Jean Paul Sartre: Re-questioned the Existence of God

It is taboo thing in our society when we try to “playing our thought” in God area. Even there is a fair feeling to do it. Because the religious ideology was engraft not to brave to think about it. Who has a doubt about His existent, he was apostate. Even to think about His essence is forbidden. If as this religion teaching is contradicted by its mission to human. Religions required human in order to worship God, but in other side religion forbid them to think about what they must to worship. This condition continually became big problem in all religion.
The ironical thing also influence many of philosophers thought. They also oriented their thoughts to confirm this teaching. Facing this condition, Sartre doesn’t satisfied with their thought, by adopting and adapting the methods of phenomenology Sartre sets out to develop an ontological account of what it is to be human. By his existentialism theory he want to against rationalism that pioneered by Rene Descartes. He defined existentialism as a teaching which causes the being of human live. Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself. Beside it, he defined existentialism as a teaching affirmed that every truths and actions contain an environment and a human subjectivity. It’s also called by a human universality of condition.
Existentialism cannot be separated by consciousness, because consciousness is the cause of existence. Self consciousness is being in itself (etre-in-soi). Being in itself is necessary and enough requirements for consciousness. We’re not need to Transcendental Subject or Absolute I as what Idealism understand. And etre-in-soi is awareness of something else. When I aware of something, it means I’m not that thing. If I saw a picture on wall or a glass on table, therefore I’m not the picture and the glass.
Meanwhile nothingness emerges with human by etre-pour-soi (being for itself). Human is the carrier of nothingness. The special activity of erte-pour-soi is “to nihilate”. To ascertain being or nothingness of Pierre in restaurant, firstly, we must saw restaurant, table, chair, guest, air etc as background of being-nothingness of Pierre. This is the “nihilation”, when we saw restaurant, table, chair and whose presence in that place as not Pierre. The nothingness of Pierre is only confirmed by “nihilate” beings (other Pierre). So nothingness emerge by “nihilate” world. Nothingness always haunt being, cannot be separated. From this concept, he analogize the nothingness of God.
He pulled down Descartes’ subjectivism theory. Descartes and his followers said cogito ego sum (I think therefore I am), which mean essence precedes existence, he loudly said the opposite of proper theory “Existent precedes essence.” Usually the previous existentialist said in order to make a table, the artisan must first have a conception of the table. Sartre argues not so with human being, if Allah isn’t exist, at least there is a creature which its existence is being before its essence, a creature that exist before he was determined by many of conceptions about his existence. That’s human.
We come into the world existent but without a nature, without essence. We define ourselves while existing. We are the sum of our experiences. So man simply is. Stand on this radical statement he always yell out the freedom of human being by his popular dictum “human condemned to be free.” There is no one can force us when we do something. What we do is our choice. Even, extremely for him life is choice. I cannot not choose, if I do not choose, that is still a choice.

A Few Apologies
Personally, I saw what Sartre did is so radical and extreme. In my opinion, if his aim only to release human being from their shackles is not must to ignore the existent of God. I also saw his theory about being and nothingness is more leaned to empiric concept. He didn’t believe God just because of His absent from sensory perception. I don’t know exactly whether this theory is only his disappointed expression to God because of his sufferings life.
I don’t blame his existence concept, even I’m in the same opinion with his existence precedes essence statement, but only in the way of thought not in the real reality. We are still creature, not The Creator. So in reality his concept only could be applied in God as a Creator.

Soren Kierkegaard: Religion and Existentialism

The resurgence of Germany idealism became a smack for individual person, because idealism philosopher only embraces “universal” problems. It means they build an epistemological system that is oriented to pure reason. Pure reason isn’t product of individual intellectual but the basic of all reality embryos. Thereby, it cold be said that idealism philosophers saw all of reality in universal and abstract perspective.
Starting from this reality, Soren Kierkegaard build a philosophical system which not wrestle with universal and abstract problems, but the concert and touching individual area problems. Because, according to Kierkegaard, those practical daily problems are concert and became existential human problem. For him, the concert one became starting point of new reflection about human existence meaning. From this foundation he sparked off existentialism concept.
Soren’s though, as critique of Hegel, emphasize subjectivism aspect. Remembering everything basically is manifestation of what Hegel said as soul phenomenology, then human individuality was reduced to be shoal. That will abolish individual responsibility ethically, even make individual existence to be vanish in fold of bevy. His stressing on individual existence will make him considered as the founder of existentialism that will famed by Sartre later.
He saw that the basic thing for human is his condition or his own existent. According to him, existence only applied in human being as concert individual. Because only the concert individual “I” that can existent which really being and presence in the real reality. According to Kierkegaard, to exist is not mean live in abstract and mechanic mode, but continually make new personal and subjective choices.
Soren is famous as religious existentialist because his concept is more inclined to religiosity. He placed human religious existent at the highest stage over other human existence process. He divided existence concept into three stages. First stage is esthetic, when human exist based on his sensory pleasure. The model figure of this stage in west civilization is Don Juan who always hunts the happiness. The second stage is reached by a flying jumping to a phase where human exist with consideration of universal moral in true and false framework. The example of this step is Socrates who immolated himself for the principle of universal moral. The last stage is the peak of faith which cannot be appraised by universal moral that meet with faith paradox character. The model of this stage is Ibrahim in case of his son slaughter. This division existence is also called by dialectical existence.

A little rebellion
As existentialism concept which yell out individual freedom, I saw his theory is halfway. He is still fettered by ethical, moral and religious construction. His theory is so melancholic and not brave enough. He was influenced by Descartes subjectivism, he more focus on human existence and consider that out of human couldn’t be existent. Consequently, he was trapped in dilemmatic subject-object views. So his theory could be classified into anthropocentrism that will be criticized by recent philosophers.