I was surprised with a number of comments posted online regarding the last article entitled, "Is God Really Dead?" More than half of my students in Philosophy of Human Person classes commented on this article. Because of this, I am compelled and inspired to write another article on the same title but I'd like to discuss it in the context of phenomenology, particularly Heideggerian phenomenology.
Nietzsche is not the only philosopher who rejects or denies God's existence. There are several philosophers considered as atheists (those who don't believe in God) but Nietzsche is somehow a unique kind of atheist --unique in the sense that, he pronounced the death of God amidst millions of faithful still believing in God and at the height of the Roman Catholic religion tested by time and circumstances as a true religion established by Christ. Unlike before the spread of Christianity, we understand that those self-claimed atheists would deny God and his existence because God hasn't revealed himself yet, or that they denied God's existence because God has no place in their hearts and minds. Nietzsche is like a devoted Christian dissatisfied of God's promises of salvation to his people.
In this article, I'd like to consider some other forms of atheism --particularly, Heideggerian phenomenology. Strictly speaking though, Heidegger's claim on the problem of God is not atheism but a sort of agnosticism. Agnosticism is a philosophical belief which claims the impossibility to know about God. I will elaborate this point after discussing phenomenology.
PHENOMENOLOGY
Phenomenology is not a philosophical school of thought. It is rather a movement founded by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) against the behaviorist psychology during his times. Husserl is considered as the Father of Phenomenology; the teacher of Heidegger (1889-1976). Husserl was somehow dissatisfied with how behaviorist psychologists were conducting their research studies on human behavior. Based on their studies of dogs and rats, they come to a conclusion that human beings (as members of Kingdom Animalia) can also be conditioned -thus, we have no freedom. Husserl was not battling on the conclusion that humans have no freedom. What he was battling about is on how they have come to that conclusion. It is on the method of study that Husserl was questioning about, not so much of their idea on human beings.
For Husserl, there is something wrong in the way behaviorists conducted their studies. They carried many assumptions, prejudgments or what Husserl calls "natural attitude," in conducting their studies. To find new meaning in our experiences, or to see it "with eyes," we need to bracket our "natural attitude." Once our "natural attitude" is held in abeyance, we can reduce our experience into its essence or what is "invariant" in it. The "glassy essence" found in our experience must be viewed objectively without being tainted by subjective presuppositions. Thus, phenomenology makes philosophy a "presupposition-less science." Moreover, Husserl asserts that the essence of the experience must still be reduced into the very activity of the person who has found it in his experience. Otherwise, this essence will not become meaningful since it is only us, human beings, can make it meaningful. In other words, human beings shall translate this "essence" found in our experience since we are the ones who can it meaningful, or can make our life meaningful out of it.
On its foundation, phenomenology assumes that what one can only know is the phenomenon, not the thing-in-itself or reality (or the noumenon). It is impossible to know what does not appear to our perception. The thing-in-itself (or the noumenon) can only be thought of, but cannot be known objectively. In other words, what is outside human experiences cannot exactly be known. God is outside any human experiences, or say, outside the experiences of philosophers. Thus, God cannot be known objectively. Consequently, phenomenologists tend to deny God's existence. However, there are some existentialist phenomenologists like Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) claiming the opposite. For Marcel, God is within one's experience. One experiences God when he/she is at the brink of death. At the moment of his death, he/she has to entrust his/her life to someone Absolute whom Christians calls God. This experience of entrusting one's life at the moment of death is a phenomenon that one can't deny the existence of God.
Heidegger, Husserl's student, suggests that man is a being thrown into this world. As being thrown, Heidegger has thought of man's reality as nothing but a chance. This is, I think, a form of atheism that has roots in the theory of evolutionism proposed by Charles Darwin. Many theist philosophers have already proved that this theory "doesn't hold water." There are no solid evidences to support that human beings evolve from primates. It is, however, tempting to believe that since man knows how to cope with the hostile environment, he is able to evolve from primate's way to man's way or "adapt" his new environment through the process of "natural selection." Man's adaptation process is, I think, entirely different from saying that "he evolves from primates." It does not follow that if man adapts his environment, he evolves from previous state of being to a new kind of being. For me, Darwin mistakenly defines evolution with adaptation.
Let me go back to Heidegger's claim. His emphasis on man's thrown-ness is, I think, his way of escaping the fact that human beings cannot live without God and imbibing the extreme position of existentialism that man can become what he wants to become if God doesn't exist. The extreme position of existentialism is that man is absolutely free. To make sense of it, one has to deny God's existence because God determines man's life and his purpose in life.
In conclusion, the denial of God's existence among atheist thinkers, whether existentialists or phenomenologists, is the outcome of the over-emphasis of man's freedom. Since if man is completely free, then he shall be the one who has to determine his future. Without God, man turns himself into a god. For these atheist philosophers, to claim that God exists is an illusion, but for me, it is more of an illusion if man claims that he is God.
PHENOMENOLOGY
Phenomenology is not a philosophical school of thought. It is rather a movement founded by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) against the behaviorist psychology during his times. Husserl is considered as the Father of Phenomenology; the teacher of Heidegger (1889-1976). Husserl was somehow dissatisfied with how behaviorist psychologists were conducting their research studies on human behavior. Based on their studies of dogs and rats, they come to a conclusion that human beings (as members of Kingdom Animalia) can also be conditioned -thus, we have no freedom. Husserl was not battling on the conclusion that humans have no freedom. What he was battling about is on how they have come to that conclusion. It is on the method of study that Husserl was questioning about, not so much of their idea on human beings.
For Husserl, there is something wrong in the way behaviorists conducted their studies. They carried many assumptions, prejudgments or what Husserl calls "natural attitude," in conducting their studies. To find new meaning in our experiences, or to see it "with eyes," we need to bracket our "natural attitude." Once our "natural attitude" is held in abeyance, we can reduce our experience into its essence or what is "invariant" in it. The "glassy essence" found in our experience must be viewed objectively without being tainted by subjective presuppositions. Thus, phenomenology makes philosophy a "presupposition-less science." Moreover, Husserl asserts that the essence of the experience must still be reduced into the very activity of the person who has found it in his experience. Otherwise, this essence will not become meaningful since it is only us, human beings, can make it meaningful. In other words, human beings shall translate this "essence" found in our experience since we are the ones who can it meaningful, or can make our life meaningful out of it.
On its foundation, phenomenology assumes that what one can only know is the phenomenon, not the thing-in-itself or reality (or the noumenon). It is impossible to know what does not appear to our perception. The thing-in-itself (or the noumenon) can only be thought of, but cannot be known objectively. In other words, what is outside human experiences cannot exactly be known. God is outside any human experiences, or say, outside the experiences of philosophers. Thus, God cannot be known objectively. Consequently, phenomenologists tend to deny God's existence. However, there are some existentialist phenomenologists like Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) claiming the opposite. For Marcel, God is within one's experience. One experiences God when he/she is at the brink of death. At the moment of his death, he/she has to entrust his/her life to someone Absolute whom Christians calls God. This experience of entrusting one's life at the moment of death is a phenomenon that one can't deny the existence of God.
Heidegger, Husserl's student, suggests that man is a being thrown into this world. As being thrown, Heidegger has thought of man's reality as nothing but a chance. This is, I think, a form of atheism that has roots in the theory of evolutionism proposed by Charles Darwin. Many theist philosophers have already proved that this theory "doesn't hold water." There are no solid evidences to support that human beings evolve from primates. It is, however, tempting to believe that since man knows how to cope with the hostile environment, he is able to evolve from primate's way to man's way or "adapt" his new environment through the process of "natural selection." Man's adaptation process is, I think, entirely different from saying that "he evolves from primates." It does not follow that if man adapts his environment, he evolves from previous state of being to a new kind of being. For me, Darwin mistakenly defines evolution with adaptation.
Let me go back to Heidegger's claim. His emphasis on man's thrown-ness is, I think, his way of escaping the fact that human beings cannot live without God and imbibing the extreme position of existentialism that man can become what he wants to become if God doesn't exist. The extreme position of existentialism is that man is absolutely free. To make sense of it, one has to deny God's existence because God determines man's life and his purpose in life.
In conclusion, the denial of God's existence among atheist thinkers, whether existentialists or phenomenologists, is the outcome of the over-emphasis of man's freedom. Since if man is completely free, then he shall be the one who has to determine his future. Without God, man turns himself into a god. For these atheist philosophers, to claim that God exists is an illusion, but for me, it is more of an illusion if man claims that he is God.
