The Holocaust

The main gate of Auschwitz-Birkenau, a symbol of the holocaust.

On a recent visit to the city of Krakow in Poland I visited the sites of Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau. Auschwitz I is the smaller of the two and was a former Polish army barracks that was turned into a concentration camp. Auschwitz I is still largely intact and is now a holocaust museum with a much more personal touch, as it shows photos of inmates and their belongings. Auschwitz-Birkenau however is little more than a site and has a much less emotive atmosphere, maybe they are trying to let the place speak for itself.

Auschwitz II was an extermination camp that ran from 1941-1945.

"Work makes [you] free" the infamous slogan above the
gate of Auschwitz I.

During the tour of Auschwitz I, the thing that most affect me was the mountains of hair that was shaved off the inmates upon arrival, the museum had collected the hair from some 40,000 prisoners. 

In Auschwitz I, I was given the opportunity to walk through one of the only remaining gas chamber and crematoriums, it was a surreal experience to stand in a room where so many people's lives were stolen from them, I felt like I had been alienated from humanity. 

One thing I think is important from the experience came from the attitudes of some of my fellow visitors; they seemed to think that the holocaust was a blip, an isolated incident in humanities otherwise untainted history. They seemed unaware of the crimes committed in the Stalinist era, such as the great purge and gulags, the great Chinese famine caused by Mao Zedong, the death camps created by European settlers prior to the 20^th century or the concentration camps active today in North Korea; the genocides of Cambodia or Rwanda. The holocaust was not the result of a few evil or mad men; it came about as a result of a small group of ordinary people having too much power. This is what happens when men try to become gods.

Something that has changed since my return is that I am seeing the world in colour for the first time; life seems more real, little things in everyday existence have genuine significance. I am unsure whether this effect came as a result of the visit to Auschwitz, meeting a holocaust survivor, or the trip as a whole. In any case it has gone some way to showing me that ordinary life has genuine value and that people should show love to those closest to them as one day it might just turn to ashes.

“Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed… Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never.” – Elie Wiesel Night

Critique of religious Christianity

Modern theologians such as Barth and Bonhoeffer have put forward the idea of ‘religionless Christianity’, this is a new form of Christianity that attempts to return to a pre-modern view without the ecclesiocentric position but rather a new Christocentric view after the “world come of age”. Barth believed that contemporary Christianity was too exclusive and based on a human construct that appealed only to the upper and middle classes. Barth began to realise that the Church itself had become swept up in the Enlightenment’s philosophical zeitgeist and lost its understanding of the life and work of Jesus Christ, and that salvation was a result of Jesus’ grace alone.

Here are some of my own criticisms of the religious Christianity that Barth and Bonhoeffer are trying to deconstruct. These arguments are by no means ground-breaking; nor are they necessarily entirely original. Never the less I hope any readers find some value in them, either as Christians or not. 

Christianity and wealth: It is impossible for a Christian to maintain any type of wealth while subscribing to Christian teaching, as accumulation of money is done by serving a master other than Jesus Christ. Once this money is acquired, it then becomes the master, as people rely on their money rather than on Jesus’ grace. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Mathew 10:25

Catholic non-Christians: The institution of Roman Catholicism has a dark history of corruption and wicked deeds that led to the protestant reformation. It has only been in recent times that Roman Catholicism has begun to develop its positive action in the world through liberation theology and other ideas of Christian thinking, weighing more heavily on orthopraxy than orthodoxy. This emphasis on orthodoxy is in any case untrue to Christianity; even to this day it allows the catechisms and the Pope to overpower human suffering. The Pope’s of Catholicism have always been held by followers in a regard as if they weren’t intrinsically sinful, even going as far as to consider the Pope as God’s representative on Earth, this is a negative attitude as Christianity has only one representative in Jesus Christ.

Philosophical apologetics: These are not normally convincing to those outside religion although within religion these arguments do hold some authority as ‘proofs’. However anyone convinced by these, or even someone who uses them to strengthen their faith, is wrong to do so as these arguments generally point to a deist or generic idea of God. More-so they appeal to rationale rather than grace, they do not represent the personal figure of Jesus Christ, they surmise a God through reason alone which leaves one not with God, but theistic idealism. “A God that would let us prove him would be an idol” – Bonhoeffer.

Easter: Our society has an overzealous attitude towards Christmas and for little reason other than hedonistic materialism, while Easter is given comparatively little regard, this is astounding when one considers that the founding of Christianity is based on this event of God’s humiliation on the cross and his resurrection. However both these events serve to celebrate the life and death of Jesus Christ the lord and saviour but this is insignificant as Christians should do this every day.

The moral God: Immanuel Kant was the first philosopher to put focus on a God that is ultimately just. Kant believed that humans, as moral agents, were proof not only of God but that it was what God wished of us. However this view is essentially stating that it is possible for humans to emulate God, and that we can know what God categorically is; which is impossible for a God that is unknowable. It is not unreasonable to expect any kind of being that we consider “God” to be in the very least moral, however these are attributes from God the father, humans do not attempt to become all powerful, or all present, why then should we see this as a reason to be moral? To follow God’s example of morality is only possible through God as the known, the Word of God in Jesus Christ.

Man as God: The atheist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (possibly as a response to a similar point by Hegel) believed that the idea of God was nothing more than a projection of a hopes, fears and desires into an imaginary metaphysical reality. Thus God’s being was nothing more than human self-consciousness. What does worship or prayer mean then? When believers express the Love of God we are really professing love of ourselves.

Saved by grace: Barth’s theology is strongly based on a Christocentric view that has little or no need for an establishment; instead it is fitted entirely around a focus of Jesus, the saviour and God’s anointed Son. It is by his grace alone that we can be free to know God and to know of God. By his grace humanity, which is wholly undeserving of salvation, will be saved. However if Barth is correct in asserting that Jesus’ grace the genuine spirit the Son, there would be no doubt of his legitimacy.

“Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The Absurd

The absurd is a philosophical concept which points out the paradox between human nature’s need to find some meaning or intrinsic value to life, but being unable to find one. I have chosen this topic for this month’s post as the idea of life’s meaning has been playing on my mind recently. As an atheist I cannot turn towards a divine power for a solution; however I do not find that a negative thought. It is in my rationalist nature to deduce that truth does not come from a false idea. It would be wrong of me to accept something as truth simply because I want it to satisfy the problem.

The absurd originates with the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard, when he is writing of the absurd, does not necessarily state that there is no meaning to life. He simply makes the observation that humans have not found any meaning. It goes on to conclude that there is a good level of futility in us searching for “meaning in a meaningless world,” as any real value that life has is “humanly impossible” to find due to the extraordinary amount of unknown information.

According to Kierkegaard there are 3 ‘solutions’ to the problem of the absurd:

• Suicide – To escape reality and henceforth the absurd entirely.  To leave existence.
• Religion – Belief in a higher being used to give meaning in a way that transcends the absurd. Kierkegaard makes a point of the irrationality behind this belief but recognises that the “leap of faith may be necessary as a solution.” Camus, another major absurdist philosopher states that acceptance of an unprovable being is nothing short of philosophical suicide.
•  Acceptance – Being aware that the absurd is simply a fact of life and possibly even embracing the fact that we will never know why we’re here or even if there is a reason at all, Camus believes this path to be the only true way to overcome the absurd as it leads to the truest form of freedom. However Kierkegaard regards this idea as “daemonic madness”.

Kierkegaard is also considered the founder of existential philosophy; the belief that meaning must originate from individual experience regardless of culture or context. That a person’s idea on the meaning of life should come from within themselves rather than looking to the external world and that by living in a certain way and making choices that have outcomes affecting the world, which give us meaning.  Kierkegaard states that one’s life can be meaningful in the pursuit of a goal, even if the goal is finite, as in that devotion one finds a drive that is a form of meaning.

God and meaninglessness - I should make a point that not all theists find life’s meaning from the idea of God. The naïve believer will see that God is the only way to derive meaning and that acceptance of God, and meaning in life are in a direct relationship. Camus and I would agree here that this is not the case, unless one finds a way of separating these two ideas one is living a false reality. For even within scripture there is regard to the hollow existence: “Meaningless! Meaningless! Says the Teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). The wise believer will acknowledge that there is no ontological meaning, but will instead take their own form of life to be one that derives meaning from Christ, but does not necessitate his existence within their definition of meaning, as in this way they are living for themselves.

Nietzsche and nihilism – Nietzsche says first in the gay science “God is dead” however he continues this sentiment throughout his works. It is a common misconception that this phrase is said in an anti-realist fashion to mean that society as a whole has no need for God anymore. Nietzsche is actually referring to a crisis in value. He maintains that through the rationalism of Enlightened philosophy we have reached a point where we can no longer accept God as a form of value. This leads many people to think that Nietzsche was a nihilist; (the belief that life has no intrinsic value or meaning whatsoever and that all things are meaningless) however Nietzsche uses nihilism as a starting point rather than his conclusion, he aims to rescue us from a Godless, meaningless existence. He then goes on to make a point that we need something new, which is more than human. He believes that this Übermensch is a true free spirit and a creator of new value in the world. 

Meaning through legacy – Some people live the meaningless life in the hope of having a meaningful death, this comes from the thought that the only meaning people find, is the legacy they leave to the world after they are dead. For example the graphomaniac; someone who experiences the compulsive need to write and have their work published, similarly with the need of the artist to paint. These things come from a need to leave a mark on the world, as they have come to realise that once they are forgotten, they never really existed. What they themselves do not realise is that all things will eventually cease to exist. As Nietzsche says in human, all too human “To think of writing as one’s life’s profession should by rights be considered a kind of madness.”

Dysteleology -Or in other words ‘optimistic nihilism’. This is the philosophical doctrine that life has no purpose, or more specifically, no final cause. It is however more a perspective of scientific philosophy. It is a school of thought followed by Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Hawkins and much of the global scientific community. The position is one that accepts that life is intrinsically meaningless, but rationalises meaning through the wonder of the universe. Rather than becoming overwhelmed with the meaninglessness of existence, be unendingly blissful that, by an impossibly unlikely sequence of events you are here to see the universe for this fraction of time that you inhabit it as a conscious being. 

“The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness” – Carl Sagan 

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was an 18^th century enlightenment philosopher from Königsberg and is well known for his study of epistemology, metaphysics and political theory. However Kant is arguably most well renowned for his doctrines on ethics and Christian morals.

Kant believed very firmly that that the action one takes, is moral or immoral based on that act rather than the consequences thereof, this is the ethical theory known as deontology and was Kant’s radical change from the contemporary belief of consequentialism. Kant followed deontology as he believed it was the best way to follow Jesus’ teaching of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Even if the consequence of the action is overall worse, or the person has acted out of immoral reasons, the action is still of itself a moral one.

Kant also wrote that all moral actions were either intrinsically good or evil and that there was no grey area in between the two, this is known as Kant’s categorical imperative, from this he established the three formulations or Maxims:

Maxim one: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”

Here Kant states that all actions must have universality, that if a moral action is wrong in one circumstance it is therefore always wrong, he believes that an action can only be moral if it would be acceptable for everyone to do all of the time.

Maxim two: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”

Kant says here that it is our moral duty to treat all human beings as an ends rather than a means, and that we should not deceive or manipulate others in order achieve our own goals. Kant claimed that all humans were an end in themselves and that they have a right to their own free will.

Maxim 3: “every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”

In the third formulation Kant believes that all human beings are their own moral agents in the world and must all act as if they were the supreme moral authority of the entire universe. This maxim is essentially a stage to apply the previous two maxims, Kant uses this Maxim to give the categorical imperative a social context to which it can exist in the world.

Although Kant was highly sceptical of the philosophical reasoning of the existence of God after studying the work of David Hume, he did however believe God to be a universal law maker and believed that humans were made in Gods image and thus we reflected God’s moral judgement, this was Kant’s moral argument for the existence of God based on practical reason.

"Two things awe me the most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me." - Immanuel Kant

René Descartes

The feedback on the last post relating to David Hume was so positive that I decided to continue summaries of the works of philosophers, in particular one that was mentioned last month and that I have had requests to do in more detail, so without further ado here is Descartes.

René Descartes was a 17^th century French philosopher who is credited with the Cartesian line graph, indices and the law of conservation of mechanical momentum. However throughout his life Descartes battled with with epistemological nihilism, which lead to his own principle of methodological scepticism, essentially Descartes disregarded everything that he thought he knew and tried to think about what he could categorically state that he knew. Descartes came to the startling realisation that there was basically nothing that could be said to be true, as all knowledge we have comes from the senses which are fundamentally fallible, therefore everything we believe we know actually requires a varying level of belief. However Descartes concluded that even if nothing he observed was real, he himself must be in some sense real as he was asking the questions about what is real. This he summed up with “I think therefore I am.”

Descartes progressively added more to the index of knowledge with mathematical axioms such as a square, Descartes concluded that no matter how deluded someone was it is impossible to deny that a shape with four sides of equal length and four angles of the same degree exists and that thing we call a square, he used this idea of basic principle to argue the existence of God. He stated that the definition of a square necessitated its existence, the same can be said of God. He proposed that existence is a perfection: it would be more perfect to exist than not to exist. Thus, if the notion of God did not include existence, it would not be supremely perfect, as it would be lacking a perfection. Consequently, the notion of a supremely perfect God to not exist is simple incomprehensible. Therefore, according to his nature, God must exist. This is known as the ontological argument for the existence of God. Hume and Kant are both strongly opposed to this idea, Hume disagrees with the principle as it lacks empirical ground and that nothing can exist with any necessity. Kant's criticism is based on the idea of characteristics within the argument, Kant stated “Existence is not a predicate” and thus could not be the starting point of an argument to prove God as it adds nothing to the essence of a being.

“I am accustomed to sleep and in my dreams to imagine the same things that lunatics imagine when awake.” - René Descartes.

Hume's philosophy

My last two posts have been on the topic of theology, so it thought it was time for a refreshing breath of philosophy, specifically atheist philosophy from David Hume.

Hume is credited with the ontological thought known as bundle theory, bundle theory states that every (at least) tangible thing in existence is nothing more than a sum of its properties and that the actual object does not really exist. This at first glance this position seems completely nonsensical however Hume then challenges us to think of an object without its properties, his example was an apple, but the activity works with any object. Hume therefore arrived at the idea that no object really exists. This also stretches beyond the inanimate and can be directly applied to a human being such as yourself (unless of course my blog has a much wider audience than I expect!) this means that you don't exist other than as a set of senses that you are made up of, Hume concluded from this that there is no sense of self. This was Hume's way of telling René  Descartes that he was wrong in his position which he summed up by saying “Cogito ergo sum” or to those of you who aren't familiar with Descartes (or Latin) “I think therefore I am”, Descartes believed that the world around us might be an illusion or that we might be dreaming of our world, but at least if we are seeing the illusion or dreaming we are thinking, ergo we exist. Both have strong arguments however I feel obliged to go with Descartes otherwise I must concede that I do not exist, however Nietzsche would argue that I am accepting Descartes truth because it comforts me to believe it, rather than its actual truth or falsehood.

Hume also believed in sense data, a branch of John Locke's empirical scepticism, stating that all knowledge is meaningless unless it originates from human experience and that the real world (if there even is one!) is unknowable, as in empiricism the only knowledge we can truly have is derived from the senses as this as close as we can ever get to what we call “truth”, this is why Hume was an atheist as he believed it was impossible to arrive at God through this process of sense data. Although Hume believed in sense data he found himself constantly puzzled by the problem of induction, this is the idea that all scientific method is based on a logical fallacy, as just because we observe something we can't assume it's going to happen again, no matter how many times it appears to happen, so essentially all the laws of physics are unreliable. For example if you live your whole life only seeing white cups, you might find it logical to assume that all cups are white until someone gives you a handful of multi-coloured cups to which you would have to draw into question all you think you know about ceramics. Although Hume may have been confused by this defective induction modern scientists don't seem too bothered about it because it seems to work, and if it doesn’t we can always change it later.

"That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction, than the affirmation, that it will rise." - David Hume.

Reformed Epistemology

Reformed epistemology is a unique justification for the belief in God as it, fundamentally requires no need for justification. The reformed epistemologist position is that the belief in God is “properly basic” and does not need to be inferred from other truths in order to be reasonable. To a reformed epistemologist, the existence of God is as obvious to them as my existence is to my friends and family. The core of the belief comes from a branch of Calvinism in which he called sensus divinitatis or sense of divinity, this ‘sense’ allows people to have an external knowledge of God’s presence.

Some people argue that everyone has this sense of divinity, this is used to argue that there are no true atheists, Calvin himself believed there was no reasonable non-belief. However reformed epistemologists believe that atheists are, in a realist sense wrong. They would also agree that other religions are also wrong or at least less right. This is because they believe that only they have their noetic structure (noetic structure here means “the sum total of a person’s belief”) properly ordered, and that others who do not share their belief do not, either because they refuse to see the truth or their view of the world has been tainted by sin.

Critiques of this position are that almost all religions claim that they alone have the ultimate truth, all religions can argue that they have their noetic structure properly ordered, what makes a reformed epistemologist different from an orthodox Jew or a militant Islamist? Who all claim that they alone have the ultimate truth of God.

One can take this point further still; I could claim that I believe that my dog is in fact the son of the creator dog of light and that all those who believe in him will receive eternal life and that only I have my noetic structure in the correct order as I am the only one who can see the divine truth in Noodle, son of Dog.

Other arguments against reformed epistemology are that it claims that there is an ultimate truth, but makes no reference or justification for it, which if one accepts makes the difference between justified and unjustified obsolete. Christians who prefer natural theology are often cynical of reformed epistemology as they believes that it undermines what they consider to be a rationally inferred realist God.

While non-believers and Christians who disagree with the position would maintain that reformed epistemology stands on flimsy grounds, a reformed epistemologist would see no reason to make a counter claim as that would involve justifying their belief which is fundamentally wrong.

“A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.” – C.S Lewis.