Kierkegaard's View on the Relationship between Faith and Reason - Essay Example

Kierkegaard’s view on the relationship between faith and reason Faith and reason are the main sources of justification ofreligious beliefs since they can both perform this particular epistemic role. They are sources of authority forming foundations of beliefs. Many philosophers and theologians have conflicting reasoning about these two aspects and are worried how rational beings should treat claims arising from them. Some have held the belief that no conflict can arise provided one has properly employed reason and understood faith properly whereas others have maintained that the two are contentious over certain methodologies or propositions. For instance, Kierkegaard argues that faith is a priority to the point that it becomes positively irrational (Kierkegaard 25). However, Locke maintains reasonableness of faith to the extent of the irrationality of a religious doctrine. Other thinkers also reason that faith and reason are governed by their separate domains to the extent that cases of apparent conflict are resolved on the side of faith when the claim in question is either theological or religious. Whereas, when the claim is logical or empirical, it is resolved on the side of reason. Kierkegaard’s arguments about faith were not in tandem with the mainstream opinion held by most traditional religious groups (Kierkegaard 53). Known as ‘Christian Socrates’ due to the way he challenged religious beliefs, his faith is one of the individualistic re-choosing of faith in the face of impossibilities. He believed that most Christians held inauthentic faith pegged on doctrine and obedience, which he strongly criticized. He maintained that the movement of faith is upon every individual who subscribes to any religious doctrine and his or her personal relationship with the impossible. He believed that what most people called ‘faith’ is actually ‘hope’ because hope demonstrates a probability of something coming true. Whereas, faith is total belief in something even if one knows it is impossible and futile believing in. Kierkegaard further asserts that hope is irrelevant in the realms of impossibility, but only faith does. He further alludes that when one chooses to have an authentic faith, there is an abandonment of reason. He maintained that faith is higher than reason since reason has limits while faith begins where those limits of reason end (Kierkegaard 16). This choice of faith is, therefore, not a one-time thing but a process. One must make steady and continuous movements of faith, repeatedly and constantly re-choose to forsake reason and totally believe in the impossible. This view asserts that re-choosing is a cyclical process with no developmental progress, one just re-choose the same thing repeatedly. Kierkegaard puts it that faith is totally a different process of objective reasoning, a matter or passion, not reflection and is only possible when faced with uncertainty. He further asserts that there is no faith without risk, faith is a commitment in the face of uncertainty and is therefore directly proportionate to the uncertainty prevailing. He linked biblical Abraham’s story of sacrificing his son Isaac to a greatest demonstration faith, a belief in the impossible that he exactly saw in the Christian faith (Kierkegaard 25). Abraham’s willingness to do this dreadful act astonishes Kierkegaard who describes Abraham as a ‘knight of faith’ as this level of obedience and commitment transcends even ethical boundaries. It is not a question of right and wrong for Abraham but only God’s will. Abraham’s decision was irrational and absurd but for Kierkegaard, it is the nature of religious faith. He further argued that Christianity is paradoxical and absurd, unlike other philosophers who seek to explain such paradoxes using linguistic analysis or subtle reasoning; Kierkegaard welcomed the absurdity of religious claims as a demonstration of true faith. Such faiths-Christian faith, are not dependent upon facts or reasons and, therefore, protected from arguments and uncertainty (Kierkegaard 15). He also points out that since reasoned truths are persistently provisional and factual in claims, they are subjected to revision and any belief based upon such will always be far from certain. Certainty is, therefore, a subjective passion of the believer, not objective reasoning. Many philosophers questions whether Abraham’s act was a demonstration a true knight faith or a psychopathic act following God’s orders to commit murder. Kierkegaard answers them that there is a distinct difference in the psychology of the subject. Abraham’s act was a temptation of by the ethical course of action (not killing his son) but desisted in obedience to God, a murderer is tempted by the unethical course of action. Only the faithful can point out the difference, as this matter is wholly pathos (Kierkegaard 16). Therefore, knight of faith cannot communicate his commitment, it is entirely interior, not a matter of argument or reason but a dreadful existential choice that one must make solely. Mainstream Christians would also see faith as superior to reason as well. However, their perspective excludes a constant re-choosing of faith that leads one nowhere but only to where one started. Kierkegaard believed that the leap of faith was repeatedly done because believing the impossible importantly required this perpetual re-choosing (Kierkegaard 24). The ideas of community and fellowship are also key aspects of the traditional Christians reasoning and growth of faith since church pools people together. They wholly and exhaustively discuss their beliefs and take comfort because their fellow Christians believe and subscribe to the same ideologies. However, Kierkegaard thought on the contrary that all notions of fellowship were lengths away from the true faith. To be in a community, one needs a certain amount of rational discourse, and that is an expression. One needs to be a liberal thinker and communicate what they think and believe in freely. This would be a more adequate and prudent way of discussing issues of everyday reason and solving practical problems. However, according to Kierkegaard, the solitude that faith requires of a person is missing hence true faith cannot be communicated (Kierkegaard 33). The true nature of faith is extremely personal rendering it incommunicable to others. For one who believes in the impossible, solitude is a necessity. Due to this reason, Kierkegaard rejects the church as inappropriate setting for faith due to its reliance on fellowship and community. He also argues that faith can never be taught. Listening to a preacher’s discussion is a worthless undertaking. One can never teach another how to resign on the impossible and accept the impossible as truth. Such a thing is never learned since it takes an individual a deep personal interrogation to make the leap of faith. Another important concept is the duality of faith, authentic and inauthentic. Authentic or active faith involves the re-choosing, which involves movements (Kierkegaard 44). It is for an individual in solitude state to find its meaning. Inauthentic faith is complacent and inactive and is usually for comfort. Comfort comes from the community found in churches and fellowships. Kierkegaard also alludes that if someone wants to have faith and reason, he or she needs to assure him or herself of an objective liberation meaning the two requires critical and objective reasoning, they are so close yet worlds apart (Kierkegaard 78). What happens with the help of reason, he paused and continued that the absurd becomes probable, more probable to the highest degree that exceeds both probability and demonstrable levels. One believes in something after a long and careful, thoughtful deliberation; this means that he or she must carefully evaluate facts, now that is the concept of reason. For Kierkegaard, faith was very different from traditional Christians’ view. One must constantly re-choose faith in the impossible that requires solitary confinements with the realms of faith. Embracing virtually everything in temporal society due to belief in the impossible is not a Christian view either. Faith is inexpressible while fellowship requires a rational discourse from an individual. Faith never brings comfort and complacency, but it is for an individual’s relationship with the impossible. Work Cited Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. Lanham: Start Publishing, 2012. Print. Read More