Faith and Reason
Thousands of years ago, the author of Hebrews defined faith for the Christian, writing that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Heb. 11:1) Even though we have a definition of faith, the nature of it has remained a controversial topic through centuries. Of particular interest has been the relation between faith and reason. This is something that theologians, philosophers, and even popular culture debate to this day. First, we must examine the rationalist view on faith in order to correctly understand Kierkegaard’s place in the discussion. Second, we will examine Kierkegaard’s view of faith and reason. Finally, we will look at some supporting evidence for Kierkegaard’s view and then some evidence that Kierkegaard did not address in his view.
The relationship of faith and reason is one that goes back millenia. Many of the world’s greatest minds have bent their intellectual powers towards this very topic. Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, and Hegel along with countless others have all wrestled with the topic of faith. In most cases, they came out with very different conclusions. To understand Kierkegaard, the rationalism that preceded him must first be understood.
Rationalism
Much of Kierkegaard's writing was aimed at Hegel's idea that faith was a sort of objective conclusion that anyone could arrive at. For Hegel, faith, particularly the Christian faith could be synthesized with reason through his own philosophy with this unlocking the "real" truth of Christianity. Here, the Christian religion had found its true place as part of a larger philosophy. In Hegel’s eyes, rationalism had won. This would provide the inspiration for Kierkegaard to write about a much different kind of relationship between reason and the Christian faith. Though Hegel was the spark that ignited Kierkegaard, this was not the first time a sort of cold rationalism was applied to the Christian claims.
In fact, modern philosophy might never have come about if it was not for the tension between faith and reason. In the seventeenth century, Rene Descartes embarked upon his famous Meditations on First Philosophy. The primary reason his work was to reconcile new scientific ideas with the church. Descartes, the first rationalist, takes off from doubting everything he knows and from there builds a framework up for his metaphysics. Throughout the Meditations, Descartes reasons up from the fact that “he thinks, therefore he is” (Med. 2), eventually laying down proofs (ontological and cosmological) for the existence of God (Med. 3). Through his work, Descartes showed that the church had nothing to fear from science as science actually depended on faith in God to come to its conclusions. Though this was a major work of philosophy, it was not the last to address the topic of faith and reason.
Departure from Rationalism
The ideas of David Hume and Immanuel Kant are ones that cut against this rationalist grain, and they seem to have affected Kierkegaard a great deal. David Hume represented a much different stance than Descartes. His Essay on Miracles asserted that there was no good reason to believe in the miraculous. "Whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience." (On Miracles, Sec. 10) Kierkegaard read this but was even more moved by the commentary by Georg Hamann that stated that though Hume may have said it in a scornful tone, he was essentially building a case for orthodoxy even with his doubts (Gardner 82)
Kant's writings took a different tone than Hume's yet were strikingly similar. "All attempts to make a purely speculative use of reason in reference to theology are entirely fruitless and of their inner nature null and void". For Kant it ended up being ethics and not knowledge that provided him with his reason for God.
Kierkegaard
What concerned Kierkegaard the most was likely the effects that Hegel's rationalism had on Christianity. Through reconciling reason and religion, Hegel had altered Christianity horribly, taking away from it its real meaning and significance. To counter Hegel, Kierkegaard wrote on the essence of faith. To this day, Kierkegaard is viewed as one of the most influential thinkers on the topic of faith and reason. When discussing Kierkegaard’s view it is somewhat difficult because of the pseudonyms he used. We must remember that it is Johannes de Silentio who calls faith “absurd” much of the time. Still, it seems, Kierkegaard’s view is not far from this.
As stated above, Kierkegaard was influenced much by the ideas proposed by Hume and Kant- that rational justification was not a grounds for faith. Kierkegaard emphatically believed that faith supported by facts and evidence was not faith at all! One of Kierkegaard's central arguments for this had to do with what was trying to be proved: the incarnation. As Kierkegaard puts it, "This historical fact which is the content of our hypothesis has a peculiar character since it is not an ordinary historical fact, but a fact based on self-contradiction" (Phil. Fragments, Sec. 4). In other words, it's much different than proving whether a man walked to the store yesterday because that fact is not absurd like the incarnation is.
He makes a strong case in Concluding Unscientific Postscripts. "For whose sake is it that proof is sought? Faith does not need it; aye; it must even regard proof as its enemy." (p. 31) Or in Sickness unto Death Kierkegaard writes, "to defend anything is always to discredit it." (p. 218)
The most pronounced example, however, occurs in Fear and Trembling, as Abraham is left with the decision to either disobey God or depart with reason entirely. Through the story that few ever think twice about, Kierkegaard forces the reader to walk a mile in Abraham’s shoes and realize the absurdity to which God calls him.
Critiquing Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard’s ideas about the relationship between faith and reason are brilliant. In choosing a measuring stick to critique Kierkegaard by, I will mainly use the one he likely would have endorsed the most: The Christian Bible.
Though Rene Descartes was a Christian, Kierkegaard’s view seems to be more biblically informed than the seventeenth century philosopher’s view. In a letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes, “that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” (1 Cor. 2:5) Later he writes “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” (1 Cor. 3:19) Soren Kierkegaard’s view seems more consistent than the rational view of Descartes or Hegel because Kierkegaard manages to think critically about the limits of reason. Anyone who considers the existence of God must constantly remember that if there is a God, we must recognize that our cognitive faculties will fail far before we comprehend God.
Also, within the Christian worldview, we are all fallen. This means our hearts and our minds have been warped by sin- we really can’t see things perfectly clearly. Kierkegaard understood this and, though he was often called an anti-intellectual, he called for the famous leap of faith. Here, we have no reason to aid us. Why take the leap if reason leads us away from it? It is miracle. In short, Kierkegaard would say that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. He lays down a very sound argument for the dichotomy of faith and reason.
Also, Kierkegaard, though never explicitly saying it, is really representing something very close to a reformed theology (though in a much different way than most theologians). This is true in most aspects of his philosophy/theology, but especially of saving faith. This is evident as both Kierkegaard and Luther would say faith is a miracle from God. Due to sin, there’s no real reason for anyone turning to God apart from God’s grace (as any follower of John Calvin will tell you.)
Though he does make a good case, it is not a flawless one. For one, the absurdity of the incarnation is not quite as absurd in light of Philippians 2:6-7, “[Jesus], who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” which sheds light on how God could become human. Many theologians use this to describe which aspects of Jesus’ were divine and which were human- how he possessed divine aspects though he didn’t necessarily use them.
Another biblical example that appears to contradict Kierkegaard’s idea of faith is 1 Peter 3:15, which exhorts the believer to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” This seems to stand square in the face of Kierkegaard’s reasonless faith. Also, Romans 1:19-20 states, “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” This makes it plain that we can know God by simply looking at nature.
Another reason Kierkegaard’s might not be a perfect conception of faith is that he doesn’t lay down a good argument for why one would jump to Christianity in their leap of faith. Of course, Kierkegaard’s project is aimed at Christendom in Denmark, but if you take his concept and apply it today, you run into troubles. There needs to be something that distinguishes Christianity as the paradox worth jumping to.
Finally, Kierkegaard subtly underemphasizes the importance of the objective truth of the New Testament. In this case it’s very understandable considering his audience. He sought to show the Danish people who believed objectively in the truths of Christianity, but not subjectively. However, in emphasizing the subjectivity of the truth, Kierkegaard fails to emphasize the absolute importance of the objectivity of that truth. As Paul puts it, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor. 15:14) The Christian faith relies on a man named Jesus walking the earth two thousand years ago, performing real miracles, and actually dying on a cross. Kierkegaard knows this but fails to emphasize it as he is more concerned about this truth changing the life of individuals.
All in all, Kierkegaard presents a view of faith and reason that is arguably more congruent than the rationalistic view of his predecessors. Not only is it more biblical, but it just makes more sense considering our standing (and our mind’s power) next to an infinite God. His view might be strengthened with a bit more emphasis and clarification on the objective validity of Jesus though one could argue that this might change his view. It is hard to know just what Kierkegaard thought, but whatever the case, he remains one of the most thought-provoking authorities on the relationship between faith and reason. As faith continues to dominate everything from politics to current events, we would be wise to consider Kierkegaard when examining how we arrive at our conclusions.
He believes that Jesus is the Son of God. And so we say, "that should be more than enough, right? He's a really good person AND he believes in Jesus. That's the formula right? This guy is going straight to heaven!"
