Sartre's Axiomatic Atheism

By: Hedayat Alavitabar

Jean-Paul Sartre is one of the atheist philosophers of the twentieth century. He did not arrive at his atheistic position through philosophical reasons; rather, psychological and sociological reasons led him to, in his own words, "intuit" atheism at the age of twelve. Thus, Sartre's atheism is fundamentally non-philosophical and non-argumentative, and in his philosophy, it is not presented as a conclusion or an endpoint, but plays the role of an axiom or a starting point, from which he draws significant consequences. In this article, three reasons are presented to demonstrate this aspect of Sartre's atheism.

Introduction

Jean-Paul Sartre lost his faith at the beginning of adolescence. The root of his unbelief, as he himself has said, should be sought in his family and childhood living environment.⁽¹⁾ Sartre was raised in a bourgeois family consisting of his grandfather, grandmother, and mother. His grandfather, Charles Schweitzer, was Protestant, but Louise, Charles's wife, and Anne-Marie, Sartre's mother, were followers of the Catholic faith. Since Charles did not have much faith in Protestantism, he had allowed his wife to raise their children as Catholics, and this practice was also applied to Sartre. As a result, he grew up in a Catholic environment, which was accompanied by his grandfather's sharp barbs against the Catholic religion. Sartre's anti-Catholic grandfather, who had a great influence on him, had described the God of the Catholic religion to him in a way he did not expect.

Having been raised in the Catholic faith, I learned that the Almighty had created me to show His greatness and glory. This was something I did not even dare to imagine. But some time later, I discovered that the common concept of God, which I had been taught to believe in, was not the God my soul yearned for. I needed a Creator, but I was presented with a great Boss (Sartre, 1964, p. 97).

Sartre's mother would take him to a religious institution on Thursdays to receive religious instruction. But his grandfather's anti-clericalism was so intense that upon entering this institution, Sartre felt he was entering enemy territory. In the afternoon, when Sartre returned home, his grandfather would mock the religious ideas he had learned. Therefore, one of the factors that weakened Sartre's religious beliefs in childhood was his grandfather's negative view of the Catholic religion.

Although Sartre grew up in a Catholic environment, religious contradiction was always present in his family because, as we said, his grandfather was Protestant and his grandmother and mother were Catholic. "These two factors neutralized each other's influence, and little Jean-Paul grew up with the belief that religion was not particularly important" (Hughes, 1373, pp. 161-2). Sartre has spoken repeatedly about the impact this religious contradiction had on him. For example, in The Words, he says: "Since I was both Protestant and Catholic, my dual religious affiliation kept me away from faith in the saints, the Virgin Mary, and ultimately God Himself" (Sartre, 1964, p. 250). This religious contradiction within the family environment is another factor that diminished the value of religion in Sartre's eyes.

اما عامل سوم و مهم‌تر این بود که سارتر به تدریج دریافت اعضای خانواده‌اش به مذهبِ خود اعتقاد ندارند. لوئیز فرزندانش را با آیین کاتولیک بزرگ کرده بود اما علت این کار تنفرش از مذهب پروتستان بود نه ایمانش به مذهب کاتولیک. (p. 13) پدربزرگ و مادربزرگ از مذهب یکدیگر متنفر بودند و همواره اعتقادات دینی یکدیگر را مسخره می‌کردند اما به مذهب خود اعتقاد نداشتند. مادر و مادربزرگ سارتر روزهای یکشنبه اغلب او را به کلیسا می‌بردند اما «هیچ یک از آن دو کاتولیک عامل به فرایض نبودند» (p. 27) و هدف اصلی‌شان از رفتن به کلیسا، مانند دیگر خانواده‌های بورژوا، گوش دادن به موسیقی دلنشین بود نه شرکت در مراسم عشای ربانی. اصولاً در طبقۀ بورژوای فرانسه دین جنبۀ بیرونی داشت نه درونی و صرفاً وسیله‌ای بود برای اینکه فرد با جامعه ارتباط برقرار کند. برای این طبقه دین فقط جنبه‌ای از منزلت، اعتبار و نزاکت اجتماعی‌شان بود. خانوادۀ سارتر نیز، به عنوان خانواده‌ای بورژوا، دین را به عنوان یک میراث خانوادگی قبول داشتند و به آن احترام می‌گذاشتند. اما این احترام به دین از روی اعتقاد قلبی نبود بلکه فقط برای همرنگ شدن با جماعت و حفظ میراث گذشتگان بود. بنابراین جوّ خانواده جوّ دشمنی با دین نبود. آنان در ظاهر به خدا ایمان داشتند و الحاد را رد می‌کردند. «کل خانوادۀ من از روی مصلحت به خدا ایمان داشت» (p. 98). سارتر می‌دید که دین آلت دست ارزش‌های بورژوایی قرار گرفته است و شرکت مردم در مناسک دینی فقط برای حفظ ظاهر است نه از روی ایمان واقعی. او به بی‌ایمانی اعضای خانواده‌اش پی برده بود و این امر تأثیر زیادی در از دست رفتن ایمانش داشت. «آنچه مرا به بی‌ایمانی کشاند اختلاف اعتقادات پدربزرگ و مادربزرگم نبود بلکه بی‌اعتنایی آنان به اعتقادات بود» (p. 100).

در کنار این عوامل، آموزش‌های دینی که در دبیرستان به او می‌دادند نیز در بی‌دینی‌اش مؤثر بود. «آموزش‌های دبیرستان دربارۀ ادیان - ادیان جهان باستان، مذهب کاتولیک و پروتستان - باعث شد تا دین را مجموعه‌ای از آموزه‌ها، فرمان­‌ها و اصول اخلاقی بدانم که از کشوری به کشور دیگر تغییر می‌یابد و هیچ ربطی هم به خدا ندارد.» سارتر در خاطرات جنگ در بارۀ روحیۀ غیردینی اعضای خانواده و معلمانش می‌گوید: «حقیقت این است که من به وسیلۀ بستگان و معلمانی بزرگ شدم و تعلیم دیدم که بیش‌ترشان قهرمانان اخلاق دنیوی بودند و در هر جا می‌کوشیدند آن را جایگزین اخلاق دینی کنند» (1984, p. 72). ⁽²⁾

سارتر با زندگی در چنین محیطی به تدریج کم‌تر و کم‌تر به خدا می‌اندیشید (1964, p. 101) تا اینکه سرانجام لحظۀ جدایی کامل فرا رسید. این جدایی در صبح یکی از روزهای سال 1917 در شهر لاروشل⁽³⁾ به وقوع پیوست. سارتر، که در این زمان فقط دوازده سال داشت، منتظر چند تن از دوستانش بود تا به اتفاق به دبیرستان بروند. اما آنها دیر کردند و او برای اینکه خود را مشغول کند تصمیم گرفت به خدا فکر کند. «اما او بلافاصله به آسمان پرید و بدون هیچ‌گونه توضیحی ناپدید شد. من با تعجبی آرام به خود گفتم او وجود ندارد، و فکر کردم کار تمام شده است. از یک جهت کار تمام شده بود زیرا هرگز کوچک‌ترین وسوسه‌ای در خود احساس نکرده‌ام که او را احیا کنم»(p. 251) . سارتر در گفتگو با سیمون دوبووار دربارۀ این رویداد می‌گوید: «به خوبی به یاد می‌آورم که در آن روز و به صورت یک شهود آنی بود که به خودم گفتم‌

Thus Sartre's atheism had psychological and sociological reasons, not philosophical and logical ones. At the age of twelve, he "intuited" the non-existence of God as "an obvious truth" without any prior reflection. "I settled the matter once and for all at the age of twelve. Much later I studied religious proofs and atheistic arguments" (Sartre, 1984, p. 71). Therefore, Sartre had lost his faith before turning to philosophy and reading philosophical arguments for or against the existence of God. In conversation with Simone de Beauvoir, he says that by the time he decided to study philosophy in the first and second years of preparation for the École Normale Supérieure, he was completely certain of God's non-existence (De Beauvoir, 1984, p. 436). Hence, the origin of Sartre's atheism is intuitive, pre-philosophical, and non-argumentative. In Situations, he expresses this clearly: "Mr. Niel's atheism does not express a gradual discovery," it is an "obvious and a priori position on a question that is certainly beyond our experience." He then immediately adds: "This is also my position" (Jolivet, 1967, p. 34). In other words, he did not lose his faith gradually through philosophical studies but experienced atheism in an instantaneous and sudden intuition.

In Being and Nothingness, Sartre presents arguments against the existence of God, but considering what has been said, these arguments are merely an attempt to provide philosophical proof for that childhood atheistic intuition. He himself says about this: "In Being and Nothingness, I set out reasons for rejecting the existence of God that were not truly the real reasons. The real reasons, compared to views about the impossibility of this or that proof for God's existence, were much more direct and childish; because I was only twelve years old" (De Beauvoir, 1984, p. 438). Therefore, the systematic rejection of God in Sartre's philosophical works is merely a philosophical justification for an "original and a priori choice." For Sartre, God's non-existence, independent of any proof, is "as necessary as breathing" (Jolivet, 1967, p. 34). Proofs are only brought in to complete a philosophical system that must be complete in every respect. Sartre wants to build a coherent philosophical system based on the absence of God and interpret the existence of the world and humanity within it. The denial of God, which originally needs no proof, governs this entire system and harmonizes its constituent parts. Thus Sartre, like Nietzsche, "begins with the myth of the death of God. The death of God is clearly the sole pillar of his faith, and Sartre accepts it without question" (Murry, 1375, p. 423). In Sartre's philosophy, we encounter atheism as a "fundamental postulate" (Lafarge, 1970, p. 137) or an "axiom" (Copleston, 1966, p. 221). In this philosophy, "atheism is taken for granted" (Thrower, 2000, p. 125). According to Simone de Beauvoir, atheism is one of the foundations of Sartre's life and one of the obvious realities for him (De Beauvoir, 1984, p. 442). He "accepts an axiomatic atheism as one of the organizing concepts of his entire philosophy" (Collins, 1952, p. 64).⁽⁶⁾ In the private conference held after his famous lecture "Existentialism is a Humanism," Sartre said to the Catholics: "I start from an opposing axiom; I have no need of God and have nothing to do with him. I say from the outset: God does not exist; man is sufficient for himself and beyond this there is nothing" (Descoqs, 1947, pp. 56, 57). Atheism plays such a fundamental role for Sartre that we cannot understand his philosophy without constant reference to it as the theory that describes his entire philosophical system. There are several reasons that prove atheism is the first premise and starting point of Sartre's philosophy, and the arguments he presents against the existence of God are not to prove God's non-existence but to justify an atheism that is already presupposed. We will now examine these reasons.

First Reason: Faith and Atheism Are a Matter of Choice, Not Argument

In principle, Sartre does not regard faith and atheism as matters of reasoning.⁽⁷⁾ Faith and atheism, before being subjects of reasoning, are subjects of choice. “Sartre never claims that his ontology can prove the correctness of his atheism. This matter demands an authentic decision; man must proceed by choice, and Sartre imagines that taking atheism for granted is more compatible with the nature of choice.” (Roberts, 1957, p. 216) He says on this matter:

I cannot believe that today even a single believer has turned to Christianity through the arguments of Saint Bonaventure or Saint Anselm. Nor do I think that even a single non-believer has turned away from faith through opposing arguments. The question of God is a human question that concerns the close relationship among human beings. It is a total question to which every human being offers a solution with their entire life, and this solution reflects the attitude they have chosen towards other human beings and towards themselves. (Sartre, 1965, p. 66)

If we go back and examine the various ways in which philosophers have rejected the existence of God, we will see that in most cases, atheism is a position adopted in advance and not the result of rigorous philosophical reasoning. “Some individuals, such as Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus, were atheists before elaborating a theory whose purpose was merely to confirm their atheistic faith” (Bonansea, 1979, p. 60). Therefore, the root of faith and atheism must be sought not in rational and philosophical arguments but in psychological and sociological factors. “There is no unbelief or atheism whose key cannot ultimately be found in social disorder” (Sartre, 1357, p. 297). Sartre does not consider providing reasons for God’s non-existence to be the main goal of atheistic existentialism, and this shows that he seeks the source of atheism somewhere other than philosophy. “Existentialism is not atheistic in the sense that it exhausts itself in proving the non-existence of God” (Sartre, 1977, p. 56). From the aforementioned points, it becomes clear that in Sartre’s view, atheism is not the result of philosophical arguments refuting God’s existence, but rather an axiom chosen from the outset upon which his entire philosophical system is founded.

The Second Reason: The Transition from Idealist Atheism to Materialist Atheism

Another reason for proving Sartre’s axiomatic atheism is the discussion he raises about the necessity of transitioning from idealist atheism to materialist atheism. When Simone de Beauvoir asks him: “When you grew up, when you were in Paris, did your atheism change? Did it weaken at all? Did it become stronger?” he replies: “You could say it became stronger. Most importantly, I think it transformed from an idealist atheism into a materialist atheism” (De Beauvoir, 1984, p. 435). Sartre then goes on to elaborate on these two types of atheism. Idealist atheism, although difficult to describe, can be said to consist merely of the absence of a concept, namely the absence of the concept of God. When we set aside God as a concept, we are at the stage of idealist atheism. At this stage, man sets aside God, but this act does not change his attitude towards the world and has no effect on his life.

When I said “God does not exist,” it was as if I had rid myself of a concept that was in the world and, in its place, placed a spiritual void, a sterile concept, within the framework of my concepts as a whole. Consequently, this act had little direct connection with the streets, the trees, and the benches on which people sat. A great synthetic concept vanished without having any direct effect on the world at all. (Ibid.)

Sartre entered the stage of materialist atheism mainly through his conversations with Paul Nizan and also his own reflections. At this stage, the world changes in the human gaze and becomes a “world without God.” The world is no longer a world that must pass away so that man can enter paradise and see God there. The worldly world is the only existing reality, and in this world, the absence of God must be seen everywhere. In other words, idealist atheism is merely the rejection of God’s existence, whereas materialist atheism is the acceptance of the consequences of rejecting His existence. Sartre describes his attitude towards the world and humanity at the stage of materialist atheism as follows:

Everything was alone, and most importantly, man was alone. He was alone like an absolute. He was an astonishing being; he was a human… Man was a being lost in the world and consequently surrounded by it on all sides—as if imprisoned in the world—but at the same time, a being who could compose this world. (Ibid.)

In the atheistic worldview, man is a solitary and lost being, besieged and imprisoned in the world. Formulating this worldview was the task Sartre decided to undertake. In the same conversation with Simone de Beauvoir, he says that when he turned to philosophy in his youth, he was certain of God's nonexistence, but his goal was to present an atheistic philosophy in which the world without God and human existence in this world would be explained. "Since I didn't know much about the books atheists had written, this task seemed like a new duty to me. In any case, they have written little philosophy. All the great philosophers have been more or less believers.… It seemed to me that a great atheistic philosophy, a truly atheistic philosophy, was something philosophy lacked. It was in this direction that one must now strive to work" (p. 436).

The intuition of God's absence in childhood was an idealist atheism, but living in a world without God, theorizing about it, and accepting the consequences of God's absence brought Sartre into the stage of materialist atheism. At this stage, man must strip away all divine attributes from himself and become a practical atheist in the true sense of the word. This is a difficult task, and that is why Sartre says: "Going from idealist atheism to materialist atheism was difficult" (p. 438). In the final pages of The Words, he describes the difficulty of the path of atheism thus: "I caught the Holy Ghost in the cellar and threw him out; atheism is a cruel and long-term affair: I think I have carried it through. I see clearly that I have lost my illusions" (Sartre,1964, p. 253). To be precise, in Sartre's view, one cannot be an atheist; rather, one must strive to become an atheist in a long and difficult process (Sartre, 1974, p. 168). One of those who, in Sartre's opinion, traversed the difficult path of becoming an atheist well is André Gide. "He lived with his views, and especially with the death of God" (Sartre, 1965, p. 66). Sartre says in this regard:

The most precious thing Gide gives us is his decision to live to the very end with the agony and death of God. He could well have done what others did, that is, gamble on his views and decide at twenty to be a believer or an atheist and stick to it all his life. But he wanted to put his relationship with religion to the test; the living dialectic that led him to his final atheism is a journey that can be repeated after him but cannot be settled with concepts and notions. His endless discussions with Catholics, his expressions of religious feeling, his returns to irony, his flirtations, his sudden enthusiasms, his progress, his pauses, his regressions, the ambiguity of the word "God" in his works, his refusal to let go of God even when he believed only in man, all this grueling trial has ultimately been more effective in enlightening us than a hundred proofs…. If he had chosen his atheism theoretically at twenty, it would have been a false atheism. His atheism, slowly attained and the culmination of a half-century-long quest, became his objective truth and our own. (pp. 66, 67)

As mentioned, if one wishes to arrive at materialist atheism, one must eradicate all remnants of the divine worldview within oneself. One of these remnants is the notion that God gives meaning to the world. When we reject God, we must also set aside this notion and regard the world as dark, obscure, and meaningless. In the divine worldview, God gives meaning to the world, but in the atheistic worldview, the world is meaningless and absurd because there is no God to give it meaning. Grasping the meaninglessness of the world is one of the consequences of atheism, but one does not become aware of this point until one reaches the stage of materialist atheism and sees the world through atheistic eyes. On the other hand, human beings tend to regard many things in the world as sacred, and even when they set aside this illusion, "the sacred can still enter human life at many unexpected moments; this is what makes atheism such a 'long-term' undertaking" (King, 1974: 50).

Sartre believes that despite the efforts an atheist makes to purge the remnants and effects of the divine outlook on the world, some of these remnants may remain in the person forever. The effects that remain differ from one individual to another. Regarding himself, Sartre mentions three types of these divine effects that, despite setting aside God, still remain in him. The first effect is the feeling of being a creature.

I do not see myself as one of the many insignificant things that have appeared in the world, but rather as a being who was awaited, announced, and summoned. In short, as a being who seems to be able to originate only from a creator. This idea of a creating hand that made me refers me back to God. Naturally, this is not a clear and precise idea that I cause to arise whenever I think of myself. This idea contradicts many of my other ideas, but it exists and floats vaguely. Whenever I think of myself, I often think in this way because I cannot think in any other way. (De Beauvoir, 1984, p. 434)

The second divine effect pertains to morality: "In the realm of morality, I have retained one thing that is related to the existence of God, and that is absolute Good and Evil" (p. 439). He then adds that the normal consequence of atheism is to set aside absolute Good and Evil and accept a kind of relativism, but due to his religious upbringing, he tends to view Good and Evil as absolute matters. Ultimately, "one must free oneself from every trace of the principle of Good and Evil, which is God" (p. 444). The third divine effect remaining in Sartre is the concept of imperishability and immortality (p. 440). It is true that through artistic and literary creation he seeks to achieve a kind of immortality, but in any case, the desire for immortality, like the desire to be a creature, is seen in him and is a sign of the remaining effects of religious thought within him.

Thus, we see that the transition from idealist atheism to materialist atheism is not a simple task and requires a great deal of time. "One must strive to rethink and reconstruct a world that is free of all divine concepts.... This is difficult. Even those who think they have succeeded in becoming conscious and precise atheists are certainly still filled with divine concepts and components of divine thought. Therefore, to some extent, they do not achieve their goal" (p. 444). Sartre himself strove to purge everything of religious thought that remained within him. Although, by his own admission, he did not achieve complete success in this endeavor, his writings "attest to a long, unconscious struggle with a God hidden in the depths of his consciousness" (Hughes, 1373, p. 162). From what has been said, it becomes clear that Sartre's initial atheism, which appeared as a sudden intuition at the beginning of adolescence, was an idealist atheism based on the absence of God, but Sartre strove to enrich this fundamental and axiomatic atheism and, by accepting all its requisites and consequences, transform it into a materialist atheism.

The Third Reason: Existentialist Humanism

The third reason for the axiomatic nature of atheism in Sartre's philosophy relates to what he calls "existentialist humanism" in Existentialism Is a Humanism. In this book, Sartre strongly opposes the French professors who, around 1880, tried to dispense with God at the least possible cost, and he believes that the elimination of God has dire consequences. "The existentialist finds the absence of God extremely distressing" (Sartre, 1977, p. 33). For Sartre, we must deduce all these consequences and commit ourselves to them. "Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw all the consequences from a coherent atheistic position" (p. 56). The "existentialist humanism" that Sartre mentions in the said book is, in fact, another expression for "materialist atheism," with the difference that here he emphasizes the humanistic nature of atheism's consequences. Therefore, although the second reason alluded to some of the consequences of atheism, it is necessary here to elaborate somewhat on their humanistic aspect.

If God does not exist, life in the world will be terrible. But Sartre believes there is no alternative, and we must accept all the consequences of discarding the illusion of God in order to attain a human meaning for life. "Sartre is an atheist who understands the thirst and need of human individuals for God and teaches them that they must learn how to live without ever succeeding in quenching this thirst and need" (Cranston, 1350, pp. 35, 36). He says the condition of a human being who does not believe in God is one of "abandonment." The feeling of abandonment means the feeling of being forsaken in a world that has no order, law, meaning, value, or binding decrees. In this world, the human being feels alone and without support. He is now the god of his own world and the sole legislator of the world, and must decide for himself and for the world in his solitude and abandonment. "In Sartre's existentialism, there is a tendency to place man in God's position" (Verneaux, 1372, p. 327). In a godless world, the human being must create himself and take responsibility for what he has made of himself. "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. This is the first principle of existentialism" (Sartre, 1977, p. 28). We see this theme clearly in The Devil and the Good Lord and The Flies. In these plays, Sartre shows that by setting God aside, the human being stands on his own two feet and chooses his path alone. "Atheistic existentialism is an attempt to redefine existence, but not a sub-human, materialistic definition, nor a super-human, divine one, but a human and subjectivist definition" (Stern, 1967, p. 76). The human being who does not believe in God is free. He is condemned to freedom and must use it to determine his own destiny. He must engage in planning, and his destiny depends on what plans he chooses for his future. Of course, if the choice and plan remain in the mind and are not put into action, they will have no effect. Hence, action plays an important role. Man is nothing but the sum of his actions. By engaging in action, he not only creates himself but also, as it were, creates the world.

If God does not exist, the world and everything in it loses its necessity and meaning, because there is no longer a God to give it necessity and meaning. A world without God is devoid of inherent necessity and meaning, and consequently, gratuitous, absurd, and nauseating. "Here we are, eating and drinking, to preserve our precious existence, and yet there is no, no, no reason for existing" (Sartre, 1371, p. 218). To escape absurdity and continue his life, the human being has no choice but to "invent" a meaning for the world in which he lives and also for his own existence. This meaning is neither inherent nor fixed, but accidental and variable. In this world, the human being discovers the absurdity and meaninglessness of existence, and in order to endure it, he is compelled to give it a meaning. He must paint his life, conceal its hideous face. This is what Roquentin does in Nausea through music and writing.

If God does not exist, the possibility of finding any absolute value vanishes, because there is no God to establish it. Now the legislator of values is the human being, and morality takes on a humanistic aspect. Every human being, through their choice and action, creates their own value and moral law. In this respect, morality is comparable to the creation of a work of art. Just as the artist creates the artwork through their work, the human being also creates value through their action. “What art and morality have in common is that in both we are dealing with creation and invention” (Sartre, 1977, p. 54). Therefore, there can be as many values and paths to salvation as there are human beings. We are abandoned, alone and helpless, in the desert of life, and whichever direction we choose is the path. ⁽⁸⁾ Thus, the central question of ethics, “What ought I to do?”, transforms into the question, “What do I want to do?” The sole criterion Sartre offers for the goodness and rightness of an action is “authenticity.” If I choose an action with complete authenticity and free from any “self-deception,” that action is good and valuable for me.

These humanistic conclusions result from Sartre’s atheism, and his atheism, in turn, is rooted in an intuition he experienced at the beginning of his adolescence. “Sartre’s project deliberately becomes a ‘philosophy of man,’ that is, a godless atheism. It is only after claiming ‘absolute’ certainty regarding his ‘intuition’ that he resolves to present and philosophically defend a godless humanism” (Santoni, 1993, p.64). Considering what has been said, one can conclude that “his atheism does not result from his existentialism, but rather the matter is the reverse: his humanistic existentialism results from his sudden and unquestioning atheism” (p. 66).

Conclusion

From the three aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Sartre’s atheism is not the result of philosophical reasoning and argumentation, but rather precedes it and is based on a sudden intuition, an intuition whose grounds must be sought in his familial and social environment during his childhood. Sartre assumes the non-existence of God as a self-evident axiom and builds his philosophy upon it. The phenomenological account he provides of the world and humanity in Being and Nothingness is based on the assumption of God’s non-existence. Sartre’s philosophy can be considered a lengthy soliloquy. The path he traversed in life was one that began with atheism, when he was no more than a child, and ended with humanism, when he engaged in philosophical thought; in other words, in his philosophical life, he was an atheist who became a humanist, and not the reverse. Sartre’s philosophy is a comprehensive exposition of the humanistic consequences of atheism, which, in his own words, are “distressing” consequences.

.

---

.

Notes

1- For a detailed discussion on this matter, see:

Alavitabar, Hedayat, 1384 [2005], “The Roots of Sartre’s Atheism in Childhood” in Contemporary Intellectual-Philosophical Approaches in the West, Tehran, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies.

2- In The Words, Sartre expresses distress over the ugliness of his face and its resemblance to a toad, as well as the blindness of his right eye in childhood. Furthermore, he speaks of his short stature, which caused other children to exclude him from their games. Among other factors that caused Sartre distress during his childhood, one can point to his being an orphan or, in his own words, a “quasi-bastard,” as well as his mother’s remarriage when he was eleven years old. In general, he is not satisfied with his childhood and says: “I hate my childhood and all that remains of it.” Instances of this kind could be another factor in Sartre’s pessimism towards the world and humanity and the loss of his faith in childhood. See: (Sartre, 1964, p. 164)

3- La Rochelle; a port in western France where Sartre went in 1917 to join his mother and stepfather, who had married the year before, because his stepfather worked in that port. Sartre studied at the local high school there until 1920. He was then sent to Paris to continue his education at the Lycée Henri-IV.

4- Ronald Santoni believes that Sartre's atheism being based on a sudden intuition in adolescence, and therefore being non-philosophical, hasty, and cursory, is unlikely and disappointing coming from Sartre as "the last great Cartesian." He says: "I quite agree with Jolivet that Sartre's rejection of God, for a thinker of his class, betrays a rather disconcerting simplicity" (Santoni, 1993, p.65). Elsewhere he says: "It is hardly credible that an inquiring and rational thinker like Sartre could base his rejection of God on such a limited and unconventional foundation" (1987, p. 250). Stuart Charmé also believes: "It is unlikely that Sartre's atheism was really formed in this very simple way at a bus stop. He clearly preferred to attribute a conclusion that had been developing in him for some time to a moment of excitement. Nevertheless, he shows little sign of a genuine theological struggle to reach this conclusion" (Charmé, 1991, p.70).

5- Simone de Beauvoir's path to atheism was to a large extent similar to Sartre's path. Like Sartre, she realized her atheism in adolescence without enduring pain and suffering, and with a little surprise. "I did not deny Him [God] to rid myself of a troublesome person; on the contrary, I realized that He played no role in my life, and therefore concluded that He no longer existed for me." But despite her unbelief, Simone felt compelled to continue attending church and performing the Eucharist for a while, and to outwardly appear faithful. Bourgeois approaches to religion forced her, like Sartre, to be an "impostor." The result was that she developed two different personalities and was forced to live in two ways. "There was no relationship between my true self and the self others saw." Finally, she felt she could tell her mother that she did not believe in God. This news devastated her mother, but Simone was relieved: "At last I could live without a mask." See: (De Beauvoir, 1959, pp. 137, 139, 171, 172)

6- In the following works, Sartre's atheism is also discussed as an axiom and a matter prior to his philosophy:

Bonansea, Bernardino, 1979, God and Atheism, Washington DC: Catholic University Press, p. 60 .

Burkle, Howard, 1969, The Non-existence of God: Antitheism from Hegel to Dumery, NewYork: Herder and Herder, p. 117 .

Dinan, Stephen, 1978, “Sartre: Contingent Being and the Non-existence of God”, Philosophy Today, 22, p. 103 .

Gordon, Haim, 1970, “Sartre's Rage against God” Wahrheit, Wert und Sein, Regensburg: Josef Habbel, p. 283 .

Kadir, Kazi, 1975, Sartre and God, karachi: Al-Ilm Agencies, p. 92 .

Luijpen, William, 1965, Phenomenology and Atheism, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, p. 324 .

Masterson, Patrick, 1971, Atheism and Alienation, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, p. 132 .

Santoni, Ronald, 1987, “Morality, Authenticity and God”, Philosophy Today, 31, pp. 250, 251 .

Santoni, Ronald, 1993, “Sartre's Adolescent Rejection of God”, Philosophy Today, 37 (1), pp. 62-66 .

Spier, J., 1953, Christianity and Existentialism, Philadelphia: Presbyterian Publishing Co.

7- Many thinkers share this view with Sartre. For example, Pascal also believed that the existence of God cannot be proven, but at the same time believed that to attain an infinite reward, one must bet on His existence, not on His non-existence.

8- Sartre's view can be compared with that of the Ash'arites. Ash'ari theologians do not accept rational good and evil, and say that an act God performs is good because He has performed it. In fact, God creates goodness through His act. Sartre says the same thing about man. He believes that before man acts, goodness does not exist; man creates goodness through his authentic act. The Ash'arites express the phrase

Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1965, “The Living Gide” in Situations, tr. Benita Eisler, New York: Braziller.

Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1974, “Kierkegaard: The Singular Universal”, in Between Existentialism and Marxism, tr. John Mathews, New York: Pantheon Books.

Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1977, Existentialism and Humanism, tr. Philip Mairet, London: Methuen.

Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1984, The War Diaries of Jean-Paul Sartre: November 1939 - March 1940, tr. Quintin Hoare, New York: Pantheon Books.

Stern, Alfred, 1967, Sartre, New York: Dell Publishing.

Thrower, James, 2000, Western Atheism: A Short History, New York: Prometheus Books.

First published: Philosophy Magazine, 1391 [2012].

.

---

.