Kierkegaard and Luther Were Wrong!

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

My friend kennethamy, who hangs out with me over in the epistemology area sent this observation: "Kierkegaard argued that Christian belief was beyond reason, and that, for example, reason conflicted with virgin birth, or the incarnation, and a host of other doctrines.* The entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. Luther said, quoting the Bible said that if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, by which he said was meant that if reason conflicts with faith, reason should be discarded as an instrument of the Devil."

*Kierkegaard, as you know, was the one who recommended the "leap of faith."

My reply was: "Well, Kierkegaard and Luther were wrong on that point, and they helped keep the damage cycle going. And it is not accurate to say that the entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. There is a very prominent liberal element within Christianity that focuses on the central message of Christ, rather than church dogma or tradition or prominent figures in church history."

I think this little piece of dialog belongs over here. I contend that the faith that Jesus was recommending to his people was not blind faith nor unreasoning faith, but a faith in the truth of his message, which, upon close examination, is quite worthy of trust and confidence. And if we strip away the church dogma and look at the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, we will not find any evidence to support the idea that Biblical faith is naive faith, but rather a faith that says, in effect, "Well, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me. I think the guy was telling the truth."

I'd be interested in rational discourse on this topic.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,780 • Replies: 32

No top replies

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

My friend kennethamy, who hangs out with me over in the epistemology area sent this observation: "Kierkegaard argued that Christian belief was beyond reason, and that, for example, reason conflicted with virgin birth, or the incarnation, and a host of other doctrines.* The entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. Luther said, quoting the Bible said that if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, by which he said was meant that if reason conflicts with faith, reason should be discarded as an instrument of the Devil."

*Kierkegaard, as you know, was the one who recommended the "leap of faith."

My reply was: "Well, Kierkegaard and Luther were wrong on that point, and they helped keep the damage cycle going. And it is not accurate to say that the entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. There is a very prominent liberal element within Christianity that focuses on the central message of Christ, rather than church dogma or tradition or prominent figures in church history."

I think this little piece of dialog belongs over here. I contend that the faith that Jesus was recommending to his people was not blind faith nor unreasoning faith, but a faith in the truth of his message, which, upon close examination, is quite worthy of trust and confidence. And if we strip away the church dogma and look at the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, we will not find any evidence to support the idea that Biblical faith is naive faith, but rather a faith that says, in effect, "Well, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me. I think the guy was telling the truth."

I'd be interested in rational discourse on this topic.

You make some good points, but dogma and tradition are the anthithisis of protestantism and blind faith. The catholic church believes in interpretation and reason, but this is completly bound up with traditon. The catholic church has experianced a series of reforms over the centurys as various traditions have been established, have evolved or been cast away. The lutheran, protestant view rejects reason, tradition and dogma, and will accept only the bible, which is itself an interpretation, though God knows theres no point trying to tell them that.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

You make some good points, but dogma and tradition are the anthithisis of protestantism and blind faith

I guess we could debate a lot of those assertions, but my point was that if we just look at the record of Jesus' statements and teachings, there is no indication that he was recommending "blind faith." So any doctrines that recommend such a thing, whether Catholic or protestant, I judge to be false.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

I find that, to me, the teachings attributed to Jesus are very meaningful and wise. Isn't anything else really just arbitrary?

1 Reply

@shadowyxgold,

shadowyxgold wrote:

I find that, to me, the teachings attributed to Jesus are very meaningful and wise. Isn't anything else really just arbitrary?

Of course, we have these issues, first, did this person actually exist, or was he, indeed, a fictional character invented by some cult within Judaism. Second, assuming he did exist, to what extent can we be sure that the words attributed to him were actually uttered by him.

But I prefer to take a sort of phenomenological approach, and just ask, "What does the literature indicate, and what does that mean to me."

So when I say, "Jesus said," I'm not assuming anything except that we have a document or documents that attribute certain words, sentences, lessons, etc. to a person that is called "Jesus."

Now, anyone who tries to understand those teachings attributed to Jesus is immediately engaged in an interpretive process, right? So, any of us are subject to the accusation that our understanding of the teachings is "arbitrary."

Our two possible basic approaches seem to be (1) Read the material and say, "Well, this is what I think it means," (which truly would be arbitrary) or (2) Research the history and context and scientific facts available that pertain to any particular alleged words or teachings and try to formulate an intelligent basis for our personal interpretation.

People have been using both approaches from the beginning. Presumably there was an oral tradition that kept the sayings alive until they were written down. It is not unreasonable to assume that at least some of the sayings have been recorded accurately. On the other hand, it appears to be reasonable to conclude that at least some of the sayings are fabrications.

But I would propose that the message recorded as (in translation from the Greek, which presumably is a translation of the Aramaic) "Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand," probably reflects an actual statement from an actual person named Jesus.

And I would argue that "repent" means, "Change your mind and behavior."

"...for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand" means "the spiritual world, i.e., the world of lofty ideas, fundamental principles concerning how we should live, and true values, is available to you any time you choose to focus on it."

This recommendation, that we should "enter the kingdom of the heavens" (rather than keep being pre-occupied with the material world), has nothing to do with blind faith or a leap of faith. It is a recommendation that can be supported by evidence and rational discourse.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

I don't think that you need to believe that God exists, Jesus exists, etc, etc, to get something out of religion. As long as the teaching speak to you personally, nothing else really matters. It may interest you, for whatever reason, but it is, as I said, arbitrary.

1 Reply

@shadowyxgold,

shadowyxgold wrote:

I don't think that you need to believe that God exists, Jesus exists, etc, etc, to get something out of religion. As long as the teaching speak to you personally, nothing else really matters. It may interest you, for whatever reason, but it is, as I said, arbitrary.

Kierkegaard and Luther were right if you think they were right and wrong if you think they were wrong? There is no point in scrutinizing or analyzing their assertions?

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

"Kierkegaard and Luther were right if you think they were right and wrong if you think they were wrong? There is no point in scrutinizing or analyzing their assertions?"

-x-

Exactly.

1 Reply

@shadowyxgold,

Well, I consider it wrong to lead people into erroneous interpretations of the Bible, because erroneous interpretations of the Bible have led to all kinds of evils. "Blind faith," "faith against reason," "faith rather than facts." You see these dichotomies all the time, and they simply have no basis in the Bible, yet such notions have been rigorously perpetuated by influential people for centuries. How about the current problems we have with people systematically disregarding science, because they have been taught to believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Theology, the work Kierkegaard and Luther engaged in, is not arbitrary, nor aimless. The most important aspect of religion is, as has been said, reading the scripture and personal reflection on the matter. However, it is not uncommon for such reflection to produce questions in the mind of the reader. Theology provides a body of works which attempts to answer some of these questions.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Theology, the work Kierkegaard and Luther engaged in, is not arbitrary, nor aimless. The most important aspect of religion is, as has been said, reading the scripture and personal reflection on the matter. However, it is not uncommon for such reflection to produce questions in the mind of the reader. Theology provides a body of works which attempts to answer some of these questions.

Thank you! And I hope that I have not given the impression that I think Kierkegaard and Luther were utterly and pervasively wrong. I have deep respect for both of them, as I respect any and all who honestly try to understand our common human experience in the light of the Christian tradition.

But I do think they were wrong to the extent that they regarded Christian faith as something that must be accepted as a "leap" or as something that is at odds with reason. I'm prepared to argue that Jesus (such as the person has been documented) was as rational as Socrates. What the various institutional versions of "Christianity" have created...that is another matter.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

WTF, Kierkegaard wasn't wrong! LOL
"to the extent that they regarded Christian faith as something that must be accepted as a "leap" or as something that is at odds with reason. I'm prepared to argue that Jesus (such as the person has been documented) was as rational as Socrates. What the various institutional versions of "Christianity" have created...that is another matter. "
If you read my SK article http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/philosophers/ninteenth-century-philosophers/s-ren-kierkegaard/1761-agnostic-christian.html, a "leap" is a transision between qualitative states:

Quote:

Kierkegaard's concern was that many Danish and German scholars attempted to reason to the knowledge that the historical Jesus was the eternal God. That a historical Jesus existed, therfore there is a necessary being, God the Father. The vital assumption to this line of reasoning is that it supposes one can reason from contingent truths to necessary truths. Using contingent truths to prove necessary truths is impossible.
A leap, therefore, is required in order to believe necessary truths from contingent truths. Kierkegaard does not encourage or discourage this leap; he only says that it is required to enable believe in something that goes beyond experience and historical truths. It cannot be reasoned to, one must passionately say, based on historical truths, I believe there is God.

You cannot use contigency to prove necessity. Kierkegaard doesn't question Jesus' rationality so much as the claim that Jesus is God in time. That an eternal, timeless, God became a temporal, historical man, is just as ludicrious as saying that the number 8 entered history and that you can only know "8" through history. How can one possibly rationalize this?

1 Reply

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

... Kierkegaard wasn't wrong! ...
If you read my SK article http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/philosophers/ninteenth-century-philosophers/s-ren-kierkegaard/1761-agnostic-christian.html, a "leap" is a transision between qualitative states:

You cannot use contigency to prove necessity. Kierkegaard doesn't question Jesus' rationality so much as the claim that Jesus is God in time. That an eternal, timeless, God became a temporal, historical man, is just as ludicrious as saying that the number 8 entered history and that you can only know "8" through history. How can one possibly rationalize this?

Thanks for the correction. In my haste to rebut a concept from someone's post, I clearly had accepted his false interpretation. Good lesson for me...

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Victor Eremita wrote:

WTF, Kierkegaard wasn't wrong! LOL

You cannot use contigency to prove necessity. Kierkegaard doesn't question Jesus' rationality so much as the claim that Jesus is God in time. That an eternal, timeless, God became a temporal, historical man, is just as ludicrious as saying that the number 8 entered history and that you can only know "8" through history. How can one possibly rationalize this?

Which means Kierkegaard was wrong: he misunderstood the notion of the Trinity, which is evident in the fact that he tries to give a rational foundation for the Trinity.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

*Gasp* how dare you say Kierkegaard's wrong!? I smiteth thee!

Kierkegaard was not talking about the Trinity in this passage, he was talking about the Incarnation, that Jesus is God in flesh. One cannot possibly rationalize that Jesus is God incarnate.

1 Reply

@Victor Eremita,

That Jesus is God incarnate is central to the Trinity. I would be surprised if Kierkegaard, who was raised on Trinitarian notions, did not think of the Trinity when considering the notion that Jesus is God incarnate. Maybe he took the idea solely from the Gospel of John, but I would find that unlikely.

Either way, I think he still misses the point. That the notion cannot be rationalized is the very strength of the notion that Jesus is God incarnate. For Kierkegaard, this is problematic, thus his "leap of faith". But the impossibility of the rationalization should not be problematic in the first place because the notion is, to a large extent, beyond reason. The real problem he gets into is in his conclusion: in his insistence on the necessity of a "leap of faith". Experience does not require a leap of faith: no leap of faith is necessary for me to know that being punched in the face is painful. Nor is a leap of faith necessary for belief in God.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Quote:

"The real problem he gets into is in his conclusion: in his insistence on the necessity of a "leap of faith". Experience does not require a leap of faith: no leap of faith is necessary for me to know that being punched in the face is painful. Nor is a leap of faith necessary for belief in God."

Experience and existing, to a certain extent, requires a leap. The problem of induction for example, suggests past events does not necessarily dictate future events. The sun will rise tomorrow.... but why? Oh, because it is highly probable that it will. But there's still that chance, if Hume is right, that it won't. Clearly you getting punched in the face would be painful because you have experienced it before, so you're projecting that it will hurt in the future. But because of Hume, there's always that doubt, that it won't for some reason; always that doubt that the pool ball will not go exactly straight if hit accurately. In your mind, the leap traverses particular cases to universal cases in spite of this doubt.

God, now is even more harder to determine, because you haven't really experienced him before. Sure, you read about him. You may have those religious feelings that God is with you. But is it really him? There's a gap of knowledge right there. For all you know he could be a Wholly other, totally incomprehensible to human thought. Or maybe you've seen him before at that coffee shop.

A leap of faith is necessary in cases where you are trying traverse contingency to necessity; from particular to universal. That there is a God, from particular cases e.g. that Jesus existed and was incarnate, therefore I believe, via this leap, but do not know, that there is God.

1 Reply

@Victor Eremita,

I don't know Kierkegaard well enough to debate on this particular topic, and, as I say, I stand corrected concerning his concept of "leap of faith." But here's what I meant when I started the post (copied from an epistomology thread):

I don't think there is any basis in the Bible for the idea that faith means suspension of reason. It is a very prevalent but utterly false concept that has been perpetuated by certain elements within the Christian tradition.

I'm not an old testament scholar, but I think it could be argued that the heart of the OT story is the relationship between the creator and his "chosen people." God favored Israel with his love and wished to be loved, honored, and obeyed in return. The "faith" that god wanted from his people is probably best understood as both trust in him and faithfulness, such as would be expected in a marital relationship. As for an endorsement of the value of knowledge and wisdom, check out the first few chapters in the book of Proverbs.

When you get to the new testament story the key thing is to keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, living in Roman-occupied Palestine. The Jews had had their own kingdom and had lost it, and they wanted it back. Jesus' message was a radical one, but radical in the best sense of the word, i.e., focused on the root ideas. He was reiterating that god wants a loving and faithful relationship with his people, but his people should stop being preoccupied with the idea of an earthly kingdom. When Jesus said "Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand," I think he was saying, "Change the way you are thinking and acting. Get with the spiritual kingdom." The "spiritual kingdom" is a "place" in our minds where we can focus on the principles and ideas that can "save us" from the downward spiral of negativity and ultimate sadness that accompanies egocentricity and preoccupation with worldly possessions.

To "believe in Jesus" is to say, "I think he was right." It has nothing to do with abandoning reason.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Quote:

I don't think there is any basis in the Bible for the idea that faith means suspension of reason. It is a very prevalent but utterly false concept that has been perpetuated by certain elements within the Christian tradition.

The Bible, as far as I know, doesn't say faith = suspension of reason, but the Christian tradition from Augustine forwards infers it from the premises in the Bible. The leap of faith and the more philosophical aspects we were discussing in previous posts were primarily directed as criticism of 19th century philosophy and theology in Europe. Kierkegaard was merely trying to show that the actions of Genesis 22 cannot fit into any rational ethics as people like Heiberg and Mynster were trying to do; there is no room for faith in a rational ethical theory. As far as I know, no rational ethics has a provision that says, Murder is wrong, except in the case that if you get a message from God telling you to kill your son, that's ok!

But, Kierkegaard loved Jesus' message, he thinks that to be a Christian is to follow him.

Quote:

"To "believe in Jesus" is to say, "I think he was right." It has nothing to do with abandoning reason."

To believe in Jesus, for Kierkegaard, is not only to think he was right, but to actually live your life like Jesus; to follow him, not merely admire him. Jesus said, give up all your worldly possessions and follow me. (Mark 10:17-27) Kierkegaard insisted that to be a Christian is to do what Jesus says in the Bible, including Mark 10; anything less, any you're merely taking Christianity as a scholarly excerise.

So, Jesus', in the Bible, tells you to give up your worldly possessions... will you do it now in order to follow Jesus? Or will you just try explaining it away (oh Jesus, didn't really mean to literally give it away; he only meant spirtually; Mark misinterpreted Jesus' words; blah blah blah)

1 Reply

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

The Bible, as far as I know, doesn't say faith = suspension of reason, but the Christian tradition from Augustine forwards infers it from the premises in the Bible.
To believe in Jesus, for Kierkegaard, is not only to think he was right, but to actually live your life like Jesus; to follow him, not merely admire him. Jesus said, give up all your worldly possessions and follow me. (Mark 10:17-27) Kierkegaard insisted that to be a Christian is to do what Jesus says in the Bible, including Mark 10; anything less, any you're merely taking Christianity as a scholarly excerise.

So, Jesus', in the Bible, tells you to give up your worldly possessions... will you do it now in order to follow Jesus? Or will you just try explaining it away ...)

As you say, this point is routinely dismissed and rationalized by the institutional church. And I think Kierkegaard was on track in highlighting it.

And yet, there is some justification for taking Jesus' words with a grain of salt. There is some indication, for example, that Jesus was dependent on the generosity of local people that supported his ministry (loaves and fishes stories notwithstanding). Also, it is debatable whether he was truly recommending the ultimate level of self-divestment to all of his contemporaries. And then, we also have to consider whether some of the urgency of the theme was not related to a prevailing apocalyptic atmosphere.

All in all, though, I think it is impossible to "believe in Jesus" or "follow Jesus" without agreeing with the premise, "the material world ain't where it's at."

1 Reply

Kierkegaard and Luther Were Wrong!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know