How does one encounter reality? The world consists of elements that can be encountered through the human senses and also elements obscure to the senses. When is something encountered then real? Is experience through the senses conditional to proving the existence of everything? Can reality only be accessed through rational processes? As Hegel (1979:19) famously stated, ‘what is rational is real and what is real is rational’, emphasising Plato’s contention that reality relates to a higher idea. To this ancient dilemma of metaphysics, many have, over the centuries, attempted answers. Compare the research captured in the publication by Stoker and Van Der Merwe (ed. 2012).

At the root of Feuerbach’s theory of religion lies his understanding of the relationship between humans and reality. How does one engage with reality? Hegel focused on ideas. Feuerbach focused on the material. In the preface to his second edition of the Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach indicates his position regarding engaging reality (2008):

When applying this approach to understanding religion, Feuerbach reacts in a typical rational empiricist fashion by acknowledging only that which can be experienced through the senses. Feuerbach (2008:8) describes his philosophy as follows: ‘It generates thought from the opposite of thought, from matter, from existence from senses’. This preoccupation with matter and objects led David Chidester (2016) to proclaim that the ideas of Feuerbach lie at the root of material religion.

The observation by Feuerbach – ‘true seeing’ – leads him to deny the existence of god. But Feuerbach (2008) denies refuting the concept of god. According to him, he allows religion to speak for itself:

Feuerbach comes to the atheistic conclusion claiming that it is religion itself that says so:

If this is considered atheism, Feuerbach (2008) responds by indicating that religion is a-theistic:

To understand Feuerbach, one has to understand Feuerbach and his times and his journey to reach the post-theistic conclusions mentioned above.

The intention is not to provide an exhaustive biography of Feuerbach but to focus on the experiences and ideas that influenced his philosophy.

Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach was born in 1804 in Bavaria and died in 1874 in Rechenberg, near Nurnberg in Germany. He was the third son of a famous jurist and part of an academically inclined family (his brothers excelled as archaeologists and mathematicians). The Feuerbach family were considered to be devout Protestants (Gooch 2020).

Ludwig attended the University of Heidelberg, intending to pursue a career in the church. Ludwig’s father wished for his son to study under the rational theologian H.E.G. Paulus, but Ludwig preferred the lectures of the speculative theologian Karl Daub, who was instrumental in arranging a visit in 1816–1818 by the German philosopher Georg Hegel in Heidelberg (Gooch 2020). At Heidelberg, Ludwig was introduced to the work of Hegel. Without completing his degree at Heidelberg, he enrolled for studies at the University of Berlin to study directly under Hegel. After two years, his enthusiasm for theology waned, and he completed his studies in natural sciences at the University of Erlangen, where he also completed a PhD. Feuerbach was offered a position at the conservative university in Erlangen, teaching history of philosophy. Many faculty members had close connections with the neo-Pietist awakening. When Feuerbach exhibited sympathy for the anti-Pietist movement, his employment at the university was terminated. He married in 1837 and wrote books as an independent scholar while his wife’s family business provided income (Gooch 2020).

At first, Feuerbach defended the philosophy of Hegel enthusiastically. This is evident from the first three books he published as an independent scholar. Hegel died in 1831. The publication by D.F. Strauss in 1835–1836 of the two-volume work entitled Life of Jesus Critically Examined led to the question whether Hegel’s philosophy was compatible with the Christian faith (Gooch 2020).

Upon this, Feuerbach started to critically engage with the ideas of Hegel, resulting in an essay entitled ‘Toward a Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy’, which Feuerbach published in 1839 in the Halle Annals for German Science and Art. In this article, Feuerbach indicated his departure from Hegelian philosophy, emphasising a return of the human spirit to nature. He elucidated this with a naturalistic explanation of the mysteries of Christianity and religion in general. In 1841, with the publication of Das Wesen des Christentums, Feuerbach reached the height of his fame. Later, Friedrich Engels would report that this publication of Feuerbach had ‘a liberating effect’ on him and Karl Marx. According to Engels, Feuerbach broke the spell of the Hegelian system and established the truth that human consciousness is the only true consciousness that exists, and this human consciousness depends on the physical existence of human beings as part of nature (Engels 2000:17). We will later return to Engels’ analysis of developing German philosophy and Feuerbach’s role in it.

After publishing several more books during the 1840s, Feuerbach was forced because of financial considerations to move to Rechenberg, near Nurnberg (Gooch 2020). During this period, mainly due to deteriorating health, his productivity as an author diminished. One last important publication was in 1866. The 10th version of his collected works (first published in 1846) was entitled Gottheit, Freiheit und Unsterblichkeit (God, Freedom and Immortality). According to Gooch (2020), what is significant is the inclusion of an essay entitled ‘Spiritualism and Materialism: Especially in Relation to the Freedom of the Will’. In this essay, Feuerbach addresses ethics and the drive to happiness.

One may ask what the main influences were on Feuerbach’s life and thought and especially what caused this seismic shift from being a fervent follower of Hegel to becoming one of his biggest critics.

One has to understand Feuerbach from the context within which he existed. Although Feuerbach grew up as a Protestant, he was exposed to liberal and conservative theologians, as well as Pietist thought. Religious thought was considered a rational endeavour. Rational thought was determined by the philosophical streams of the day.

Feuerbach’s naturalism existed for some time in Germany. Heinrich Heine, a highly influential German philosopher according to Engels (2000:8), already in 1835 acknowledged that naturalism had become the secret religion of Germany. Feuerbach restored the importance and prominence of nature. Where Hegel emphasised the idea, abstract and nature as being created by a divine being, Feuerbach emphasised the existence of materiality and the prominence of nature (Kahl 1999:15). All that exists, according to Feuerbach, is nature and humans. Gods are figments of human imagination.

Feuerbach reacted to Hegel. Therefore, to understand Feuerbach, one needs to understand Hegel (compare Van der Merwe 2011:323). The line of development in German philosophy was traced by Russell (2004:652) from Kant to Leibniz to Hegel. For Russell (2004:654), the development of philosophy in Germany was closely linked to the political context. Prussia played an important role in determining German identity. Fichte and Hegel were under Prussian influence, being ‘mouthpieces of Prussia’ (Russell 2004:654). Hegel was described as a ‘loyal servant of the State’ (Russell 2004:661). Although Feuerbach resided in Rechenberg (close to Nurnberg) for some time, the region was never considered part of Prussia. After Hegel died in 1831, Russell (2004:654) states that German philosophy remained traditional. Hegel’s influence, however, extended beyond the borders of Germany – at the end of the 19th century, philosophers of the United States of America and the United Kingdom were considered Hegelian (Russell 2004:661).

In discerning Hegel’s thoughts, Russell (2004:661) indicates that ‘Hegel’s philosophy is very difficult’. According to Engels (2000:7,14), Hegel’s thoughts determined German existence on all levels. Hegel’s work included studies of aesthetics, history, metaphysics, jurisprudence and political philosophy. Hegel’s philosophy developed over time, so the earlier works of Hegel might present different concepts in comparison to his later works. His relevance to a discussion of Feuerbach would be to limit our focus on Hegel’s idealism of metaphysics, which was closely linked to his understanding of the limitations and nature of human cognition.

A short excursion into Hegel’s thought may help us understand that to which Feuerbach reacted. Hegel focused on the relationship between humans and reality. What is real can be engaged only within a rational manner. Everything visible is not real. What is real is the ideal that can be rationally encountered. Finite things are an illusion, and they can be real only in terms of being part of a whole – known as the Absolute, which is spiritual (Russell 2004:662). Regarding his statement referred to earlier that what is rational is real and what is real is rational (Hegel 1979:19), it should be noted that what is real is only accessible through the rational. Hegel’s statement that the real is rational and what is rational is real does not refer to the empirical real. What is empirically real is irrational. It becomes rational only once real is interpreted as from their part within the whole (Russell 2004:662). Hegel also professed that what is real is necessary. When something real becomes unreal, it loses its necessity and becomes unnecessary and loses its right to exist and may then be destroyed (Engels 2000:9). Hegel’s system resulted in an understanding that there is no Absolute truth, everything is transient and relative truth is only attainable through the positive sciences (Engels 2000:14). The nature of reality is that it should not be contradictory; therefore, the emphasis is on logic (Russell 2004:662).

As to Hegel’s thoughts on religion, Hegel was influenced by Kant’s understanding of god (Van der Merwe 2011:323). To know something outside of oneself (sense-perception), one needs to exercise sceptical criticism of the senses – then, the object one is aware of becomes a subject. This culminates in a stage of self-knowledge where the subject and object are indistinguishable. Self-knowledge is thus the highest form of knowledge. For Hegel, the highest knowledge is the knowledge possessed by the Absolute (Russell 2004:664). This argument led Russell (2004:665) to conclude that for Hegel, the Absolute Idea is pure thought thinking about pure thought. God is the Idea that thinks itself. Hegel’s philosophy can be labelled as idealism in contradiction to materialism. In this regard, Feuerbach eventually differed from Hegel. For Hegel, god, the Absolute as the ultimate reality, is to be arrived at only through rational human thought.

According to Hegel (in Harvey 1995:26) in his explication of the philosophy of Spirit, the Absolute Spirit is gradually being manifested throughout the evolutionary development of religions. The development from animism to monotheism are all stages in the process where the Spirit manifests in different ways. The result is that Christianity should be viewed as the culmination of the history of religion, which should be regarded as a progressive revelation of the truth of the Absolute Spirit. In this way, the Absolute is to be perceived not as an impersonal substance but as a subject (Harvey 1995:26). For Hegel (see Harvey 1995:27), the infinite comes to self-realisation in the life of creation and nature; thus, the infinite is being poured into the finite world and reconciles with the objectified world. Therefore, according to Hegel, religion is the revelation of the infinite in the finite. Feuerbach reacted to the Hegelian thought system.

To trace the origins of post-theism is an impossible task. Some might argue that post-theism refers to a label of a new phase in developing studying religion as opposed to theism (compare Schwöbel 1994:180). I would argue that there have always been people standing averse to the idea of a personal god since the first traces appeared as to what is referred to as theism. The intensity of the objection and the number of scholars sympathising with the theory might have varied over time. The matter is further complicated as there are many related terminologies. Therefore, it is difficult to delineate exactly what we are talking about when discussing post-theism. For example, what is the difference between post-theism, atheism, agnosticism and secularisation? Do they all refer to the same phenomenon or only highlight specific aspects of the same phenomenon? I am inclined towards the latter.

Adriaanse (2000:33³), in introducing the matter of post-theism, indicates that theism in its traditional form has lost its credibility. Adriaanse (2000:35) concludes this based on his arguments around coherence, probability and plausibility. With regard to theism, Schwöbel summarises Adriaanse’s theory by stating that Adriaanse provides a statement of bankruptcy and an obituary, announcing the end of theism. To this, Schwöbel (1994:172,180) responds by indicating that theism is neither insolvent nor dead. Theism ‘remains a live option’ (Schwöbel 1994:172), and ‘theism is alive and well’ (Schwöbel 1994:161). Theism is defined by Schwöbel (1994:169,179) as follows:

This understanding of theism corresponds with Swinburne’s (1977:1) description of theism as the belief in a personal god of spiritual nature, who is omnipresent and omniscient and all-powerful, the creator and sustainer of the universe. Post-theism constitutes a movement with arguments against such a belief.

Post-theism must thus be seen as an expression of dissatisfaction with theism. It is not the purpose of this article to present Adriaanse’s arguments against post-theism but to indicate the levels of similarities between arguments presented by Feuerbach.

Schwöbel (1994:173) traces the path of the theistic argument by indicating that it developed in response to two stimuli: the diverse theological positions resulting from the Reformation and the Renaissance atheistic attack on Christianity.

Theism was a theory created in response to different theological confessions originating from the Reformation and counter-Reformation. Theism was an attempt to create a framework of consensus for divergent theological interpretations⁴ within Christianity. This framework addressed all existence in reality and was consciously created outside the Christian doctrine and practices to make it universally valid (Schwöbel 1994:175).

In response to the atheistic attack on Christianity picking up renewed momentum during the Renaissance and resulting in the denial of the existence of god, theism was created to suppress atheistic claims (Schwöbel 1994:176). However, Schwöbel (1994:176) identifies a third impulse leading to theism. In response to the development and growing interest in natural sciences, the conclusion was drawn that a personal god adds no explanation to natural phenomena. This manifested in the 17th century development of panentheism, with Spinoza as the most important exponent (Schwöbel 1994:176). Theism attempted to emphasise the existence of a god who becomes the universal and ultimate explanation to all existence and to all that there is and everything that happens (Schwöbel 1994:177).

As a child of his time, Feuerbach, during the 19th century, in reaction to theism as an ultimate explanation for all that exists, could not reconcile reality experienced through the senses with a personal god no one has ever seen and who still claims to be the most powerful being. Feuerbach responded by providing a solution as to the ultimate explanation of all that exists, along the line of Spinoza, but now without the notion of theism. Nature is the ultimate explanation of everything.

Alain De Botton represents a unique brand of post-theism. He positions himself among those who find it difficult to believe in miracles, spirits or tales of miraculous things (De Botton 2012:11). He does not see himself as part of the category of atheists who would try and prove that god does not exist, although he admits that it might be an entertaining exercise (De Botton 2012:11). He rather sees himself as part of the group of atheists who denounces the existence of god but still ‘sporadically’ finds religion ‘useful, interesting and consoling’ and even considers how to incorporate some religious ideas and practices into the secular environment (De Botton 2012:11–12). De Botton (2012:12) describes it as a search for how to ‘balance a rejection of religious faith with a selective reverence for religious rituals and concepts’. His premise is that religions do not have a divine origin, but still, religions address two basic human needs; namely, religion provides the possibility to reside in communities in harmony and to console humans in times of despair. His argument is that although god may be considered obsolete, the reasons humans constructed a concept of god still remain. Humankind has allowed religion to exclusively claim human experiences that should belong to all humankind and even be permitted within the secular realm (De Botton 2012:15). According to De Botton (2012:15), what is needed is for atheists to discover a new process of reversing ‘religious colonisation’ – ‘how to separate ideas and rituals from religious institutions which have laid claim to them but don’t truly own them’.

The process De Botton (2012:17,19) suggests is not so much destroying religion but gleaning from religion that which is ‘useful and attractive’ and to ‘rescue what is beautiful, touching and wise’. However, he does not see himself as an apologist for any religion but as an admirer who realises that religion has accomplished a change in the world in a way that no other secular institution has ever achieved (De Botton 2012:18). Although there is growing opposition to the thoughts of De Botton, a critical analysis of his reception indicates that there are just as much support of and in defence of De Botton as ‘pop thinker’ (compare Abengaña 2018).

There appear to exist several similarities between the arguments presented by post-theists and Feuerbach. Among the most prominent is the conviction that a personal god is redundant. Interestingly, Feuerbach argues against the existence of any god but argues in favour of a religious system, in a way similar to De Botton. The conditions requiring humans to create the concept of a personal god remain. Feuerbach replaces the concept of a personal god with a different powerful entity, namely nature. Although no personal traits are assigned to nature, it fulfils the same function as religion: fulfilling the need to belong to a community and to experience consolation in times of despair (as identified by De Botton).

When discussing the human fear of death, Feuerbach (1908:46) indicates that returning to nature after death ought to bring consolation and allay human fear. Belonging to nature unites all humanity to a monistic origin, creating a harmonious co-existence and cohabitation.

Any argument must be understood from the context from where it originates, so Feuerbach’s theories must be seen against the backdrop of his times. Feuerbach’s position testifies to the different ways in which it has been dealt with in divinity, whether the acceptance of divinity (theism), denying it (as in post-theism) or conditionally accepting it (as in pantheism). Some hybrid positions are possible. Some do not subscribe to the doctrine of divinity (like De Botton) but acknowledge religion’s use in society.

Feuerbach acknowledges that there is something like religion but focuses excessively on explaining the redundancy of divinity and does not address the function or benefit of religion to society. De Botton has a sociological approach, while Feuerbach has a more philosophical approach to addressing religion.

There are many ways to engage with transcendence. Empiricists trust their senses to deliver proof of the existence of a divine being. Agnostics argue that gods’ existence is unnecessary to prove, although religion can have an important function within society. If one asked Feuerbach whether god exists, he would answer, ‘No, because I cannot see him or her. I can see nature around me, and therefore, nature is considered of more value than the belief in god.’ If one asks De Botton if god exists, he would probably say, ‘No, but it is irrelevant. If god exists, I do not need him. Religion has other functions more relevant than the belief in god.’

This article presents the thoughts of Feuerbach as an influential scholar in religion. His theories are compared to more recent developments in post-theism. In this way, Feuerbach’s theories still relate to current research on religion.