Faith and Irrationality; Kierkegaard
Until the time of Kierkegaard
philosophers pretty much presumed that we want/ ought to believe all and only
what is rational. (Anselm, Aquinas, (Pascal[1]*),
Clifford, James, Kant, Advocates of the Problem of Evil). Whether to believe in God was completely a
rational decision.
In contrast, the Danish philosopher, Soren
Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855), claims that belief in God is not, nor can it be
rational, but that doesn’t make it a bad thing.
- Religious
faith is not nor can it ever be a “rational”
matter
- Kierkegaard
referred to himself as an anti‑philosopher
(Anti-Hegelian)
- Brooded over
the nature of “faith;” performs a sort-of conceptual analysis.
The time and country he lived in were
largely Christian. But his countrymen were
complacent in their religious belief from Kierkegaard’s perspective; religious
belief amounted to sort of a daily passionless habit.
When Kierkegaard claims to be an
anti-philosopher, this is better understood as being an anti-Hegelian. The philosophical system advanced by Georg Hegel
(1770 – 1831) was widely popular and of growing influence during Kierkegaard’s
lifetime. In this system, the individual
was of little or no importance. The only
significance the individual achieved was as an aspect of constantly unfolding
Absolute Spirit. Occasionally an
individual would arise who embodied an important movement in the progress of
history (a Napoleon, for instance,) but the vast majority of
us, with our petty existence and daily trials and tribulations, are of no
significance to the cosmic story of consciousness. This necessarily anonymizes the
individual, mutes the individual, his struggles, choices, his uniquely lived
life, his very existence-as-existing.
Further, while Hegel had taught that
all apparent contradictions (the thesis with its antithesis) are subsumed into
an evolving dynamic history, into a synthesis, Kierkegaard the individual, and
on behalf of the individual, wanted to testify to the struggle of choice confronting
the individual (Either/ or), choices which are unavoidable in any self-reflective,
lived life. As we shall see, we
individuals, like Abraham from Hebrew scriptures, can resolve the conflict and
paralysis only by making a choice.
Both of these factors contribute to Kierkegaard's
analysis of “Faith.”
Also, it didn’t sit well with
Kierkegaard that Hegel is philosophizing about Christianity while never
seriously thinking about being or living as a Christian.
“It is the
existing spirit who asks about truth, presumably because he wants to exist in
it, but in any case, the questioner is conscious of being an existing
individual human being. In this way, I believe I am able to
make myself understandable to every Greek and to every rational human
being.
If a German
philosopher follows his inclination to put on an act and first transforms
himself into a superrational something, just as alchemists and sorcerers
bedizen themselves fantastically, in order to answer
the question about truth in an extremely satisfying way, this is of no more
concern to me than his satisfying answer, which no doubt is extremely
satisfying - if one is fantastically dressed up.
But whether a
German philosopher is or is not doing this can easily be ascertained by anyone
who with enthusiasm concentrates his soul on willing to allow himself to be
guided by a sage of that kind, and uncritically just uses his guidance
compliantly by willing to form his existence according to it.
When a person as
a learner enthusiastically relates in this way to such a German
professor, he accomplishes the most superb epigram upon him, because a
speculator of that sort is anything but served by a learner's honest and
enthusiastic zeal for expressing and accomplishing, for existentially
appropriating his wisdom, since this wisdom is something that the Herr
Professor himself has imagined and has written books about but has never
attempted himself. It has not even
occurred to him that it should be done.
Like the
customers clerk who, in the belief that his business was merely to write, wrote
what he himself could not read, so there are speculative thinkers who merely
write, and write that which, if it is to be read with the aid of action, if I
may put it that way, proves to be nonsense, unless it is perhaps intended only
for fantastical beings.[2]
Ouch!
So if the fantastic musings of Herr Philosopher
are too speculative and abstract to be of practical assistance to us
individuals as we try to make our way through the world, to whom should we turn
for guidance? Here Kierkegaard suggests,
to the story of Abraham.
Story of Abraham
So what is real faith about?
Because he had an
unique relationship with God, Abraham is known to the faithful of the Abrahamic
religions as the “Father of Faith.”
Kierkegaard examines the story of Abraham to discover what genuine “religious
faith” is since those who use the word often point to this story as
illustrative. Kierkegaard is engaged in a sort of
"conceptual analysis" of "faith." Kierkegaard concluded that complacent,
thoughtless, routine is NOT real faith. And
the story of Abraham can help us to see why that it. Kierkegaard turns to the story of
Abraham.
The Biblical figure of Abraham is said
to be the “Father of Faith” and heroically exemplary of religious faith for
Christians.
http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Kierkegaard
http://kingjbible.com/genesis/22.htm
_files/image001.jpg)
1 And it came to
pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him,
Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take
now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest,
and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering
upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. 3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took
two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the
burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and
saw the place afar off. 5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder
and worship, and come again to you. 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the
fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac
spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said,
Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And
Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb
for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9 And they came to
the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid
the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the
wood. 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and
took the knife to slay his son. 11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him
out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here
am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only
son from me. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind
him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of
his son.
Review
Fear and
Trembling (1843) centers on the biblical story of Abraham. Abraham, childless
after 80 years, prays for a son. God grants his wish, and Abraham has Isaac.
Years later[3], God
orders Abraham to kill his son.
Abraham
prepares to kill Isaac, but at the last second God spares Isaac and allows
Abraham to sacrifice a ram instead. Fear
and Trembling however, includes four different
retellings of the story, each with a slightly different viewpoint presumably to
acknowledge the torment that a real Abraham (and Isaac) would have gone
through.
- In the first version, Abraham decides to kill Isaac in accordance
with God’s will. Abraham convinces Isaac that he’s doing it by his own
will, not by God’s. This is a lie, but Abraham says to himself that he
would rather have Isaac lose faith in his father than lose faith in God.
- In the second version, Abraham sacrifices a ram instead of Isaac.
Even though God spares Isaac, Abraham’s faith is shaken because God asked
him to kill Isaac in the first place.
- In the third version, Abraham decides not to kill Isaac and then
prays to God to forgive him for having thought of sacrificing his son in
the first place.
- In the fourth version, Abraham can’t go through with killing Isaac.
Isaac begins to question his own faith due to Abraham’s refusal to do what
God commanded.
So Abraham had a son, Isaac whom he
loved deeply. How does Abraham interpret
God's request that Abraham take his son out and kill him? Kierkegaard is inviting us to imagine what
the real Abraham and the real Isaac must have been going through. Their struggles their choices and by extension
the challenge of the human condition.
It is a mistake to think Abraham merely
had to decide whether to do God’s will or not.
Certainly, that would have been difficult enough, and many interpreters
of the story leave it at that. Some suggest
only that Abraham had to decide whether he would do the will of God (at great
personal cost) or not, and since he was willing to do God’s will, he passed the
“test” and in so doing demonstrates heroic faith. But Kierkegaard suggests that this reading
misses perhaps the most important feature of the choice confronting Abraham and
thus overlooks his truly heroic act.
Abraham first had to decide what that “voice in the night” meant.
Various interpretations are open to
Abraham. He must choose to interpret and that choice cannot be “rational” or based on
evidence since it is the making of the choice which will determine WHAT the
“evidence” is evidence of.
"Voice" in the night might
be evidence of:
1. God’s sincere desire?
2. God’s test of Abraham’s morality?
3. A demonic trick?
4. Abraham’s own insanity?
Abraham's choice (and only his choice)
determines what this voice is evidence of.
He cannot derive meaning, significance or guidance from it since it is HE who GIVES it
its significance and meaning. After
his choice of interpretation, he must further choose how he will respond to the
(newly created) “evidence.”
Kierkegaard is pointing out that,
contrary to what we might initially suppose, we do not base our choices on evidence,
but rather the other way around; we base evidence on choices. The voice is not evidence of anything until
it is given an interpretation. What
interpretation it is given is a free (undetermined) choice for which Abraham is totally responsible. Further, he can get no rational assistance in
making such choices. But the most
important things in his life rest on this choice, yet no choice is “reasonable” (or unreasonable for that
matter) until after one makes the choice.
This is why Kierkegaard is considered the founder
of Existentialism.
Existentialism – school of thought founded by Kierkegaard which
stresses individual personal choice and responsibility; major and minor decisions made in life are one’s
choices; one is free to choose whatever one will; complete freedom, but
therefore total responsibility rests with the individual. These choices are matters of creative
self-definition.
Further still, these are the most
important choices of his life. Abraham's
world (his son, his relationship with God, his relationship with his wife, his
progeny) was riding on this choice.
When confronted with this need to
choose he must therefore make a Leap of
Faith
Leap of Faith: a passionate commitment that one makes without regard
to reason, evidence or argument.
This is precisely what Abraham does
and this is why he is a hero of faith. This then is the nature of true faith. It results from the recognition of the
futility of reason and the necessity for personal unaided choice. He is therefore not merely hero of faith, but
emblematic of us all and the human condition we find ourselves in.
Abraham's world, everything important
to him (his son, his relationship with God, his progeny) was riding on this
choice. So these
free “existential” choices are the most important choices confronting us in
life. And Abraham is (as we are) compelled
to choose. As Existentialist
philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980) would later say, “Man is condemned
to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for
everything he does.”
One cannot get evidence for God
because something can only count as evidence for God if one has already chosen
to accept it relative to an evidentiary framework which already includes
God. Why then is he a Christian? The only honest answer he (or anyone for that
matter) can give is because he chooses to be one- NOT because of
supposed evidence for or against. There
is the unknown, and we can respond to the unknown “God” or “Not God” but this is a free choice on our part
“But what is this
unknown something with which the Reason collides, when inspired by its
paradoxical passion, with the result of unsettling even man’s knowledge of
himself? It is the Unknown. It is not a human being, in so far as we know what
man is; nor is it any other known thing..[4]
In Chapter 3 of Philosophical
Fragments, Kierkegaard talks about “The Absolute Paradox.” Kierkegaard
holds that paradox is “the passion of thought.” We want to discover something that
we cannot think, even though this will be “the downfall of thinking” according
to Kierkegaard. That which we cannot
think is “the unknown,” and the unknown is God (“the god”). Therefore, Kierkegaard thinks it foolish to
try to prove that God exists, since the very attempt to do so presupposes
the preconceived conception of God one is working with exists.
We would not try to construct a proof
that something exists if we thought it might not exist. Further, we must begin
with a presupposed notion of the divine nature in order to
attempt any such “proof.” Kierkegaard
argues that the existence of something is never the conclusion of
a proof; rather, it is the starting point.
For example, he claims that Napoleon’s existence cannot be the
conclusion of an argument starting from his works or deeds, because we it wound
need to start with “his works and deeds” presupposing that he,
Napoleon exists and it is he who performed the works
and deeds.
Similarly, God’s existence cannot be
the conclusion of an argument based on God’s works. To argue that the events in the world must
derive from an all good being assumes that the events are all ultimately good
and this assumption is based on the belief that there exists an all-good being
who is the author of these works.
Further any a posteriori proof this proof will always leave us in suspense, give us
only a tentative hypothesis as we continue to accumulate more, potentially
relevant, evidence which may undermine the supposed proof. Perhaps a personal tragedy will undermine our
belief that the things of the world are the works of a good God.
“So let us call
this unknown something: God. It is
nothing more than a name we assign to it. The idea of demonstrating that this
unknown something (God) exists, could scarcely suggest itself to Reason. For if God does not exist, it would of course
be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist, it would be folly to attempt
it. For at the very outset, in beginning
my proof, I would have presupposed it, not as doubtful, but as certain (a
presupposition is never doubtful, for the very reason that it is a
presupposition), since otherwise I would not begin, readily understanding that
the whole would be impossible if he did not exist. But if when I speak of
proving God’s existence, I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which
exists, is God, then I express myself badly.
For in that case, I do not prove anything, least of all an existence,
but merely develop the content of a conception.
Generally
speaking, it is a difficult
matter to prove that anything exists; and what is still worse for the intrepid
souls who undertake the venture, the difficulty is such that fame scarcely
awaits those who concern themselves with it.
The entire demonstration always turns into something very different and
becomes an additional development of the consequences that flow from my having
assumed that the object in question exists.
Thus, I always reason from existence, not toward existence, whether I
move in the sphere of palpable sensible fact or in the realm of thought. I do not for example prove that a stone
exists, but that some existing thing is a stone. The procedure in a court of justice does not
prove that a criminal exists, but that the accused, whose existence is given,
is a criminal.
So he’s decided to be a Christian. Is he done now? Hardly.
It’s not even as simple as that.
What does that MEAN? He must further
choose (and continually choose) what being a Christian is/means. Note, being a Christian might mean willfully killing
your innocent child.
One is not “done” choosing when one
makes a choice to be “X” because, while “X” names a “kind” you are an INDIVIDUAL. You may choose to be X, but you must live as THIS X, and only you decided what being
“this X” means. This is the case for any
role: father, mother, son, citizen, Christian, etc. No one is a generic mother.
father, philosophy teacher, philosophy student, etc.. As individuals making our way through the
world, we must choose to be a particular not a generic. None of these common nouns
name “fixed essences” or, even if they do, then you are not essentially any of
them. You are one by choice alone.
Even one’s assigned features mean
nothing until one chooses for them a meaning.
For instance, I am 5’ 7’’. Some
might say that I did not choose to be this height and there are
many other features that are assigned to me and thus, much about me are
features that I do not freely choose.
But the existentialist would counter by asking, “And what, precisely,
does being 5’ 7” mean?” Afterall, I am
not “generic” 5’7’ any more than I am generic philosophy instructor; I am THIS
5’7” and I choose for myself what that
means, that is, what role I choose to allow it to play in my life.
Should you be a Christian?
Kierkegaard would ask, “Why are you
asking me?” You have
to choose what you will be;
this is what makes it an “existential”
choice. You create yourself through
such leaps and choices. The idea
that each of us must “discover” who we “truly are” couldn't be more
wrong-headed from an Existentialist perspective. We are not a set, fixed anything. We are the product of our own creation. The real question I must answer is “Who / how
do I choose to be (Today)?”
To further demonstrate the disconnect
between faith and reason, Kierkegaard notes that sometimes Christianity
requires the embracing of two things that are mutually impossible,
irrational. For instance, Abraham
believed that he would kill Isaac AND that through Isaac, Abraham would go on
to have many descendants.
In Sum:
Kierkegaard claims that religious
faith is of the same character as are any of the really
important decisions we make in life.
They are not made on evidence; they are non-rational choices,
commitments made irrespective of evidence, argument, or reason. We believe in God (or believe in NO God)
simply because we choose to; such beliefs can't be based on evidence. (Note
this is not unlike the choice to live a moral or immoral life; this is not
evidence based. We can always
rationalize after the fact, but the reality is that we simply choose to be who
we choose to be.)
As previously stated, we must not
imagine that once an existential choice is made, it is over. Each day requires we make ourselves
anew. For Kierkegaard, the Christian
life calls for constant reaffirmation.
Everyday it is a struggle to be a Christian. In the same way, just because I did not cheat
the last time I had an opportunity to does not mean
that is the choice I am compelled to make today.
Since every day we are free to define
ourselves, everyday we are compelled to answer for ourselves “Who am I?” Or, more correctly “who do I choose to
be?” “Human Nature” is no more “defined”
than is “Christian Nature.” I fool
myself if I think that “I AM.” In some fixed and static way. So long as I am alive, I BE in and active
way, a way of dynamic choices. And those
very choices are HOW I “be.” On this
view, it is foolish to talk of “finding oneself. There
is no “thing” to find, no essential nature to discover; there is only the
person to freely and creatively create.
The limitations of “Evidence” in Fixing Belief
As illustrations of the sort of thing
he has in mind, consider two cases; The "Bloody Gloves" in the O.J.
Simpson murder case and the Shroud of Turin.
In the O.J. Simpson murder case, a key
bit of "evidence" was a pair of bloody gloves:
Bloody Gloves:
_files/image003.jpg)
One dark,
cashmere-lined Aris Light leather glove, size extra large, was found at the
murder scene, another behind Simpson's guest house, near where Brian
"Kato'' Kaelin heard bumps in the night. Mrs.
Simpson bought Simpson two pair of such gloves in 1990. DNA tests showed blood
on glove found on Simpson's property appeared to contain genetic markers of
Simpson and both victims; a long strand of blond hair similar
to Ms. Simpson's also was found on that glove.
Prosecution: Simpson lost the left glove at his
ex-wife's home during the struggle and, in a rush, inadvertently dropped the
right glove while trying to hide it; explained that evidence gloves didn't fit
Simpson in a courtroom demonstration because the gloves shrunk from being
soaked in blood and Simpson had rubber gloves on underneath.
Defense: The glove behind guest house was
planted by Detective Mark Fuhrman, a racist cop trying to frame Simpson; blood
on glove may have been planted by police; gloated that evidence gloves didn't
fit; hair analysis isn't sophisticated enough to be trusted.
What were the gloves
"evidence" of? Well, from a
Kierkegaardian point of view- nothing until you choose to believe. If you choose to believe he is innocent, they
are evidence of a corrupt police plant and frame job. If you choose to believe he is guilty, they
become evidence of Simpson’s presence
at the scene and participation in the murder. But again, it would be a mistake to assume
the evidence determines what is rational to believe; it is what you choose to
believe that will determine what "evidence" there is.
|
The Shroud of Turin: |
|
|
|
The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth bearing the image
of a man who appears to have sustained wounds and to have died in a manner
consistent with the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. It is housed in the Cathedral of Saint John
the Baptist in |
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, the image on the shroud
could not be made out very well until it was photographed (circa 1930) and
the negative was looked at. When the values
are reversed, the image is much more recognizable and detailed. Many argued that it was unreasonable to
imagine a forger anticipating the invention of photography. Other historical accuracies lead many to
believe it to be genuine, that is, to be the cloth that covered Jesus of
Nazareth when he was placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Some even suggested that this image was
recorded on its fibers at the time of his miraculous resurrection. |
_files/image005.jpg)
_files/image007.jpg)
In 1988, for the first time, the
Catholic Church permitted radiocarbon dating of the shroud by three independent teams of
scientists. Each concluded that that the
shroud was made during the Middle Ages, approximately 1300 years after Jesus
lived. Almost immediately, spokesmen on
behalf of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged the results, acquiesced to the
judgement of science, expressed their disappointment and pledged, nevertheless,
the take care of the shroud as so many did find it inspiring
nevertheless.
Sometime later, a group of Protestant
theologians and scientists issued their own statement. They criticized what they thought was an
unnecessary and overly hasty acceptance of this scientific evidence about the
age of the shroud. They argued that if
there were a resurrection (as the Catholic Church and other Christians are
supposed to believe) and if there were at that time a great release of
electromagnetic radiation or the like, (as may seem plausible) then we ought to
expect that the radiocarbon dating process would give us the wrong, much younger,
date.
So, radiocarbon dating suggests that
the shroud is only approximately 700 years old.
What is that evidence of? Does it
prove that the shroud is a fake? Or does it prove that it is genuine and
further is evidence of the resurrection of Christ? Kierkegaard might claim, either. It depends on you. Both require your leap of faith.