About Existentialism II

What Isn't Existentialism
Autor:Austin Cline
http://atheism.about.com/od/existentialism/a/introduction_3.htm

Contrasting Existentialist Ideas With Other Philosophies
Existentialism encompasses so many different trends and ideas that have appeared over the history of Western philosophy, thus making it difficult to distinguish it from other movements and philosophical systems. Due to this, one useful means of understanding existentialism is to examine what it isn't.

For one thing, existentialism doesn't argue that the "good life" is a function of things like wealth, power, pleasure, or even happiness. This is not to say that existentialists reject happiness - existentialism is not a philosophy of masochism, after all. However, existentialists will not argue that a person's life is good simply because they are happy - a happy person might be living a bad life while an unhappy person might be living a good life.

The reason for this is that a life is "good" for existentialists insofar as it is "authentic." Existentialists may differ somewhat on just what is needed for a life to be authentic, but for the most part this will involve being conscious of the choices one makes, taking full responsibility for those choices, and understanding that nothing about one's life or the world is fixed and given.

Hopefully such a person will end up happier because of this, but that isn't a necessary consequence of authenticity - at least not in the short term.
Existentialism is also not caught up in the idea that everything in life can be made better by science. That doesn't mean that existentialists are automatically anti-science or anti-technology; rather, they judge the value of any science or technology based upon how it might affect a person's ability to live an authentic life. If science and technology help people avoid taking responsibility for their choices and help them pretend that they are not really free, then existentialists will argue that there is a serious problem here.

Existentialists also reject both the arguments that people are good by nature but are ruined by society or culture, and that people are sinful by nature but can be helped to overcome sin through proper religious beliefs. Yes, even Christian existentialists tend to reject the latter proposition, despite the fact that it fits with traditional Christian doctrine. The reason is that existentialists, especially atheist existentialists, reject the idea that there is any fixed human nature to begin with, whether good or evil.

Now, Christian existentialists aren't going to completely reject the idea of any fixed human nature; this means that they could accept the idea that people are born sinful. Nevertheless, the sinful nature of humanity simply isn't the point for Christian existentialists. What they are concerned with is not so much the sins of the past but a person's actions here and now along with the possibility of their accepting God and uniting with God in the future.

The primary focus of Christian existentialists is on recognizing the moment of existential crisis in which a person can make a "leap of faith" where they can completely and without reservation commit themselves to God, even if it seems irrational to do so. In such a context, being born sinful just isn't particularly relevant. For atheistic existentialists, obviously enough, the whole notion of "sin" will play no role at all, except perhaps in metaphorical ways.