Theology

1. Introduction
2. Does God exist?
3. God and the question of Evil
4. Saint Augustine: Philosophy and Faith
5. Saint Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism
6. Ludwig Feuerbach: Anthropology vs. Theology

2

1. Introduction

Human interest in religious problems precedes all philosophical reflection. For many
centuries, philosophers have attempted to rationally explain and justify either their
faith or lack thereof. In this module we will be discussing the

philosophy of religion

especially with respect to Christianity. It must be noted however that every religious
system aspires to explain the nature of the world and man’s role within it.

The point of departure for most philosophers of religion is the doctrine associ-
ated with the nature of God, known as theism.

Theism

is the belief in one personal

and animate God who is omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing) and per-
fectly merciful. Theists believe that such a God is the creator of the world and,
more importantly, constantly intervenes in his creation. This viewpoint is upheld by
Christians, Jews as well as Muslims.

Atheism

is a contradictory notion. It denies the existence of a personal and animate

God. A form of atheism,

deism

claims that although God created the universe, he

restrains from active intervention in its fate and allows nature to run its own course.
Another doctrine,

pantheism

identifies God with both the world and nature under-

standing all as one complete being.

Polytheism

is the belief in the existence of many

different deities. Nowadays, atheism is commonly understood as the denial of the
existence of God in any form.

Theology

is a philosophical discipline which discusses the question of God’s exist-

ence and his nature. Two branches are distinguished here:

dogmatic theology

based

on texts (The Bible), revealed truth, tenets and divine revelation, and

natural theology

based solely on human reasoning which can direct us towards God.

The question whether God exists is asked by the majority of people at some point
in their lives. For many people God is the ultimate source of morality and the cause
of all things in the physical and material world. The following section deals with the
basic arguments for and against the existence of God.

3

2. Does God exist?

Can we prove that God exists? One of the oldest and most commonly used argu-
ments for the existence of God is the so-called

cosmological argument

known also

as the

first-cause argument

. It maintains that everything that exists was caused by

something that preceded it. For example, if a branch falls on someone’s head then
we can claim that what caused this was the wind. We can continue and then ask what
caused the wind to blow?

Our point of departure here is the analysis of causal sequences occurring in the
world around us. In a string of cause and effect associations, certain scholars main-
tain that there must exist an ultimate and final cause i.e. God, or the “First Mover”
as Aristotle called it (see module 1, section 3).

The flaw in this argument is the fact that it claims everything in the world is caused
by something else but, simultaneously, that there also exists one self-sufficient and
independent Being, in the form of God, who is the foundation of all these interlink-
ing sequences of cause and effect.

Logically, one can therefore ask, “What caused God to exist?” Furthermore, one
can claim that the “first cause” does not necessarily have to be an almighty, infinitely
good and personal God but a physical event. One may also claim, in line with the

big-bang model

, that the ultimate cause of the universe is the expansion of matter.

However, such an explanation of the beginning of the universe is open to similar
criticism: “What caused the bigbang?”

Both the cosmological argument, as well as the big bang model are constructed in
the belief that an infinite sequences of causes and effects is not possible. It is worth
noting that in the same way that there is no greatest number (as we can always add
one), there is no end point for the causal sequences infinitely moving backwards into
the past.

An alternative argument for the first cause is the

teleological argument

known some-

times as the

causal argument

(from the Greek telos, “end”, “cause”). The point of

departure for this argument is the observation of the world that surrounds us and
the awareness that everything in the world appears to be suited to the function it
performs; everything seems to have been “designed”. Our observation of nature re-
veals the existence of order and harmony which consists of biological, chemical and
physical rules or laws governing the world.

Perfect order exists in the world of nature: every part of the ecosystem functions
correctly only when all the other parts function correctly also. Everything drives
towards an end which has been designated from above. The order of the universe
leads us to assume that there exists a supreme Designer and Creator.

In the same way that one can look at a watch and conclude it has been designed by
a watchmaker so

by analogy

we can observe the astonishingly complex world around

us and conclude the existence of a Divine Watchmaker.

A person who does not believe in the existence of God may assume that the causality
observed in the world of nature can be explained on the basis of the theory of evolu-
tion.

Evolutionism

maintains that the structure of reality and its current state can be

explained as a result of continual development.

4

According to

Charles Darwin

(1809 - 1882), the process of natural selection allows

the healthiest creatures and those best adapted to their environment to survive.
Therefore man could have evolved from the apes. Modern evolutionism includes the
idea of parallelism (i.e. species exist together), for example, apes may have evolved
into man but they also still exist in the form they once existed.

Nowadays Darwinism is seen to be implausible as there is no evidence for the exist-
ence of ‘missing links’ between species with neither anthropology or palaeontology
able to account for them. Furthermore, the theory of evolution does not necessarily
entail the denial of God. One can believe that God himself created the process and
mechanics of evolution.

One cannot fail to notice that the causal argument does not support theism or mono-
theism, the belief in one personal God. Even if we assert that the world develops
towards an end, this does not confirm the fact that it might have been “designed”
by one God. The world could have equally been designed by many Gods working
in unison. What is more, the causal argument is not necessarily associated with the
existence of an almighty and infinitely good God (i.e. a theistic God).

Not all of the world’s structure appears to have been perfectly “formulated”. First
and foremost, it is difficult to come to terms with the fact that an almighty and in-
finitely good God would wish to create a world allowing for the

existence of such a

great amount of evil

such as cruelty, murder or suffering caused by natural disaster or

disease.

An argument for the existence of God that differs fundamentally from the previous
two is the

ontological argument

which is not based on sensory evidence. It claims that

the existence of God is implied by the very definition of God as the Ultimate Being.
The author of the ontological argument,

Saint Anselm

(1033 - 1109) describes it as

follows:

“Nothing greater than the concept of God can be conceived (aliquid quo nihil majus
cogitari possit). To think of such a being as existing only in thought and not also in
reality involves a contradiction. For something that lacks real existence is not that
than which no greater can be conceived. A yet greater being would be something
with the further attribute of existence. Thus the unsurpassably perfect being must
exist — otherwise it would not be unsurpassably perfect”.

For many, the ontological argument is confusing. To paraphrase we can say that
Saint Anselm understands God as the most perfect being. The existence of God as a
concept in our minds entails his actual existence in reality independently of the con-
cept. Saint Anselm concluded that the most perfect being (God) must actually exist;
otherwise we would be able to imagine a being more perfect than God (possessing
divine attributes and existing in reality).

The ontological argument met with controversy from philosophers even in Saint
Anselm’s time; they attempted to show the absurdity of his reasoning. The logical
conclusion of his argument was that anything that can be defined can exist in reality.
For example, we can conceive the most perfect desert island and according to Saint
Anselm, this island must exist in reality. If the island does not exist in reality then it
cannot be the most perfect island we can conceive…

The most famous criticism of Saint Anselm’s argument is

Kant’s Critique of Pure

Reason

. Kant noted that the ontological argument was flawed due to the fact that

Anselm interpreted God’s existence as one of many properties, the others being his
goodness and omnipotence. However, existence cannot be interpreted as the prop-
erty of a particular concept as this would mean it is seen only as a property and not
a condition for the existence of other properties.

5

Therefore, it is not possible to construct a logical transition from the idea of a per-
fect being to the existence of such a being in reality. Furthermore, the idea of an
unsurpassably perfect being will remain, independent of whether it exists only in our
minds or whether, in fact, it exists in reality.

According to Kant, Anselm’s argument together with all other arguments for the
existence of God are merely “pseudo-arguments”. The existence of God cannot be
proved scientifically and the idea of God goes beyond the confines of science.

Therefore both theology and metaphysics possess no scientific value. However, in-
tellectual faith is possible and in fact necessary to reconcile science with faith. Man
cannot be reduced to a “perceiving being” requiring merely scientific arguments to
function as he is also an active and moral being. Even though science cannot verify
or deny the existence of God, such a question is necessary for the shaping of Man’s
moral state.

There are many objections raised to the arguments for the existence of God. However,
the conclusion as to which of these arguments is the more persuasive rests with the
reader. The traditional argument against the existence of God is how an almighty
and good God (in a theistic sense) is able to allow so much pain, suffering and evil to
exist in the world. This question will be raised in the following section.

6

3. God and the question of Evil

Our everyday experiences leave no doubt that evil does in fact exist. A variety of
its manifestations surround us in the form of genocide, war, murder, torture, acts
of terror, cataclysms, cruelty or disease. How is it possible to reconcile such a great
amount of evil with the concept of a wholly and infinitely good God? Surely an om-
nipotent God could prevent evil?

The existence of evil in the world has caused many people to reject God. The popu-
lar argument against the existence of God claims that an almighty and good God
could not allow so much suffering in the world.

There are a few solutions to the problem of evil vis-ŕ-vis a theistic God. One such
statement asserts that the existence of

evil is necessary for the greater good

and leads

to greater morality. Such an approach allows the hero or holy man to triumph over
cruelty or disease.

This concept of evil paves the way for someone like Mother Teresa to attain a
uniquely noble spirit necessary for bringing help to the needy and triumphing over
human suffering. However, this argument does not appear to be entirely persuasive
and it is possible to demonstrate several flaws.

First of all, it is difficult not to notice that the amount of misfortune in the world is
greater than the amount of suffering which is necessary for any so-called holy men
or heroes to fight their morally good fight. Furthermore, suffering is most often
anonymous and unnoticeable. The question begs whether a world without evil and
holy men or heroes (and their unwavering morality) would be a worse one than the
one in which we live now?

An associated belief is the idea that what appears to be evil, in fact, makes the world
a better place in the wider perspective and longer term. In order to understand this
position, it is of value to differentiate natural evil from moral evil.

Natural evil

is independent of human factors. Examples of this can be natural dis-

asters, disease etc. This kind of evil has an important role to play in the integral
harmony and beauty of the world. In the same way that disharmony is a valuable
element within the complete harmony of a perfect piece of music so too evil is an
important factor which makes the world in all its complexities a better one.

We can only understand the existence of evil here if we take “God’s viewpoint”. It is
difficult for someone to understand that the death of an innocent child may be nec-
essary for the integral harmony of the world. As previously mentioned, evil which
is caused by nature can lead to a better world creating a situation where man has
to use his free will to struggle with difficulties, help others and behave in a morally
appropriate manner.

Moral evil

exists alongside natural evil and is caused by Man. It seems to be a neces-

sary price to pay for

free will

. God has endowed us with free will i.e. the ability to

make conscious decisions about our actions. Without free will we would be like
machines unable to make independent decisions.

Consequently, the world in which Man is endowed with free will (leading sometimes
to evil) is a better world than one in which our actions are pre-determined and we
can only do good. The fact that we have free will (and are free) entails that our ac-

7

tions and decisions can be morally good. Our actions operate around a moral code
protecting good which is valuable for Man and defined by God.

The question of evil is intrinsically linked to our freedom. As previously mentioned,
followers of determinism claim that all man’s choices and decisions can be explained
by conditioning processes so all our actions appear to be determined by preceding
events.

Furthermore, if we maintain that God is omnipotent then we might expect Him to
create a world where free will exists but evil does not. The most serious objection
raised against the explanation of evil though man’s free will is the fact that it only
pertains to evil of a moral nature. The existence of free will in no way explains the
existence of natural evil.

In the dispute over the true origin of evil, the Christian position is most often repre-
sented by

Saint Augustine

(354 - 430):

And I said, Behold God, and behold what God hath created; and God is good,
yea, most mightily and incomparably better than all these…Where, then, is evil,
and whence, and how crept it in hither?…Or hath it no being at all?…Whence,
therefore, is it, seeing that God, who is good, hath made all these things good ? He,
indeed, the greatest and chiefest Good, hath created these lesser goods…

And it was made clear unto me that those things are good which yet are corrupted,
which, neither were they supremely good, nor unless they were good, could be cor-
rupted; because if supremely good, they were incorruptible, and if not good at all,
there was nothing in them to be corrupted. For corruption harms, but, less it could
diminish goodness, it could harm. Either, then, corruption harms not, which cannot
be; or, what is most certain, all which is corrupted is deprived of good. But if they
be deprived of all good, they will cease to be…

therefore whatsoever is, is good. That evil, then, which I sought whence it was, is not
any substance; for were it a substance, it would be good. For either it would be an in-
corruptible substance, land so a chief good, or a corruptible substance, which unless
it were good it could not be corrupted. I perceived, therefore, and it was made clear
to me, that Thou didst make all things good, nor is there any substance at all that
was not made by Thee; and because all that Thou hast made are not equal, therefore
all things are; because individually they are good, and altogether very good, because
our God made all things very good.” (Saint Augustine: Confessions)

Therefore in Saint Augustine’s view, evil exists only as an absence of good. It exists
only relative to the difference between good and worse. In this light, God is not the
creator of evil and hence is infinitely good. Evil construed as an absence of good is
likewise not caused by man which leads us to assert that God is, in fact, almighty and
the creator of everything that exists in the universe.

Man as one of God’s creatures is equipped with the ability to act freely and can,
therefore, draw nearer to God (by carrying out His Will) or move away from Him
(by violating His commands). Evil does not exist within Creation but is an absence
of good caused by the inappropriate use of man’s free will.

For theism, evil is thus reduced to the corruption of the world by man through his
inappropriate use of free will which he always uses for good but often at the expense
of the greater good.

8

4. Saint Augustine:

Philosophy and Faith

From the very beginnings of Christianity two spiritual currents were present: sympa-
thisers of philosopher and those who opposed it. For representatives of the second
current, philosophy was considered a dangerous discipline.

A fine example was Saint Peter Damian who saw danger in the study of grammar.
He claimed that the first teacher of grammar was Satan himself who taught our
forefathers to use the plural form when conjugating the word Deus (God). Thus, the
first grammar lesson was concurrently the first lesson in (heretical) polytheism (the
belief in many Gods).

The opponents of philosophy claimed that it was a pagan science appropriate for
a pagan world. These anti-philosophers noted that God chose twelve apostles
who were simple, humble and uneducated people not professors of philosophy.
Furthermore, they highlighted that a Christian should free him/herself from and
reject the surrounding material world. Due to the fact that philosophy belongs to the
world, the Christian must also reject philosophy. However, these anti-philosophers,
it appeared, were not acquainted with Plato’s work.

The anti-philosopher’s position, however, contained certain flaws. The philosophy
that they were so apt to reject is a product of reason. Moreover, innate reason is a
work of God or even a trace, a fingerprint left behind Him giving evidence of His
Creation. Consequently, by calling for the rejection of reason and the mind the anti-
philosophers were calling for a rejection of God.

Thus can faith, “the order of the heart” be reconciled with philosophy, “the order
of the mind”? An answer to this question can be found in the philosophy of

Saint

Augustine

(354 - 430) who included the philosophies of Plato and the Neoplatonists,

especially Plotinus (205 - 270) into the Christian tradition seeing within these phi-
losophies a system most similar to Church doctrine.

According to Augustine, philosophy is (or should be) an internal voice of unrest
relating to the eternal question of the meaning of our existence. He believed this is
associated with the perception of Man as a being entwined in temporal (earthly) life
and caught up in time, a being torn between the past and future. We can never say
whether things and phenomena around us “are” but only that they “are becoming”.
Because of the existence of time the world we inhabit is an illusory one.

Human life should not be reduced to something which is constantly in transition.
Augustine believed (similarly to Plato) that apart from the transitory world of things
and phenomena, a perfect being also exists. This being is, of course, God who “is”.
The words “was” and “will be” are of no meaning here: God told Moses “I am that
I am”. Man, moreover, is a being endowed with a soul and should direct his life to-
wards that which is eternal and be able to control his corporeality and bodily nature
as this connects us with what is fluid and unstable.

For Augustine the

soul

is not only the centre of all man’s vital and perceptive forces

but above all the source of everything that unites us with God. Augustine claimed
that he craved only to know God and the soul; this knowledge would lead him to an
understanding of himself. He writes:

9

“Thou who wilt know thyself, knowest thou that thou art? I know. Whence know-
est thou? I know not. Feelest thou thyself to be simple, or manifold? I know not.
Knowest thou thyself to be moved? I know not. Knowest thou thyself to think? I
know.” (Saint Augustine: Soliloquies)

Therefore everything but the fact that we exist and we think can be questioned.
Man’s soul is only truly itself when it questions, thinks, remembers or wants. The
soul is not simply something which lies within Man but is above all the centre of
all conscious experience. The road to God must lead through our internal world:
“Truth resides in the internal realm of Man”.

Augustine, as Plato before him, rejected the value of the senses. He writes:

“The mind’s act of looking is Reason; but because it does not follow that every one
who looks sees, a right and perfect act of looking, that is, one followed by vision,
is called Virtue; for Virtue is either right or perfect Reason. But even the power of
vision, though the eyes be now healed, has not force to turn them to the light, unless
these three things abide. Faith, whereby the soul believes that thing, to which she is
asked to turn her gaze, is of such sort, that being seen it will give blessedness; Hope,
whereby the mind judges that if she looks attentively, she will see; Charity, whereby
she desires to see and to be filled with the enjoyment of the sight.

The attentive view is now followed by the very vision of God, which is the end
of looking; not because the power of beholding ceases, but because it has nothing
further to which it can turn itself: and this is the truly perfect virtue, Virtue arriving
at its end, which is followed by the life of blessedness. Now this vision itself is that
apprehension which is in the soul, compounded of the apprehending subject and of
that which is apprehended: as in like manner seeing with the eyes results from the
conjunction of the sense and the object of sense, either of which being withdrawn,
seeing becomes impossible.” (Saint Augustine: Soliloquies)

Only through

illumination

or the light of divine enlightenment can we strengthen

the perceptive abilities of the human soul. To obtain such grace the soul must first
turn to God. Faith must come before intellectual awareness. Truth is granted to us
by God and the imperfect human mind must rely on the authority of revealed truths
and revelation.

According to Saint Augustine, not only is truth independent of Man but salvation
also which is granted to us through Divine Mercy and Grace.

Divine Grace

opens

the doors of Heaven, however, we cannot “earn” salvation through good deeds or
an exemplary life. Grace is always a fortunate and unexpected gift which cannot in
anyway be earned and is not granted to us on merit.

Furthermore, Augustine maintained that only in the church can we redeem our sins
and find promise of salvation. Man was endowed with free will but turned away
from his Creator when Adam and Eve committed Original Sin; they caused our fall
and in doing so man’s original nature was tainted. It is only through Divine Grace
that we can be raised above sin.

Augustinian doctrine asserts the precedence of the divine order which is the source
of Divine Grace, what controls human will and the revelations enlightening the
mind over all intellectual reflection. Mental awareness has an intuitive nature and
the mind arrives at truths directly without reasoning. In this light, the only true
philosophical approach is one that not only tells us what to do but also gives us the
strength to do it. Saint Augustine ultimately and definitively breaks from the intel-
lectualism of the Ancient World here. He claims that it is not enough to know good
to be able to perform good, one should above all love good (and therefore God who
is the giver of all good).

10

Augustinian philosophy was the model of Christian thought up to the 13

th

century.

What followed was Saint Thomas Aquinas’ contrasting, new Christian philosophy
which was oriented towards the empirical, objective and intellectual.

11

5. Saint Thomas Aquinas

and Scholasticism

In Medieval times (9

th

- 15

th

century), Christian philosophy was dominated by scholas-

ticism which was a belief in the necessity to fully understand faith and its sources.

The greatest figure of this period is without a doubt

Saint Thomas Aquinas

(1225

- 1274); his philosophy is known as

Thomism

. Saint Thomas in contrast to others

separated knowledge, the sphere of reason from faith, the sphere of revealed truths
stemming from God. He noticed that some truths are accessible through reason as
well as stemming from God (for example, the concept of the eternal soul). More
often than not, faith and knowledge inhabit two distinct spheres (for example, the
tenets of faith such as the Holy Trinity or Original Sin which are completely inac-
cessible to reason).

Saint Thomas highlighted that it is important to realise that although certain truths
go beyond reason they do not contradict reason. There should be no contradiction
between reason and what is revealed to us by God. Therefore, Thomas distinguished
dogmatic theology from philosophy (a servant of rational theology) as dogmatic the-
ology is supported by revealed truths whereas philosophy merely by reason.

The philosophy of Saint Thomas is often contrasted with Augustinian philosophy
which was concerned with man seen as a being torn between what is eternal and
what is changeable and dynamic. Augustine maintained that man should turn away
from the world and, as Plato proposed, look within as this is where the truth lies
because God resides in our soul. Man should, above all, believe and wait for enlight-
enment.

For Thomas philosophy should be a servant of faith (and theology), however, intel-
lection reasoning is not a result of illumination. Man cannot directly know God.
The starting point of all philosophical reflection must be, therefore, the study of the
surrounding world, its formation and structure. Only through the comprehension
and study of the world’s harmony, order, cause and perfection can we draw closer
to God.

Through reason we are able to not only know and recognise material things and
phenomena but also God, His existence, properties and how He acts. Moreover it
seems that by focusing on the surrounding world philosophy can (and should) go
beyond this world.

According to Saint Thomas, God, the soul or other truth are not directly accessible
to the human mind. We are only able to know individual things and phenomena and
it is this that must be the starting point for all knowledge. In parallel to Aristotle who
discussed form and matter, Saint Thomas maintained that all individual beings are
complex substances formed from

essence

and

existence

.

The essence of a thing is that which is common, specific and indicated by its defini-
tion. Essence defines the internal nature of particular being. God’s essence implies
his existence hence the words “I am that I am” that Moses heard. However, the
essence of a created being does not imply its existence: a man and a tree do not ex-
ist because of their essence but due to another factor. Herein lies the fundamental
difference between God and the world He created.

12

God is the only necessary and independent being in existence. Everything else in
the world is dependent and incidental. For this reason, God is an elementary and
primary being, whereas all of creation is formed from essence and existence, form
(what is specific to a particular type or species) and matter (what is individual).

The notion of God’s existence lies in man’s nature even though his existence is far
from obvious. For this reason, Saint Thomas posited the

five major proofs of God. (the

Five Ways)

In the first, Thomas put forward the view that all movement implies, in the last
analysis, a first cause. All that moves is moved by something preceding it. This chain
of movements cannot continue infinitely thus an unmoved mover (God) must exist
who set the world in motion.

The second proceeds from the principle that the world is not brought into being by
itself but that everything must have an effective cause, however, there must, again,
be a first cause to this sequence.

The third proof of the contingency of the world claims that there exists a necessary
cause, a necessary being as things cannot just happen, nothing cannot come out of
nothing.

The fourth is based on the fact that different forms of perfection exist in the world
presupposing that a most perfect being must exist. The existence of God is arrived
at here through the premise that all things contain either more or less being. The
concept of “more” or “less” can only be posited if we are to compare it with a being
which is most perfect.

Finally, the fifth proof of the final cause proceeds from the fact that a higher being
exists that controls nature and acts purposefully, forming the order and harmony of
the world.

The proofs are known as cosmological arguments as they are based on an observa-
tion of the world and lead to the conclusion that a Creator exists. The cosmological
arguments of Saint Thomas of Aquinas were, no doubt, “inspired” by the work of
Aristotle (from whom Thomas took the idea of a First Mover). Moreover, they con-
tain a line of reasoning typical of the logical argument discussed above.

From Saint Thomas’ point of view, the world appears to us ordered and develops
according to the Divine Plan. God is the root of all causality, the first cause of all
that exists. The perfect harmony of the world is made up of various forms of crea-
tion which are characterised by different forms of perfection: from simple matter,
organic matter, plants, animals to man; above whom we find pure forms of intel-
ligence, angels.

Saint Thomas wrote: “The established order of things is for the higher beings to be
more perfect than the lower; and for whatever is contained deficiently, partially, and
in manifold manner in the lower beings, to be contained in the higher eminently,
and in a certain degree of fullness and simplicity. Therefore, in God, as in the high-
est source of things, all things pre-exist upper substantially in respect of His simple
Being itself. But among other creatures the angels are nearest to God, and resemble
Him most; hence they share more fully and more perfectly in the Divine goodness.
Consequently, all material things pre-exist in the angels more simply and less materi-
ally even than in themselves, yet in a more manifold manner and less perfectly than
in God. Now whatever exists in any subject, is contained in it after the manner of
such subject.” (Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica)

Consequently, the world forms a perfect

hierarchy

and man stands above nature. It

can be claimed that within man a transformation of this hierarchy takes place. Man

13

can be found on two metaphorical ladders: firstly at the top of the ladder of all
physical beings and, secondly, at the base of the ladder of all spiritual forms. Man is
therefore above all animals and below angels.

Like Aristotle before him, Saint Thomas believed that man is a “social being” and that
all social life stems from our nature. Therefore individuals should wholly conform to
society which requires a hierarchical order. In the same way that the soul governs the
body so a monarch governs society. Temporal life however is not man’s ultimate aim
and therefore the Church as the institution that delivers salvation should be found
above the state.

In the event of conflict between Church and state, man should conform to the re-
ligious power and not the secular as concern for eternal life is significantly more
important than concern for the temporal.

14

6. Ludwig Feuerbach:

Anthropology vs. Theology

The study of the nature of God and the essence of religion did not however always
lead to theistic approaches. A prime example is the philosophy of

Ludwig Feuerbach

(1804 - 1872) which focused on reality rather than dogma.

Feuerbach studied theology and contemplated religion all his life. The product of
his meditations was, for the period, truly revolutionary. He claimed that nothing
outside of Man and Nature exists and all reflection outside of these spheres is worth-
less. Moreover, he also believed that religion only serves to fulfil man’s imagined and
fanciful desires and takes away his own autonomous worth. According to Feuerbach,

religion is the source of Man’s alienation

. He writes:

“What man calls Absolute Being, his God, is his own being. The power of the object
over him is therefore the power of his own being. Thus, the power of the object of
feeling is the power of feeling itself; the power of the object of reason is the power
of reason itself; and the power of the object of will is the power of the will itself…

the object of the, senses is in itself indifferent, having no relevance to our disposition
and judgment. But the object of religion is a distinguished object - the most excel-
lent, the first, the highest being. It essentially presupposes a critical judgment - the
discrimination between the divine and the non-divine, between that which is worthy
of adoration and that which is not. It is in this context, therefore, that the following
statement is unconditionally true: The object of man is nothing else than his objec-
tive being itself. As man thinks, as is his understanding of things, so is his God; so
much worth as a man has, so much and no more has his God. The consciousness of
God is the self-consciousness of man; the knowledge of God is the self-knowledge
of man…

Religion, at least the Christian religion, is the expression of how man relates to him-
self, or more correctly, to his essential being; but he relates to his essential being as
to another being. The Divine Being is nothing other than the being of man himself,
or rather, the being of man abstracted from the limits of the individual man or the
real, corporeal man, and objectified, i.e., contemplated and worshiped as another
being, as a being distinguished from his own. All determinations of the Divine Being
are, therefore, determinations of the being of man.” (Feuerbach, L. 1843: Essence
of Christianity)

Our traditional concept of God is of a perfect and omnipotent being. Feuerbach
claims that the only reason this concept still remains is because man has yet to dis-
cover his own power and perfection.

In this view, man’s only world is the world of nature: we are the most perfect crea-
tures inhabiting nature. All abstract disciplines that relate to transcendence are of no
worth, moreover, they deprive man of his strengths, values and feelings. By assigning
God what are in fact our own positive characteristics and values we deprive our-
selves of them and thus maintain a distorted view of ourselves as worthless, flawed
beings unable to live virtuous or admirable lives. Religion has caused social relations
to become deformed and warped and it sustains the belief that human existence is
miserable.

15

“You are what you eat”. Human spiritual life and consciousness stem from physical
existence and the material world. Due to the fact that nothing other than nature ex-
ists, nature rather than God should be revered. As mentioned above, man is the most
perfect of all natural creatures consequently man should be man’s God,

Homo homini

Deus est

. Only through this unity can man be at one with his individual self.

We should trust our strengths and respect our temporal existence without the need
to look to the heavens. We should do good not for God (or fear of God) but for
ourselves and our loved ones.

Feuerbach’s brand of

atheism

is not merely a rejection of belief in God but above

all an affirmation of man and the world. Consequently he believed the main task
of philosophy in modern times to be the “humanisation of God” and the

shift from

theology to anthropology

.

In his Principles of the Philosophy of the Future he wrote:

“Only a sensuous being is a true and real being. Only through the senses is an object
given in the true sense, not through thought for itself…

The new philosophy therefore regards as its epistemological principle, as its subject,
not the ego, not the absolute — i.e., abstract spirit, in short, not reason for itself
alone — but the real and the whole being of man. Man alone is the reality, the sub-
ject of reason. It is man who thinks, not the ego, not reason…

If the motto of the old philosophy was: “The rational alone is the true and real,”
the motto of the new philosophy is: “The human alone is the true and real,” for the
human alone is the rational; man is the measure of reason…

The new philosophy makes man, together with nature as the basis of man, the ex-
clusive, universal, and highest object of philosophy; it makes anthropology, together
with physiology, the universal science…

The single man in isolation possesses in himself the essence of man neither as a moral
nor as a thinking being. The essence of man is contained only in the community, in
the unity of man with man — a unity, however, that rests on the reality of the distinc-
tion between “I” and “You”.”

Anthropology

is the study of man (Greek anthropos meaning ‘man’). For Feuerbach,

man is a natural species and consequently anthropology is a natural science. He
claimed anthropology was not only a contradiction to theology but the foundation
for a new “truly human” religion in which the position of God has been supplanted
by man.

Feuerbach treated religion (particularly Christianity) as a phenomenon stemming
from man’s nature. However, Feuerbach disregarded the historical, social and politi-
cal context. His famous successor,

Karl Marx

(1818 - 1883) claimed that Feuerbach

had created a “fictional man” using only abstractions and operating in hard and fast
schemas.

Marx noticed that man cannot be reduced to biology, merely a biological being, a
natural species. Only through sociology and history can man truly be known. Man’s
spiritual life is above all dependent on social factors most importantly material and
economic conditions.

In this light, one’s “religious disposition” is a product of society. Marx claimed that
people acting within and conditioned by both history and “the growth of productive
forces” are themselves the producers of all ideology.

Ideology

represents morality, religion, metaphysics and all corresponding forms of

consciousness which are not independent. It is man who changes the world around

16

him and is thus able to change his consciousness. It is not consciousness that deter-
mines existence but existence that determines consciousness. Thus for Marx ideol-
ogy was a “false consciousness” and is always the expression of the unconscious
historical nature of the social being.

Furthermore, even though one does not choose the era one lives in, man should not
consider himself a passive product of the environment. Man is able to transform the
conditions of his own existence and thus change himself.

This leads us into political philosophy which constitutes the topic of the next module.

17

Glossary

(Philosophical) Anthropology

- a branch of philosophy concerned with man.

Atheism

- a doctrine or view that denies the existence of a personal and animate

God.

Deism

- is a doctrine that maintains that God created the universe but does not inter-

vene in the fate of the world allowing nature to run its own course.

Pantheism

- is a doctrine that identifies God with the world and nature itself and is

understood as one complete being.

Polytheism

- is a doctrine that maintains the existence of many different deities.

Theism

- is the belief in one personal and animate God who is almighty, omnipotent

and perfectly merciful. Theists believe that such God is the creator of the world and,
more importantly, constantly intervenes in his creation. This viewpoint is upheld by
Christians, Jews as well as Muslims.

Theology

- is a philosophical discipline which discusses the question of God’s exist-

ence and his nature.