On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno

Philosophy Faculty Works Philosophy

2004

Brad E. Stone Loyola Marymount University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/phil_fac

Part of the Philosophy Commons

Recommended Citation Stone, Brad E. “On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno,” The Xavier Zubiri Review 6 (2004): 73-‐88.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Xavier Zubiri Review, Vol. 6, 2004, pp. 73-88

On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno*

Brad Elliott Stone Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles, California, USA

Abstract Perhaps one innovation brought about by Spanish philosophy is the notion that “God” names a problem instead of an entity. This is what Xavier Zubiri means when he uses the phrase “the problem of God.” Although he does not employ the Zubirian phrase, Miguel de Unamuno also addresses God as a problem. This paper compares Zubiri’s and Unamuno’s accounts of how God appears to human beings polemically. For both thinkers, God is a problem only for human beings; there is something about the structure of human existence that makes God come to mind. For Zubiri, God comes to mind because human beings find themselves implanted into reality. For Unamuno, God comes to mind because human beings understand their own mortality and seek to overcome it. After presenting their respective views on the structures of human beings that account for the problem of God, the philosophical implications of such a view are explored. If we take Zubiri and Unamuno to be correct about “the very problem of the problem of God,” true theism would not be evidentialist (this is the way “theism” works in traditional philosophy of religion). Also, true atheism (the claim that God does not exist) would be impossible, for even if the entity called “God” does not in fact exist, “God” as a problem (the problem of God) does.

Resumen Quizás una innovación provocada por filosofía española es la noción de que “Dios” re- fiere a un problema en vez de una entidad. Esto es lo que Xavier Zubiri quiere decir al usar la frase “el problema de Dios”. Aunque él no emplea la frase zubiriana, Miguel de Unamu- no también se dirige a Dios como un problema. Este ensayo compara el pensamiento de Zubiri y de Unamuno en torno a cómo Dios aparece polémicamente a los seres humanos. Para ambos pensadores, Dios es sólo un problema para los seres humanos; hay algo sobre la estructura de existencia humana que hace que Dios venga a la mente. Para Zubiri, Dios viene a la mente porque los seres humanos se encuentran implantado en realidad. Para Unamuno, Dios viene a la mente porque los seres humanos entienden su propia mortalidad y buscan superarlo. Después de presentar sus vistas respectivas de las estructuras huma- nas que explican el problema de Dios, se exploran las implicaciones filosóficas de tales vistas. Si supongamos que Zubiri y Unamuno sean correctos sobre “el problema mismo del problema de Dios,” el verdadero teísmo no sería evidentialista (ésta es la manera en que el “teísmo” funciona en la filosofía tradicional de la religión). También, el verdadero ateísmo (la demanda de que Dios no existe) sería imposible, ya que aun cuando la entidad llamó que “Dios” no exista de hecho, “Dios” como un problema (el problema de Dios) sí existe.

* In honor of Charles C. Seabrook, who introduced me to the wonderful philosophical tradition of Spain through an advanced Spanish grammar lesson

73 74 Brad Elliott Stone ______

La oración del ateo The Atheist’s Prayer

Oye mi ruego Tú, Dios que no existes, Hear my prayer you nonexisting God, y en tu nada recoje estas mis quejas, and in your nothingness take up my laments, Tú que a los pobres hombres nunca dejas you who never leaves poor men sin consuelo de engaño. No resistes without deceptive consolation. You do not resist

a nuestro ruego y nuestro anhelo vistes. our prayers and you disguise our desires. Cuando Tú de mi mente más te alejas, The more you move yourself away from my mind, más recuerdo las plácidas consejas, the more I remember the placid fables con que mi ama endulzóme noches tristes. used by my mom to comfort me on sad nights.

¡Qué grande eres, mi Dios! Eres tan grande How great you are, my God! You are so great que no eres sino Idea; es muy angosta that you are nothing but an idea; reality is steadfast, la realidad por mucho que se espande no matter how much one tries to force

para acabarte. Sufro yo a tu costa, you to come to an end. I suffer at your expense, Dios no existente, pues si Tú existieras nonexisting God, for if you were to exist existiría yo también de veras. then I would truly also exist.1

Introduction “rational animal”) has been posed most intensely, and most intimately, by thinkers For Spanish existentialists, “God” is from the Iberian Peninsula. For the Span- the name of a problem, not an entity (the- ish philosopher, the problem of being hu- ology deals with the entity). In other man and the problem of God are insepa- words, the problem is not what God is, or rable. Failure to take up one of the prob- what the problem of God is; rather, it is lems results in the incapacity to take up that God is a problem (for theists and the other. “God” is meaningless without atheists alike). Why do we even talk about human beings, and “human beings” are God? This is what I refer to as “the very only such in light of God. Within the problem of the problem of God.” The very Spanish tradition, it seems that atheism is problem of the problem of God is directly a kind of misanthropy, and a hatred of life tied to another great problem, the problem is blasphemous. of being human. “Being human” is the Two 20th century Spanish existential- name of the problem in which we find our- ists offer the most congruency between the selves. I maintain that “the problem of problem of God and the problem of being being human” is equivalent to “the very human. The philosopher who emphasizes problem of the problem of God;” that is, it this dual problematic most systematically is insofar as we are human beings that is Xavier Zubiri, whose conception of “reli- “God” is a problem. I shall not explore gation” explains the existential constitu- “the very problem of the problem of being tion of human life, the divine nature of human” here since this essay is on God, God, and the origin of religions. Miguel de but it might be easiest to explain it by re- Unamuno, although not as systematic as ferring to Heidegger’s Being and Time as a Zubiri, yet definitely more passionate, good treatise on the issue. views God and human life as mutual crea- Ever since Seneca and St. Isidore of tive processes. In his account, humans Seville, the question of what it means to be make God and God makes them; creation a human being (in a sense different than is a mutual process.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno 75 ______

The similarities between these two ontological, cosmological, and teleological thinkers go beyond the fact that they are proofs for the existence of God. However, both of Basque descent. Neither accepts given that God is connected to the problem the traditional proofs for the existence of of being human, these proofs miss the God as useful for truly understanding the mark and prove something different from problem of God. As a consequence of the the God expressed in this essay. There- failures of these proofs, mere rejection of fore, I will argue that theistic evidentialist them does not constitute atheism. Both arguments are insufficient for, if not det- hold that the human condition is a consti- rimental to, true belief in God. Zubiri ar- tutive part of the idea of God. Neither be- gues that such proofs only prove divinity lieves that true atheism is possible, for and therefore fail to prove God. Unamuno being human automatically makes one worries that theistic proofs actually prove have the problem of God, so atheists and the wrong God, who Unamuno calls the theists both face the problem of God. “God-Idea,” who is in reality no God at all. In this essay, I present Zubiri and The second consequence for the phi- Unamuno’s respective views on the unity losophy of religion is that arguments of being human and God as well as the against the existence of God are equally refutation of theism and atheism, tradi- insufficient. First of all, given that theistic tionally conceived, that results from those arguments are insufficient, merely point- views. By doing so, I will offer a different, ing out that insufficiency cannot be athe- more Spanish way of thinking about hu- ism. Second, and this is the bigger thrust mans, God, and the relationship between of the section, atheism is itself a position the two. To these ends, this essay is com- inside of the problem of God. Atheists fail posed of four sections. to see that the nonexistence of God only In the first section, I explicate Zubiri’s matters to the atheist insofar as the athe- jointure of the problem of being human ist is already religated to God through the (religation) to the problem of God (deity). problem of being human. In other words, Section two discusses Unamuno’s union of atheism is one of the solutions to the the tragic sense of life (the problem of be- problem of God. This, of course, does not ing human) and God (the problem of God). remove the problem called “God.” Zubiri The point of these first two sections is to argues that atheism is solipsistic self- show that, for both thinkers, the problem divinization, and is therefore unsustain- of God is the direct consequence of the able. Unamuno sees the atheist as a des- problem of being human. Only human perate person frustrated by the difficulties beings are religious; “God” names an im- of proving God’s existence. However, once portant fact about being human. evidentialism is defeated, atheists will not Sections three and four explore the have to despair about not finding proof, consequences of understanding God in and true atheism is defeated. Spanish existentialist terms. These consequences challenge traditional philosophy I. Zubiri: Religation, Deity, Divinity, of religion and call it back to its proper God grounding. The third section deals with the critique of theistic evidentialism that For Zubiri, being human means to comes along with understanding the prob- find oneself implanted in existence. This lem of God in terms of the problem of be- implantation is understood in terms of ing human. For the theistic evidentialist, what Zubiri calls “religation.” The problem God’s existence is provable by demonstra- of being human is for Zubiri the problem tion. There have been many different of being religated. Since religation is an demonstrations produced in the history of imposition, one must inquire into the im- philosophy; the three main ones are the poser. This is the very problem of the pro-

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 76 Brad Elliott Stone ______blem of God. Zubiri explores the problem hension. For animals, sensation merely of God in terms of “deity” (the power of serves as the experience of stimuli. The reality, which imposes itself onto us), “di- stimulus affects the animal; the animal vinity” (the foundation of deity), and “God” responds accordingly. The example Zubiri (the absolutely absolute personal reality gives is how animals respond to heat. who gives reality its impressive force Animals receive the stimulus “is warming” through love.). In this section, I will ex- as a note imposed upon them as other. If plain Zubiri’s conception of religation, de- the animal is seeking heat, it welcomes ity, divinity, and God. this “is warming” and draws towards the Humans, like other animals, are sen- heat source; if the animal is too hot, it tient creatures. Everything we encounter flees from the “is warming.” In very simple is encountered through our senses. Sens- creatures, response to stimuli is instanta- ing is composed of three moments accord- neous; in more complex animals (including ing to Zubiri: affection, the moment of humans when interpreted biologically), otherness, and the force of imposition. there is the power of “hesitation” (to use Affection is the aspect of sensation in Bergson’s phrasing) that increases the which “the sentient being ‘suffers’ the im- more complex the creature. For example, pression.”2 This element is uncontrover- even though I am hot in a sauna, I do not sial, and most traditional philosophy run away from it; I can hesitate. starts (and unfortunately ends) here. Human beings, although they do re- The moment of otherness is the aspect ceive and respond to stimuli, do something of sensation in which impression “is the more in the moment of sensing. Zubiri presentation of something other in affec- argues that humans sense reality along tion.”3 Zubiri calls the other which pre- with the stimuli. To return to the note of sents itself in affection a note. Notes are heat, of course humans experience the “is not qualities, but things that are “noted” warming,” but they also experience “heat,” (noticed) in experience. For example, for which is more than “is warming.” Rather, animals that only see in black and white, it is heat de suyo (in its own right). This “red” is not “noted” and therefore is not “in its own right” is the reality of a given part of the sensation of an object (even if note. Humans can separate the heat from the object is “red” to those animals who the source and let the heat be de suyo; it “notice” color). is because of this humans are capable of The force of imposition is the aspect of studying thermodynamics, for example.5 sensation in which “the note present in Therefore, humans have the affection the affection imposes itself upon the sen- of reality. The moment of otherness is the tient being” and “arouses the process of de suyo of a note. The note has an “in its sensing.”4 We do not get to pick what is own right” that makes it other than me. noticed; something is either a note or it is Animals, although they do experience the not. If something is a note, it imposed “other than me” of certain stimuli, fail to itself in sensation. By virtue of this impo- understand the “in its own right” of the sition, the note is “noted.” Affection, the stimuli. For humans, on the other hand, a moment of otherness, and the force of im- note is “in and for itself … heat is a way position, although they are three different included in the sentient process, but only aspects of sensation, are unified in a sin- because it already is heat. Heat as some- gular event of sensing. thing de suyo is … prior to its being pre- So far, Zubiri’s account of sensation sent in sensing.”6 In terms of the force of (which Zubiri calls “sensible apprehen- imposition, “what is apprehended is im- sion”) shows no differentiation between posed upon me with … the force of real- humans and other animals. The differ- ity.”7 Reality forces itself upon me in the ence, Zubiri writes, has to do with a differ- sensation of notes that are “in their own entiation in the modes of sensible appre- right” my apprehension of things.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno 77 ______

Human beings, unlike animals, ap- and simply the experience of deity.”14 In prehend reality, the de suyo of notes that other words, “religation,” the problem of impose themselves on humans as some- being human, is the same as “deity,” the thing other. We are “implanted in real- very problem of the problem of God. The ity.”8 This implantation is what Zubiri problem of God is simply the exploration of calls “religation.” Religation is the “seizure the question “what constitutes this deity by the power of the real.”9 “The real” in which humans find themselves?” No- which has power over human beings is not tice that this means that “deity” is not a quality or property of the things humans equivalent to “God.” All that has been experience; it, too, is de suyo. “The real” is shown so far is that the problem of being enigmatic (Levinasian enough yet?); we human (the problem of being implanted in experience that things are real, but reality reality) and the very problem of the prob- de suyo of those things eludes us (except lem of God (the problem of reality de suyo) in certain cases related to our own reality are linked together, therefore establishing as persons). The problem of being human, for Zubiri the congruence of being human the very problem of the problem of God, and God. lies in this seizure by the power of reality From deity, one can move to “divinity.” de suyo. The problem of our humanity is Divinity is “that fundament*, which un- that “we are founded in an enigma, the doubtedly belongs to reality without being enigma of the power of the real.”10 This deity, but is precisely the fundament of the enigma makes our life a mystery, leaving deity of things.”15 This is demonstrable, as us to ask existential questions—e.g., is done in arguments for God’s existence. “What is going to become of me?” and All these proofs do is show that reality is “What am I going to make of myself?”11 really real, distinct from “subjective” ex- Reality de suyo is an enigma that makes periences of it; nothing more, nothing less. us who we are and grounds everything we Zubiri is quick to remind us that divinity experience. Therefore, everything is reli- “is not sufficient for reaching God, because gated by the power of the real; the catch is a very important question remains unan- that only humans experience that fact. swered. Is the first cause that which men The problem of reality is “formally the call “God”, that to which man directs him- problem of God. What religation manifests self not only with demonstration, but will experientially and enigmatically is God as all his acts of submission, prayer, etc.? … a problem. The problem of God belongs … who is the first cause?”16 As I will explain to the constitution of my own person.”12 in section three, Aquinas’s jump to God The problem of being human is the prob- from “unmoved mover,” “first cause,” etc. lem that brings us to the problem of God. is too big of a leap to make. Although Zubiri explores the problem of God in Aquinas is right—God will be those terms of a successive trio: deity, divinity, things—he seems to equate the terms God. “divinity” and “God.” This is an error. Deity is the name Zubiri gives to “this After all, the unmoved mover can be “me” ultimate, possibilitating, impelling power if I am a solipsist. We have to see the [of reality].”13 In other words, “deity” is the “who” of divinity as something de suyo. name of the enigmatic power of the real. It God is beyond divinity, and cannot is found in humans not as something ex- be demonstrated. Zubiri writes that God tra to experience (that is religation), but as is “absolutely absolute reality … it de- the foundation of all experiences. As pends on nothing, not even that on which Zubiri writes, “[m]an does not have experience of deity, but rather is the very experi- * The word “fundament” is sometimes used in ence of deity in his own substantive being place of “ground” to translate the Spanish … The personal act of religation is pure fundamento.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 78 Brad Elliott Stone ______every human person depends, to wit, his are aware of that fact—this is what makes nature … but is rather a free act. The first us human in comparison to other animals. cause as a personal and free reality: here Yes, animals die, but it is not a fact of we at last have God.”17 This can only be their existence. Therefore, like Zubiri, affirmed by faith, which Zubiri describes Unamuno focuses on a formal, modal dis- in terms of donation—love. God is the tinction here. Like animals, humans die; giver of reality, and humans are the recipi- unlike animals, we devote our life to think- ents of that reality. We have faith in God ing about, worrying over, and overcoming when we believe that the reality in which death. we find ourselves implanted is a gift and The essence of being human, however, not a curse, an obligation and not a causal is not in the fact that we die. Instead, the determinism; faith in God means seeing essence of being human is the desire to human beings as a finite moment of God, never die. Using Spinoza’s definition of res a participant in reality.18 To believe in God from Ethics, Bk. III, Unamuno writes that is to acknowledge the reality we find our- “[e]verything, in so far as it is in itself, en- selves in and to embrace our religation. deavors to persist in its own being … This This is why for Zubiri God is an experience means that your essence, reader, mine, … of being human, and being human is an and of every man who is a man, is nothing experience of God.19 but the endeavor, the effort, which he makes to continue to be a man, not to II. Unamuno: The Tragic Sense of God die.”21 The essence of being human is the struggle to forever continue existing. Like Zubiri, Unamuno sees the prob- Unamuno describes two aspects of being a lem of being human as a prerequisite to human being, two aspects which must approaching the problem of God. Al- remain in order to have the immortality he though not as systematic as Zubiri, Una- desires: unity and continuity. muno is definitely more passionate about By unity, Unamuno is thinking of the the relationship between human beings body and its spatiality. We are always and God. Unamuno’s main philosophical “focused” on something and direct our opus, Tragic Sense of Life, outlines the action toward things. Unamuno writes relationship between human beings and that “a man is so much the more a man God. Unamuno starts by explaining the the more unitary his action. There are tragic sense of life as the problem of being some who throughout their whole life fol- human. Human beings, who for Una- low but one single purpose, be it what it muno are concrete people “of flesh and may.”22 Therefore, human beings not only bone,” seek immortality against the desire mere immortality (e.g., the immor- awareness of their deaths. This fight for tality of the soul), but actual corporeal immortality opens up the problem of God, perpetuity. What worries us about death and God is described as a concrete, sen- is the dread of “having to tear myself away tient volition for the eternity of human from my flesh … from everything sensible existence. and material.”23 We are of flesh and bo- For Unamuno, human beings are de- ne—remove the flesh and the bones, and fined tragically and concretely. To show we are not. that Unamuno is concerned with human By continuity, Unamuno is thinking of beings in a non-abstract way, Unamuno the Bergsonian notion of memory.24 Una- uses the term “the man of flesh and bone” muno writes that “memory is the basis of to describe a human life. The man of flesh the individual personality … We live in and bone is described as one who “is born, memory and by memory, and our spiritual suffers, and dies—above all, who dies.”20 life is at bottom simply an effort of our The important fact about being human is memory to persist.”25 We are memory. that humans are mortal; we die, and we The meaning of eternal life is to always be

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno 79 ______remembered, and to always be remember- they lack the tragic sense of life and the ing. hunger for immortality. God’s existence At death, it is assumed that one loses matters to human beings because human both unity and continuity. For the man of beings are aware of their being, and there- flesh and bone, this idea is revolting. As fore seek its unity and continuity forever. Unamuno writes, “[i]f consciousness is … Unamuno offers the following anecdote to nothing more than a flash of light between show how tied together the hunger for two eternities of darkness, then there is immortality and the problem of God are: nothing more execrable than existence.”26 Talking to a peasant one day, I propo- In other words, life is pointless and with- sed to him the hypothesis that there out worth if it is indeed mortal. Life is might indeed be a God who governs indeed mortal; therefore, by modus po- heaven and earth, a Consciousness of nens, life is worthlessly pointless. the Universe, but that for all that the The essence of being human, Una- soul of every man may not be immor- muno argues, is to deny the conclusion of tal in the traditional and concrete this argument, even though it is both valid sense. He replies: “Then wherefore and sound. In short, the essence of being God?”31 human is a contradiction between the head and the heart, between reason and volition, which “express[es] a longing for What is the point of God if there is no unending life, [yet] now affirm[s] that this hope for immortality? For Unamuno, earthly life does not possess the value that “God” is the name of that hope, that hu- is given to it.”27 This is the tragic sense of manly concrete hope, of being oneself life, the absurd battle for immortality. eternally. God is born from the projection The very problem of the problem of of human hope into the universe. Una- God is the tragic sense of life. Unamuno muno reminds us that “[t]he divine … was notes that all civilizations have the hunger not originally something projective, but for immortality in one form or another. In was rather the subjectivity of conscious- short, as Unamuno exclaims, “I do not ness projected exteriorly, the personaliza- want to die—no; I neither want to die nor tion of the world.”32 Belief in God is the do I want to want to die; I want to live for- hope of immortality, in whatever form it is ever and ever and ever.”28 Everything hu- conceived throughout history. We want to man beings do, including philosophy and be “God”—to be immortal. “God” is the religion, screams this mantra over and name of our hatred of nothingness and the over. Unamuno uses the example of the power of life over nihilism. Through God, artist to prove his point here: “a man who human beings are created immortally, so tells you that he writes, paints, sculpts, or that “if you believe in God, God believes in sings for his own amusement … lies … He you, and believing in you He creates you wishes … to leave behind a shadow of his continually.”33 One’s unity is preserved in spirit.”29 We seek eternity, and this eter- the constant sustaining, and one is re- nity must preserve the unity and continu- membered and remembering in God. ity of our being. Unamuno writes that “[i]f Like Zubiri’s move from divinity to at the death of my body … my conscious- God, Unamuno argues that faith is the ness returns to the absolute unconscious- only way to access God. Like with Zubiri, ness from which it sprang … our toil-worn faith involves a personal relationship. human race … [is] the most inhuman Faith, Unamuno writes, “is not the mere thing known.”30 adherence of the intellect to an abstract Being human is the very problem of principle;” instead, it is a creation of God, the problem of God. Animals do not have who in turn creates us, and is therefore the problem of God, presumably, because “continually creating Himself in us.”34

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 80 Brad Elliott Stone ______

Said differently, “God and man, in effect, the traditional proofs of God’s existence. mutually create one another; God creates For Zubiri, traditional philosophy of relig- or reveals Himself in man and man creates ion is untrue to the sensible apprehension himself in God. God is His own maker.”35 of reality that is given to humans, thus And therefore we are in God, not with God. replacing reality de suyo (which leads to God is the highest expression of being God) with the metaphysical (incorrect) human: immortal and concrete. notion of reality as being. It is this reality Unamuno’s account of God on the one as being that Aquinas inherits from Aris- hand seems to lack the philosophical, sys- totle, which causes his proofs to demon- tematic structure found in Zubiri’s ac- strate a God that cannot be worshipped. count of religation, but, on the other hand, better sets the stage for why the very prob- Unamuno lem of the problem of God is so important When it comes to religious matters, and yet so neglected in traditional phi- Unamuno believes that philosophy (tradi- losophy of religion. Whereas Zubiri shows tionally conceived) is unhelpful and use- us how human beings move from religa- less as a method. First of all, true phi- tion/deity to divinity and ultimately to losophy (whose deficient mode is “philoso- God, Unamuno shows us why human phy” as we have come to know it) is a hu- beings pursue God. How and why are man activity that results from the tragic that questions still unasked by philosophy sense of life. To use philosophy to de- of religion, which is still too focused on scribe and solve the problem of God would what questions. be to put the effect before the cause. Hu- mans philosophize because we suffer from III. Against Theistic Evidentialism the very problem of the problem of God; the problem of God is prior to philosophy. Having explicated Zubiri and Una- Second, as Unamuno writes, “[t]he will muno’s respective existentialist accounts and the intelligence seek opposite ends.”36 of God, I now address two consequences of “Philosophy” excludes the will, and, there- their positions. The first consequence, fore, excludes forthright the very problem which will be discussed in this section, is of the problem of God, which is better un- that the theistic evidentialist proofs for derstood in terms of a volition than a God’s existence, insofar as they fail to ac- thought. “Philosophy” cannot accept its count for the very problem of the problem origin in the hunger for immortality, the of God, fail to prove God’s existence. The selfsame hunger that originally makes God second consequence, explored in section come to mind. Unamuno is very clear four, is that true atheism is impossible. about the fact that God will have to be a Both of these consequences come from the granter or guarantor of immortality in or- same root issue: both theism and atheism der to be significant to human beings. fail to acknowledge the very problem of the The God proven in the philosophy of problem of God; in other words, theism religion is unable to do this. Unamuno and atheism are both inside of the prob- writes that the “traditional so-called proofs lem of God. of the existence of God all refer to [the] In this section I start with Unamuno’s God-idea … and hence they really prove argument against what he calls “the God- nothing.”37 All these proofs do, to use Zu- Idea.” For Unamuno, traditional philoso- biri’s term, is prove that there is a ground phy of religion, insofar as it refuses to ac- to reality. But, for Unamuno, reality knowledge the tragic sense of life and the means nothing if life is pointless. Whereas concrete man of flesh and bone, misses Zubiri allows room for demonstration and God entirely and replaces God with “God,” reason at the move from deity to divinity, an empty metaphysical concept. I con- Unamuno is more suspicious of our intel- clude by describing Zubiri’s criticism of lectual capacities, preferring sentiment

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno 81 ______over reason. In other words, God must outward infinite of man as he is by defini- not only provide for the existence of the tion—that is to say, of the abstract man, of world, but also give human life purpose (in the man no-man” whereas the God we a non-teleological way) through immortal- pursue “is the projection to the inward ity. As Unamuno states, “the God who infinite of man as he is by life, of the con- confers human meaning and finality upon crete man, the man of flesh and bone.”40 the Universe and who is not the ens sum- It is important to note that both Gods mum, the primum movens, nor the Creator work the same way; God in both cases is of the Universe, nor merely the Idea-God. the infinite projection of the human being It leads us to the living, subjective God, for described in each case. When being hu- He is simply subjectivity objectified or per- man is understood abstractly (outwardly), sonality universalized.”38 God as the high- God is abstract, dead, and immortal only est being, or the first mover—or any of the in the way that ideas are; when being hu- Thomist nomenclatures—cannot confer man is understood concretely (inwardly), meaning on human life. The God that God is alive, concrete, and immortal in the matters, Unamuno tells us, is the objectiv- fullest sense. Philosophical theists prove ity of subjectivity, the absolute expression the existence of the God of the no-man, of being-a-subject, and the universaliza- the abstract “no-God,” who “neither loved tion of personality, the highest expression nor hated, because He neither enjoyed nor of being-a-person. suffered, an inhuman God … that is, an The reason why such proofs fail, injustice.”41 It is the direct result of con- Unamuno writes, is that philosophy pre- ceiving of being human in terms that make tends to be free of personality and subjec- emotions and concrete situations acciden- tivity. As a result, the philosophical un- tal instead of essential. derstanding of what it means to be a hu- Therefore, the move to God cannot be man being is wrong, and, a fortiori, the rational or demonstrative. Reason, Una- philosophical understanding of God. The muno sates, “separates us from [God]. We philosophical understanding of being hu- cannot first know Him in order that after- man is simply non-human. As Unamuno wards we may love Him; we must begin by writes, loving Him … before knowing Him … knowledge of God proceeds from the love [T]here is another thing [other than of God … To seek to define Him is to seek “the man of flesh and bone”] which is to confine Him … to kill Him.”42 By start- also called man, and he is the subject ing with knowing, the philosophy of relig- of not a few lucubrations, more or less ion fails to explain both the motive for the scientific. He is the legendary feather- pursuit of God and why anyone should less biped, the zōon politikon of Aris- love God, or why God should love us. Ta- totle, the social contractor of Rous- ke, for example, the proof that God made seau, the homo economicus of the the world because God is an intelligent Manchester school, the homo sapiens designer. Unamuno reminds us that “[w]e of Linnaeus, or, if you like, the vertical do not understand the existence of the mammal. A man neither of here nor world one whit the better by telling our- there, neither of this age or another, selves that God created it.”43 Humans are who has neither sex nor country, who looking for a God that gives purpose to life, is, in brief, merely an idea. That is to which helps one understand the world, not say, a no-man.39 a mere trivial fact about its creator. Given that this idea of human being is a “no-man,” the God of this approach is Zubiri also nothing. Unamuno writes that the Like Unamuno, Zubiri argues that in philosophical God “is the projection to the reducing God’s existence to proofs one is

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 82 Brad Elliott Stone ______losing the importance of God in the first definition of God qua entity. Granted, place. In other words, by reducing God to “God” is the correct answer; but Aquinas’s one more object of speculative reasoning, demonstration is faulty. In our age, one one loses the fact that one is exploring does not have to make the leap to God to God’s existence in the first place. Theists answer the question of “who” the prime and atheists alike have to be able to ex- mover, the first cause, etc. is. We mod- plain why it is that God is of such a con- erns can easily answer “the laws of phys- cern to them. By already making argu- ics,” thus not only not moving from divin- ments for and against God’s existence, the ity to God, but also removing the point of fundamental issue of religiation/deity is divinity in the first place. The “who” for already overlooked. The theist position Aquinas can be replaced by a “what.” means nothing to those who really believe However, if we start with religation/deity, in God, nor does it persuade in the slight- such a move to physics is frustrated. The est those who really do not believe in God. “who” is personal because we are persons; We can see this in theistic proofs inso- our reality is personal, implanted into ex- far as they work only for those who al- istence by reality itself, which is also a ready expect them to do so. The example person. And, in spite of Aquinas, this is Zubiri gives us is the famous passage from what we mean by the word “God.” Summa Theologica in which Aquinas dis- Zubiri writes the following in an at- cusses the proofs of God’s existence.44 tempt to explain where Aquinas erred: Zubiri states that the point of that ques- I am not maintaining that the five ar- tion is not really to prove God’s existence guments are invalid. Rather, I am (that part is actually uncontroversial for saying that contrary to what is ex- Aquinas and his contemporaries); rather, pressly affirmed in them, they do not it is to show that the proposition “God start from facts but from something exists” is not analytic and is therefore in quite different, namely, from a metap- need of an a posteriori demonstration. hysical interpretation of sensible real- This allows Aquinas to prove divinity cor- ity … the basis of St. Thomas’ discus- rectly given the way humans are religated. sion is not the facts but the metaphys- But, of course, Aquinas gives no argu- ics of Aristotle, which for St. Thomas ments for the religation of humans, nor is reason itself … [But] the metaphys- does he move from divinity to God. To ics of Aristotle is neither of common Aquinas’s credit, the reason he gives no sense nor a datum of experience.46 proof for the religation of humans was because Aquinas and his peers already had the notion of divinity; that is, they Reason clouds the facts, namely, the acknowledged that God is a problem. Zu- fact of being human. God can be under- biri claims that “since there was no ques- stood because there are facts about being tion for the men of his epoch and environs human which point us straight to the pro- that someone was coming, it was natural blem of God. For Unamuno, it is the tra- that St. Thomas should pass over this gic sense of life; for Zubiri, it is the sensi- point limiting himself to a statement of ble apprehension of reality. Therefore, the evidence, in order to delve into the ques- point of departure is wrong; Aquinas fails tion of who it is that comes.”45 Of course, to account for the true facts of the matter. in all reality, Aquinas never gets to who is For example, in the teleological argument, coming because he never gets past divinity Aquinas correctly notes that we sense that unless “…and this is what we call ‘God’” is nature has “design,” but fails to explain a moment of faith. But Aquinas is not why humans are the kind of beings that professing faith here; rather, he is claim- seek design (the answer: religation/deity – ing to demonstrate God’s existence by we sense the reality of the world as organ- pointing the reader back to the standard ized other, but that is not metaphysics;

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno 83 ______rather, it is the concrete way humans find IV. The Impossibility of True Atheism themselves implanted in existence). In terms of religion, it is clear that the In the previous section, the insistence God that is worshipped, prayed to, etc. on rational proofs for God’s existence leads does not fit the descriptions Aquinas at- to the wrong God—an abstract God that is tributes to God. As Zubiri writes, “the incapable of being worshipped or entered theos of Aristotle has no religious signifi- into a relationship. In this section I move cance whatever … No one can address a to the second consequence of Zubiri and prayer to the unmoved mover, at least Unamuno’s existentialist accounts of God. unless you add a few other things.”47 In I argue that true atheism is impossible other words, when Aquinas says “and this given the fact that humans are religated in is what we call ‘God,’” there is clearly a the tragic sense of life. large gap between the thing Aquinas There are two ways, perhaps, to con- proves (unmoved mover, first cause, etc.) sider oneself an atheist. One would be to and who he worships. Stated differently, not consider the proofs of God’s existence “to the God of Aristotle no one can address sufficient to warrant theistic belief. In supplications, or ask for help; he moves section three we have already shown that without being moved as the object of love theistic evidentialist proofs fail, yet Zubiri, and desire.”48 The God that founds reality, Unamuno, and I believe that God exists. however, is praiseworthy, because God is Therefore, rejection of rational proofs for the experience of being human. When we God’s existence cannot constitute atheism. worship God, we worship the whole of re- The second way to be an atheist is to offer ality, a reality that only we as humans a rational proof that God does not exist, as (and God) are privy to. one finds, for example, in the problem of Unamuno and Zubiri are both correct evil. The problem of evil shows that God for questioning traditional theism. By does not exist by using a reductio ad ab- failing to account for human religation (the surdum argument: tragic sense of life), the God that results is 1. Assume God exists. incomplete; not only incompletely demon- 2. God can stop evil if God wants to strated, but unworthy of worship. Our because God is omnipotent. relationship to God—the only way God matters to human beings—requires more 3. God wants to stop evil because God than this. A true theism requires an ac- is benevolent. knowledgment of the tragic sense of life 4. Evil remains [unstopped]. (religation) so as to provide the correct 5. Therefore, God is either unable to starting point for our pursuit of God. In- stop evil or does not want to stop sofar as we have the correct starting point, evil. we are only then able to have the correct 6. If God is unable to stop evil, then end: a God with whom we can enter into God is not omnipotent. relationship, worship, and ultimately through that worship, reaffirm what it 7. If God does not want to stop evil, means to be human. To use the phrase then God is not benevolent. often cited at Loyola Marymount Univer- 8. Premises 6 and 7 contradict prem- sity, “the Kingdom of God is a human be- ises 2 and 3. ing fully alive.” This is not surprising: 9. Therefore, God does not exist. LMU is a Jesuit institution, and the Jesu- its are a Spanish order. The main problem with this objection is that it disproves the existence of God from God’s own definition, which presup-

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 84 Brad Elliott Stone ______poses that the definition of “God” being world and face its reality head on. In ot- used is the correct one. If it is, then the her words, “not having a religion” is a re- ontological argument of St. Anselm would ligion, a way of understanding one’s religa- prove God’s existence, because the atheist tion to deity, and is therefore “a real and knows what “God” means. Although both positive option just as much as being a Zubiri and Unamuno have defenses of Buddhist or a Catholic or a Muslim can God’s existence against the problem of be.”51 evil, I will instead focus on the fact that Zubiri claims that some call them- atheism is only possible inside of the prob- selves “atheists” incorrectly. Simply say- lem of God. ing that God is not the way traditional I will start with Zubiri’s claim that philosophy has described him, after all, is atheism is only possible within the prob- not atheism. Nor is the rejection of the lem of God. Zubiri believes that the athe- Judeo-Christian-Islamic God of Abraham, ist is religated by the power of reality (de- Isaac, and Jacob. It just means that one ity), and is capable of understanding real- is not a part of those religious traditions. ity de suyo (divinity). So, the question of Since theism for Zubiri is the understand- “who” remains, and the atheist does not ing of religation and deity, atheism has to answer the question with “God.” I will also address these areas. then turn to Unamuno, who claims that Zubiri writes that atheism is best de- atheists are people who are stuck in the scribed as the rejection of the fact of reli- evidentialist rut of theistic proofs. Out of gation: the despair of not being able to prove The possibility of atheism is the pos- God’s existence, or getting the right God in sibility of feeling “unbound.” And those proofs, the atheist simply gives up what makes this feeling possible is the the struggle. “sufficiency” of the person for making Zubiri himself through the successful outcome of his efforts at living. The suc- Zubiri describes atheism as simply cessful outcome of life is the great being “a negative position before the deity” creator of atheism. The radical confi- because “[e]ven the intent to deny all real- dence, the trusting to one’s own abili- ity to that which founds [existence] … is ties for living, and the “unbinding” metaphysically impossible without the oneself from everything are one and realm of deity.”49 In order to claim that the same thing.52 something has existence or not requires that human beings be the kind of beings Zubiri points to radical self-confidence who find themselves in reality; that is, as the essence of atheism. In other words, religated. Therefore, any statement about atheism is the idea that one is not reli- “what there is” (or “what there is not”) re- gated to reality as explained in section quires the power of the real—deity. The one; it is to see oneself without obligation atheist claim that God does not exist is to reality. Levinas, perhaps influenced by only possible due to deity itself, the power Zubiri, uses the word “atheism,” correctly, of the real that imposes itself upon human to refer to the state of pure autonomy, the beings as other through affection. For understanding of the self as self-ruling. Zubiri, “[t]o admit the existence of an ul- However, it is important to notice that the timate reality—call it what you will—is not atheist is still nevertheless religated; one a question of option.”50 Human beings are thing an atheist (or a solipsist, who is implanted in existence and are obligated to equally atheistic perhaps) cannot do, even create themselves. We did not ask to be if she or he controls everything else in life, here. To use a Heideggerian term out of is pick when to be born. Atheism is only a context (and Zubiri objects to this term for possibility in light of religated reality. The other reasons), we are thrown into the reality of religation is deity, and atheists

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno 85 ______experience the deity by being a moment of given Unamuno’s suspicions about ration- it, just like theists do. ality and its abstract methods, one can be The difference comes at the move from a theist in spite of evidence, be the evi- divinity to God. The atheist, Zubiri says, dence for or against the existence of God. “affirms that he is God, and that he is suf- Atheism cannot be merely the adherence ficient unto himself;” however, “this is not to the truth of the arguments that there is properly denying God, but rather disput- no immortality or that God does not exist. ing over who it is that is God.”53 The athe- No one is truly a theist on these grounds, ist is the one who proves the prime mover, so neither can one be an atheist. and claims that she or he is it. Atheism is Being human is more about volition a claim of self-divinity; that the atheist is than reason for Unamuno. Therefore, true the reality de suyo of all real things. atheism would have to be a particular voli- Zubiri correctly points out that there is tion, a volition to not continue eternally in still a “God” involved here; it is just that one’s unity or continuity. Atheists seek the atheist claims the title for her- or him- consolation for the tragic sense of life in self. A great Levinasian either-or emerges. reason, and reason leads them to confirm Who is the divinity, the de suyo of the re- their fears, that they will die, and that will ality of things that I find myself implanted be it. They then become upset with what in: me or the Other (God)? Finally, on a they see as the “ignorant consolation” had Heideggerian note, Zubiri suggests that by believers in God, and deep down inside atheism is a deficient mode, an inauthen- wish that they, too, could have such con- tic mode, of the problem of God: “Atheism solation. This is what Unamuno calls is not … the primary situation of man. If odium anti-theologicum, an anti-theological man is constitutively religated, the prob- hatred, of human life. Simply put, for lem will not be in discovering God, but in Unamuno, atheists are those who hate the possibility of covering Him.”54 Atheism their lives, those who wish they had been is the ignoring of the obligation to be someone other than who they are, those found in religation. We can now say that who shake their fists at God for giving true theism is the state of being open as them such a crappy lot. Unamuno clings the site of reality, both de suyo and of to the last one: atheists, according to things (to borrow from Heidegger’s notion Unamuno, are those who hate God for of “discoveredness”), and atheism is the giving them the taste of life only to with- deficient mode of this discoveredness, cov- draw it at death. As Unamuno writes, ering over the fact of religation. True athe- “[n]ote the greater part of our atheists and ism is impossible, just as for Heidegger you will see that they are atheists from a there is no pure inauthenticity; the inau- kind of rage, rage at not being able to be- thentic, even in spite of itself, reveals the lieve that there is a God. They are per- truth about Dasein. Likewise, atheism on sonal enemies of God … their No-God is an Zubiri’s model reveals the religation of true Anti-God.”55 God is always personal; those theism, even when it is trying to supercede who seek God love God—those who do not or ignore it. seek hate God. But either way one looks at it, theisti- Unamuno cally or atheistically, loving or hating, hu- Unamuno believes that human beings man beings face the tragic sense of life, seek God because they desire immortality. which sets up the relationship with God of All rational attempts to prove God either one sort or the other. Unamuno doubts fail or reach the wrong God—the God-Idea, that anyone can truly be an atheist; pro- a no-God. Unamuno believes that one can claimed atheists are those who have sim- rationally prove that there is no immortal- ply been defeated by the tragic sense of ity, and that there is no God. However, life. In other words, atheists are those

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 86 Brad Elliott Stone ______who see life as a curse instead of a bless- found in Unamuno’s Rosario de sonetos ing. Life is tragic, but life is what we have. líricos (Rosary of Lyrical Sonnets), and Life is suffering; we suffer, God suffers— printed at the beginning of this essay, theism is the undying fight to suffer for- shows how important God is, even to an ever, to experience what Unamuno calls, atheist (which Unamuno was constantly citing St. Theresa of Avila, “sweet-tasting accused of being due to his rejection of suffering:” “Suffering is a spiritual thing … rational proofs and other tenants of Ca- A man who had never known suffering … tholicism). Like all sonnets, there is a would scarcely possess consciousness of distinct change of tone between the open- himself.”56 ing octet and the closing sextet. In the Unamuno writes that the tragic sense octet, Unamuno describes how God is of life, the battle between the head and the nothing but an attempt to console oneself heart, is the fight between atheism and from the tragic sense of life. Stories of theism, reason and life, nothingness and God are like fables told to children to help God. True atheism is impossible because them fall asleep. However, it is the sextet the battle rages on: that reveals the motive behind the atheist’s concern about God, and the true “The wicked man hath said in his prayer begins. Unamuno’s atheist in the heart, There is no God.” And this is sonnet says the magic words, words that truth. For in his head the righteous bind Unamuno with Zubiri: es muy an- man may say to himself, God does not gosta / la realidad por mucho que se es- exist! But only the wicked can say it pande / para abarcarte. Reality is stead- in his heart. Not to believe that there fast, and forces me to deal with God, re- is a God or to believe that there is not gardless of the attempts to put God to rest a God, is one thing; to resign oneself once and for all. I need God’s existence, to there not being a God is another because if God were to exist, then I would thing, and it is a terrible and inhuman truly also exist [eternally]. thing; but not to wish that there be a God exceeds every other moral mon- strosity; although, as a matter of fact, Conclusion those who deny God deny Him be- Zubiri and Unamuno offer a unique cause of their despair at not finding way of rethinking the existence of God in a Him.57 way that moves beyond the traditional Even those who do not wish that there philosophical methods of proving God’s is a God do so only because they despair existence and also overcomes the threat of at the futility of their previous desires. atheism. Being human is the foundation However, at an existential level, the hope of all inquiries into God, and the failure to is still there. After all, atheists do not all address that foundation leads to a God commit suicide upon being convinced that that is never worth proving, or to no God life is pointless. at all. By grounding theism in the existen- However, the best expressions of tial foundation of being human, both thin- Unamuno’s views about atheism are not kers have navigated a new path towards found in his essays or books. Unamuno is how we know/love/are/live/create God, probably most famous in Spanish litera- and how in turn God knows/loves/ ture for his poetry. “The Atheist’s Prayer,” is/lives/creates us.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 On the Very Problem of the Problem of God in Zubiri and Unamuno 87 ______

Notes

1 UNAMUNO, Miguel (de). “La oración del tory, God will be made as NHG followed by ateo,” Antología poética, ed. Roberto Paoli the page number. (Madrid: Espasa-Calpé, 1946), pp. 102-103; 15 PFR 62. my translation. 16 NHG 313. 2 ZUBIRI, Xavier. Sentient Intelligence, trans. 17 Ibid. Thomas B. Fowler, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: The Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North Amer- 18 Cf. NHG 314; cf. also HD, Ch. 4. ica, 1999), p. 14. Future references to this 19 Cf. HD, Pt. 3. Zubiri was greatly influenced text will be made as SI followed by the page by Spanish mysticism, especially the writ- number. ings of St. Theresa of Jesús (Avila), who 3 SI 14. makes a similar claim about finding God in the reality of life and the world. 4 SI 15. 20 UNAMUNO, Miguel (de). Tragic Sense of Life, 5 In a forthcoming essay, “A Zubirian Guess at trans. J. E. Crawford Flitch (New York: Do- the Riddle,” I argue that Zubiri’s notion of ver, 1952), p. 1. Future references to this the reality of a note is equivalent to what text will be made as TSL followed by the pa- Peirce refers to as “firstness.” For Peirce, a ge number. “first” is a simple reality independent from other “firsts” that form “seconds” through a 21 TSL 6-7. “third.” To use Zubiri’s example of heat, 22 TSL 8; translation modified. heat de suyo is a first; the laws of thermody- 23 TSL 47. namics, thirds. 24 Although Unamuno does not refer to Bergson 6 SI 25. in his discussion of unity and continuity, it 7 SI 26. is clear that Unamuno had read Bergson’s 8 ZUBIRI, Xavier. El problema filosófico de la Matter and Memory (1901), where the body historia de las religiones (Madrid: Alianza, and memory are unified. For Bergson, mem- 1994), p. 31. I am consulting the unpub- ory is material, and matter is the persistence lished English translation by Joaquín of something’s existence. Redondo. Future references to this text will 25 TSL 8-9. be made as PFR followed by the page num- 26 TSL 13. ber. 27 TSL 13. 9 ZUBIRI, Xavier. El hombre y Dios, 7th ed. 28 TSL 45. (Madrid: Alianza, 2003), p. 92. I am consulting the unpublished English translation by 29 TSL 51. Joaquín Redondo. Future references to this 30 TSL 42. text will be made as HD followed by the page 31 TSL 5. number. 32 TSL 158. 10 HD 99. 33 TSL 180. 11 HD 100. 34 TSL 191-192. 12 HD 110. 35 TSL 169. 13 PFR 43. 36 TSL 113. 14 PFR 53; cf. also ZUBIRI, Xavier. Nature, 37 History, God, trans. Thomas B. Fowler, Jr. TSL 160. (Lantham: University Press of America, 38 TSL 166. 1982), p. 329. Zubiri states there that “deity 39 TSL 1. is manifested to us as a simple correlate of 40 TSL 4. religation.” Future references to Nature, His- 41 TSL 167.

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004 88 Brad Elliott Stone ______

42 TSL 167-168. 56 TSL 210-211. This is where I argue else- 43 TSL 161. where that God allows suffering, not because God is impotent or malevolent, but that suf- 44 Cf. AQUINAS, St. Thomas. Summa The- fering is required for human consciousness, ologica, Bk. I, Quest. 2, Arts. 1-3. which in turn acknowledges the tragic sense 45 NHG 308-309. In this section of Nature, of life, and therefore creates God. God is History, God Zubiri is describing divinity in made up of suffering, albeit sweet tasting. terms of “someone is coming” and God in 57 TSL 184. terms of “who is coming.”

46 HD 121; emphasis his. 47 PFR 40. 48 PFR 55. I will say more about this fact in the Biography of the author next section. BRAD ELLIOTT STONE is Assistant Pro- 49 NHG 329. fessor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount 50 PFR 89. University in Los Angeles, California, USA. 51 Ibid. His research interests are in contemporary continental philosophy (including Spanish 52 NHG 346. philosophy) and neopragmatism. He is 53 Ibid. currently writing a monograph on the 54 NHG 345; emphasis his. problem of God in Spanish philosophy. 55 TSL 122. Email: [email protected].

XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2004