Faith and
Irrationality; Kierkegaard
Fideism:
the
doctrine that knowledge depends on faith or revelation.
Fideism
is the epistemological position that faith is independent of reason (sometimes suggesting
that reason and faith are hostile to each other) and faith is a superior means
for arriving at particular truths.
The
word fideism comes from fides, the
Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism."
Philosophers
have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining
the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs. A fideist suggests that reason plays little or no role in
religious matters and even is antithetical to true religious sentiment. The four most well know theists philosophers
who espoused fideism are Blaise Pascal, Soren Kierkegaard, William James, and
Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Sometimes
the label fideism is applied in a negative sense by their opponents. To evidentialists
like William Clifford, Fideism is irrational (in a bad way) and immoral. Someone like Daniel Dennett would say it is
intellectually irresponsible at a minimum.
There
are a number of different forms of fideism.
According to Pascal:
The God of Christians does not consist of a
God who is simply the author of mathematical truths and the order of the
elements: that is the job of the pagans and Epicureans. He does not consist
simply of a God who exerts his providence over the lives and property of people
in order to grant a happy span of years to those who worship him: that is the
allocation of the Jews. But the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of
Jacob, the God of the Christians is a God of love and consolation; he is a God
who fills the souls and hearts of those he possesses; he is a God who makes
them inwardly aware of their wretchedness and his infinite mercy, who unites
with them in the depths of their soul, who makes them incapable of any other
end but himself. (PENSEES, 172)[1]
Around
two centuries later, Soren Kierkegaard similarly contrasted the God of
Christian faith with the God of the philosophers, in particular that of Hegel
and some of his Danish followers. The “God” of Hegelian philosophy, Kierkegaard
thought, at best provides a solution to a purely abstract problem. What Kierkegaard sought (and Hegel does not
provide) is the God of immediate personal significance. This is discovered/
necessitated as the only adequate resolution of the problem of personal human
existence.
William
James is another who thought that philosophical and theological arguments could
not be the origin of any significant religious belief. At best it could provide
some logical clarification of knowledge or beliefs gained from religious
experience. But direct religious experience is the source of true religious
sentiment and belief, not rational argument.
All these intellectual operations of theology
and philosophy presuppose immediate religious experience as their subject
matter. They are interpretive and
inductive operations, operations after the fact, consequent upon religious
feeling, not coordinate with it, not independent of what is ascertains.
The intellectualism in religion which I wish
to discredit pretends to be something altogether different from this. It assumes to construct religious objects out
of the resources of logical reason alone, or of logical reason drawing rigorous
inference from non-subjective facts. It calls its conclusions dogmatic
theology, or philosophy of the absolute, as the case may be. (VRE 433)
James
probably had the philosophies of Hegel and Bradley in mind. Their conclusions have been criticized as
largely meaningless except as edifying verbiage.
Kierkegaard
is critical of Hegelian philosophy for other reasons as well. In the philosophical system advance by Hegel,
the individual was of little or no importance.
The only significance the individual achieved was as an aspect of
constantly unfolding Absolute Spirit.
However, this anonymizing of the individual mutes the individual, her
struggles, choices, uniquely lived life, her very existence-as-existing. Further, while Hegel had thought 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 (Either/ or) which is unavoidable in a lived
life.
John
Macmurray explains careful Kierkegaard (and perhaps
other fideists) as follows:
The Danish eccentric, Kierkegaard, discovered
that the Hegelian philosophy was ludicrously incapable of solving - even,
indeed, of formulating the problem of “the existing individual.” If we apply
the Hegel’s logic to the data of personal reality, we produce, he showed, “a
dialectic without synthesis’: for the process of the personal life generates a
tension of opposites which can be resolved, not by reconciliation but only by a
choice between them, and for this choice no rational ground can be
discovered. He concluded that we must
abandon Philosophy for religion. (The Self 36)
Faith and the Story
of Abraham
Every
philosopher so far has presumed that what we want to believe all and only what
is rational. Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, Clifford, James,
Kant, Advocates of the Problem of Evil.
Soren Kierkegaard (from Denmark) says belief in God is not, not cannot
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,
- Brooded over the nature of “faith;” performs a
sort-of conceptual analysis.
The
time and country he lived in were largely Christian. His fellow Dane he regarded as complacent in
their religious belief; religious belief amounted to sort of a daily
passionless habit. But was this real
Faith? What is real faith about?
Kierkegaard claimed that complacent, thoughtless, routine is not real faith. Kierkegaard’s philosophy originate with him
brooding over these questions, questions regarding the real nature of personal
faith.
The Abraham
Story
Abraham
considered the “father of faith” but those is the Abrahamic religions because
had a special relationship of God. Kierkegaard examines the story of Abraham to
discover what “religious faith” is since those who use the word often point to
this story as illustrative.
http://kingjbible.com/genesis/22.htm
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. 14 And Abraham called the name
of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD
it shall be seen.
Story of Abraham
So
we see that Abraham had son, Isaac whom he loved deeply. How does/should Abraham respond to God's
apparent command that Abraham take his son out and kill him? This is a crisis of faith. Further, Kierkegaard cautions us that it is a
mistake to think Abraham merely had to decide whether to do God’s will or
not. Rather, he had to decide what that
“voice in the night” meant. He must interpret the event, give it its
meaning. And 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, the interpretation itself, 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 MUST choose; his personal choice is the
only way to resolve the issue.
After
his choice of interpretation he must further decide 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, at least not the really important ones, but
rather it’s 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 we are totally responsible. Further, we can get no rational assistance in
making these choices but the most important things in our live rest on them.
Nothing is “reasonable” (or
unreasonable for that matter) until after one makes the choices. This is why we must abandon philosophy for
faith.
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 your
choices; free to choose whatever you will; complete freedom but therefore total
responsibility rest with the individual.
They are matters of creative self-definition.
Further
still, these free existential choices are the most important choices in
life. Abraham's world, everything
important to him (his son, his relationship with God, his progeny) was riding
on this choice. And he is compelled to
choose. As Sartre would later say, we
are condemned to be free.
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, according to Kierkegaard, and this is why he is
a hero of faith. This then is the nature
of true faith. The recognition of the
futility of reason and the necessity for personal unaided choice.
Why
then is he, Kierkegaard, a Christian?
The only honest answer anyone can give is because he chooses to be one- NOT
because of supposed evidence for or against.
But the choices do not stop there.
So he’s decided to be a Christian.
What does that MEAN? He must choose what being a Christian
means. Being a Christian might mean
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 are
THIS X, and only you decide what being “this X” means. This is the case for any role: father,
mother, son, citizen, Christian, etc. None of these name “fixed essences” or if
they do, then you are not essentially any of them. You are them by choice. Even assigned feature about you mean nothing
until you choose for them a meaning. For
instance I am 5’ 7’’. But what does that
mean? I am not “generic” 5’7’; I am THIS
5’7” and I choose for myself what that
means. What role that plays in my life.
Should
you be a Christian? Keirkegaard 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.
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.
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 choices. Religious faith is a non‑rational
commitment 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; what you
are looking at doesn't have a meaning until after you make a choice. (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.)
Kierkegaard
says ‑ Religious belief is a leap of faith; a passionate commitment that
we make regardless of evidence or argument; regardless of Theist or Atheist;
choice precedes evidence; choice makes evidence.
Finally,
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. Alternatively, just because I did not cheat
the last time I had an opportunity 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?”
As
illustrations of the sort of thing he has in mind, consider tow cases; The "Bloody Glove" in the O.J.
Simpson murder case and the Shroud of Turin.
In
the O.J. Simpson murder case there was a key bit of "evidence" was a
pair of bloody gloves:
Bloody Gloves:
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 O. J. 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 O. J. 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; they 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: 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; undersocres that the evidence gloves didn't
even fit O.J. Simpson; 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 his presence at the scene and participation in the
murder. But again, it would be a mistake
to assume the evidence determines what it 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 Turin, Italy. Historical records only trace a provenance to
about the 1300's. At that time, numerous
"holy relics" and "shrouds" were produced but whereas these
others, upon closer inspection, could clearly be seen to be fakes, the Shroud
of Turin is intriguing because it was not an obvious fake. 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.
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 inspiriting nevertheless.
Sometime a 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 is give us the wrong, much younger, date.
So,
radiocarbon dating suggests that the shroud is only approximately 700 year
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.
Camus' Myth of Sisyphus (Taken from my notes on suicide)
One
reason some people think that suicide is wrong is because the noble thing for
human to do is to persevere, even in the face of meaningless pointless
suffering and struggle. (Existentialism/ Camus Essay "The Myth of
Sisyphus")
Existentialists
believe that we are totally free in all are actions and that we are totally
responsible for all our actions. When you try to push your freedom off onto
others, this bugs existentialists. For example, when a salesman convinces you
to buy something overpriced and then you blame him when you found a better deal
later ("He talked me into it… etc.") , existentialists will remind
you that you chose to listen to him and it’s your own fault. You can’t pretend
it wasn’t your choice. Now, there are
consequences, and you may not like those consequences, but it was still your
choice. Further, there are some things that are out of your control, such as
your height, but what these things mean to you is under your control. You assign the meaning to these things and it
is something you choose. There is a sense in which you DO chose to be that
height because chose what being that height means. You live exactly the life you choose to live.
Soren
Kierkegaard, founder of Christian Existentialism. He comes to existentialism as
a way to understand faith. He understands faith as a choice someone makes.
There is this unknown and we can respond to the unknown by saying “God” or “not
God”, but in either case we’re making a choice and in either case it is a
choice undetermined by evidence.
Later
existentialists add to this view that no one’s "keeping score" (There
is no God.) and we’re NOT immortal. Our death is our total annihilation. All
these choices for which we are responsible and with which we struggle, don’t
really matter in the long run. We’ll
eventually die and will eventually be forgotten. Our lives only have the
significance that we attribute to them and for as long as we do it. Some people
jumped the gun and thought well, then I should just kill myself, since there’s
no point to my life. But Albert Camus points out that that is merely another
meaningless choice. So, existentialists
think we shouldn’t kill ourselves. Our lives may be full of pointless, arduous
struggles, but the noble thing is to struggle on, even in the face of pointless
struggle. It is what we make of our
selves (self-creation) in the struggle that is important. That is the source of our nobility and ending
our lives ends the possibility to "be."
To
illustrate his point, Camus retells the story of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was an ancient Greek king. To test the love of his wife, before Sisyphus
died, he forbade her from burring his body.
(The thinking being is that if she really loved him, she could not obey
this command.) However, his wife did
obey and Sisyphus, annoyed, asked for permission to return to Corinth to yell
at her. He was granted permission only
on the condition that he promise to return, which he did promise. Once back on the upper world though, he found
he did not want to go back to the land of the dead. He refused though Hades sent several
massagers. Eventually he had to be dragged back kicking and screaming to the
underworld by Hermes. As a punishment
for his disobedience and hubris Sisyphus was compelled to roll a huge rock up a
steep hill, but before he could reach the top of the hill, the rock would
always roll back down again, forcing him to begin again. Now for the Greeks, this was Hell, to be tied
to unending, meaningless struggled, to be compelled to labor even when one
knows that one's labor will amount to nothing.
But
for Camus, Sisyphus is our hero and emblematic of the humans condition. We are all tied to arduous struggle,
meaningless choices from which we cannot escape. And Why?
What was Sisyphus' “crime?” To
be. To live. But if this is the price of existence says
Camus, than it is worth it. For our
nobility arises in what we make of ourselves in the struggle. The struggle with the absurd is result of our
freedom and the source of our dignity.
We must imagine Sisyphus happy, he concludes, for "The struggle
towards the heights itself is enough to fill a man's heart."[2]
