The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog

Existentialism appeared in the 19th and 20th centuries as an attempt to “solve the problem of a naturalism that led to nihilism” (108). In the view of Albert Camus, the purpose of existentialism is to transcend nihilistic despair. The mood of frustration and despair following the devastation of World Wars I and II encouraged the growth of existentialism, which became a major intellectual trend by the 1950s and continued to influence contemporary society.

However, existentialism is a complex and multifaceted movement. Sire discerns two basic forms of existentialism: atheistic and theistic. These two branches are “siblings in style though not in content” and originated in different periods and milieus (133). Although they share many preoccupations and concerns, the two types of existentialism come to very different answers and conclusions.

Atheistic existentialism

Atheistic existentialism is above all associated with the 20th-century French philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. This form of existentialism accepts the basic convictions of naturalism about prime reality, death, knowledge, ethics, and history. Where atheistic existentialism differs from naturalism is in what it says about humanity’s relationship to the cosmos and how we can “be significant in an otherwise insignificant world” (109).

Atheistic existentialism assumes that God does not exist and that the world “merely is.” However, human beings have nevertheless appeared on the scene, and consequently there are now two dimensions to being: the objective world and the subjective world. The objective world is the scientifically measurable physical world, while the subjective world is the world of human consciousness and feeling.

Naturalism emphasized the unity of these two worlds, with the result that human beings are seen as merely part of the “machine” of nature and thus become dehumanized. To solve this problem, existentialism takes the opposite route: It emphasizes “the disunity of the two worlds and opts strongly in favor of the subjective world” (111). For the existentialist, human beings’ inner life is all-important. Although they have been “thrown into” an absurd and indifferent universe, human beings can achieve significance and dignity by rebelling against absurdity and creating their own sense of value and meaning. Human beings may be only “complex machines,” but they can transcend the tyranny of the objective world because they have consciousness and freedom of choice. For the existentialist, a human being is “totally free as regards his or her nature and destiny” (112). Humans are the only beings in the universe for whom “existence precedes essence” (111) (a phrase borrowed from Sartre), and thus “people make themselves who they are” (111).

As regards ethics, existentialism holds that we are incapable of choosing evil; hence, any choice we make is good, and choice as such is a good thing. Morality is thus subjective and created by individuals in the moment, not dependent on any external or objective standard. Sire observes that this poses a problem regarding selfishness, since every person is a law unto him- or herself. Sartre solves this by arguing that when human beings encounter each other, their actions are influential; we help create value for each other. Existentialism thus has a social dimension instead of being a matter of every man for himself.

Nonetheless, Sire argues that a problem of solipsism remains. Existentialists “have already committed themselves to themselves” (116), not to their community or neighbors. Albert Camus tried to overcome this narcissism and relativism and show how an ethically good life could be lived within an existentialist framework. He accomplished this, especially in The Plague, a symbolic novel about how different people in a North African town deal with the menace of a deadly disease.

Theistic existentialism

Theistic existentialism originated with the Danish religious philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who in the mid-19th century wrote in reaction to “dead orthodoxy” and in favor of faith as a living choice involving the core of one’s being. In the early 20th century, other theologians picked up Kierkegaard’s themes as they perceived Christianity to be watered down by modern liberal thought. Such Christian thinkers as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Reinhold Niebuhr pushed theistic existentialism toward “neo-orthodoxy”; thus, theistic existentialism had great influence on contemporary theology.

Essentially, theistic existentialism is “a particular set of emphases within theism” rather than “a separate worldview” (122). Theistic existentialism holds that God exists, but it arrives at that belief from the perspective of human self-awareness. The human condition is “ambivalent.” It is not the case that the universe is totally absurd and senseless, but rather that some things make sense and others do not. Some things in life seem to bear witness to “a benevolent deity,” others to a cruel and impersonal universe. Because we will never receive a completely clear answer about ultimate truth in this life, we must “step forth and choose to believe” (123), to make “a radical act of faith” (124). The content of this belief, for the Christian theistic existentialist, is that of traditional Christian theism, but these beliefs are chosen in a subjective way rather than accepted by an abstract sense of authority.

Sire says that this implies that theistic existentialists “emphasize the personal as of primary value” (125); for them, the Christian faith is not merely an abstract commitment to a set of beliefs but a personal relationship with God and Christ. In emphasizing this, Christian existentialists have not so much brought a new innovation as restored aspects of traditional theism that have sometimes been overlooked.

This emphasis on the personal carries over into theistic existentialism’s attitude toward knowledge. Knowledge is ultimately subjective in nature, an “I-Thou relationship” (in the terms of the Jewish existentialist Martin Buber) that affects the knower in the core of his or her life and being. Theistic existentialists do not reject the idea of objective truth, but they emphasize that truth must be “lived” rather than abstractly understood. Part of living the truth involves accepting the reality of paradox, or complementary truths that seem to involve a contradiction. By embracing paradox and living it out before God, the seeming contradiction is reconciled.

The theistic existentialist view of history is of a piece with its view of knowledge, emphasizing history’s personal, mythical aspect. While the objective historical record has importance, ultimate personal and religious meaning is more important than mere facticity. Such a view of history has become linked with the revision of Christian beliefs in light of “higher criticism,” making it somewhat controversial with traditional theists.