Slaves to religion and a false notion of proof.

Unfortunately, upon our discussions on Monday, the topic of slavery veered into a course I had not expected or liked. It seemed that such a deep and meaningful topic did not get the debate it deserved. For instance, I had noticed many people kept coming back to the idea of being enslaved to material objects as well as physical limits to a person. However, within The Fall, it seemed that the type of enslavement Camus focused on was that of humans over humans. I am in complete understanding as to how people came to that conclusion (us being enslaved to technology) but I don’t see how it pertains directly to the novel. He states in the novel how we must choose a master and that things like betrothal are also enslavement. However, he never references us being enslaved by what is handed to us.

Either way, I wanted to touch base on whether or not the existentialist is enslaved to anything and whether or not I agree upon this notion of enslavement. To me, it seems that an existentialist wouldn’t subscribe to what it takes to be a slave. I also don’t know if an existentialist could be the master though. Maybe everyone is slightly enslaved to something, similar to how we all have idols, people we admire and/or envy. However, I, personally, don’t feel that I subscribe to this idea of being enslaved. Maybe it’s due to the fact that I live in my own content, little bubble. However, the decisions I make I take full responsibility for. I do not blame anyone except myself for the actions I take. I also do not have any regrets. Every experience is a growing experience and helps me become the person I wish to be.

So, although Camus says that, “For anyone who is alone, with-out God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful,” this only pertains to the people who fail at giving themselves meaning. For the meaning-filled individual, lonely days are not dreadful. Lonely days can be used for complete self-fulfillment because the person has no one else to worry about. However, not everyone thinks in this manner. Which explains why religion is so prominent everywhere, too many people seek to be enslaved. But there is always the question of how valid that religion is.

For instance, the question of God.

Many individuals spend their life seeking to prove the existence of God.

So then, let me ask: what do you mean by the word “prove”, what sort of “proof” must we obtain in order to “prove” there is a “God”?

If looked at scientifically, “to prove” is not in a scientist’s vocabulary. Scientists never “prove” anything, they seek to disprove. Therefore, this quest for God is meaningless because it can never be proved, in the scientific sense.

If looked at mathematically, a “proof” uses a logical, deductive method to come to a rational conclusion. Proofs can be long, complicated, and yet still be completely logical. “If A is B, and B is C, then A is C.” From everything that I have ever learned about Christianity, it is everything but logical. Even a Christian classmate admittedly stated on class on Monday that Christianity is illogical. So it’s impossible to use the mathematical meaning of the word “prove”/”proof”.

And so, when Kierkegaard states that, “and furthermore would live in constantly in suspenso[in suspense], that something terrible should suddenly happen that would demolish my little proof,” it seems to me that Christians should always live in suspenso because the “little proof” isn’t even valid proof (Solomon, 26).

So basically, in order to subscribe to Christianity, one must throw out all reason, all free-thinking abilities, and all rationality. That seems more like the ultimate enslavement right there.