkegaard, S. (1983). Fear and Trembling. (H. V. Hong, & E. H. Hong, Trans.) Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Levinson, H. S. (1981). The Religious Investigations of William James. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Omnius, J. (1970). Albert Camus and Christianity. University: University of Alabama Press.

religion
Like

About the Creator

Sigurd l'Ermite

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.