Inactive Tutor answered • 05/21/20
This is a good question, and you're right-- if we think about Camus' and Sartre's understanding of existentialism (though Camus himself would deny he is an existentialist), the notion of complete freedom and lack of essence might seem to suggest that there is no God. However, you are right to bring up Kierkegaard, who was himself very religious and also critical to the existentialism movement.
It might be helpful to consider the tenants of existentialism, which, boiled down crudely, are really just:
1) existence precedes essence, and
2) we are radically and wholly free.
If a religion is compatible with these tenants, then there is no reason that it wouldn't be compatible with existentialism. However, when it comes to say, Christianity, it becomes a bit more difficult due to claims made in biblical texts (if God knows everything that will transpire, do we really have free will?). Kierkegaard was famously Christian, but also existentialist. This is partially because he advocated for a movement away from Christian doctrine, and a focus on faith itself (ie, a relationship with God--however that may manifest). Part of being an existentialist is positing that we have complete freedom to choose our beliefs, so believing in God as Kierkegaard does is not necessarily incompatible with existentialism, unless our belief as such violates the two aforementioned tenants (for example, if I believed God produced humans without free will, or with limited free will, this would be incompatible with existentialism).
I guess, long story short, atheism is not a requirement for consistent existentialism-- but a theological approach would likely require a different understanding of God in the first place. It would also require, as Kierkegaard notes, a Leap of Faith-- as there is no rational means by which one can determine there is a God (nor according to Kierkegaard, should there be).
