Leap to Faith

Hi Thunder,

My Kierkegaard's a bit dated, but I can tell you what I recall and/or believe on these issues:



Not really. As I understand it its simply to stop trying to find empirical support for what faith demands and "accept" it. As far as whether or not this might constitute 'forcing' oneself to believe; perhaps, but that's not how I see it. If I were take Soren's "Leap to Faith", I'd put aside doubts that might exist due to a lack of empirical and/or rational evidence and personally embrace what I'm asked to believe. In that way, I'd be making a leap.



Anger at what appears to be disingenousness? As if they "talk the talk" but don't truly embrace what they appear to believe? If so, your anger is certainly understandable but - if I might offer some mitigation here - folks believe what they're inclined to and rarely are ALL aspects of Religion-X COMPLETELY acceptable to any one person. We're all subtly different - and those differences can net an equal number of disagreements in theology[INDENT] Think about it - look at all the vastness of diversity in religious sets. Are there hundreds? thousands? millions? I'm guessing that if you thoroughly interviewed 20,000,000 different people of the same faith; in depth and to the nth degree, you'd likely find 20,000,000 variations. To the extent this sentiment is true it is telling. What does that tell you about humans and the religious ideals they carry?
[/INDENT][INDENT] One could interpret that many different ways; but relevant to your issue seems to be the unmistakable conclusion that people don't generally swallow everything - they pick and choose what appeals to their needs and dispositions. If we accept this, then it's no wonder that we see inconsistencies in the way they act and the belief sets they carry.
[/INDENT]This "diversity of opinion" on religious matters also helps to explain what appears to be a very trendy mindset: Nondefinition. Browse the religious threads here and you'll see a great number of people who, "... believe in god" but choose not define "god" in even the most rudimentary aspects. Heck, we even have a thread that makes a good case that god isn't even really a "thing". Toss that one in the hopper for a while!

In any case, Soren has some good insights but (like all philosophers) is a product of his time. As I recall, his issues were deeply entwined with the overwhelming dominance of 18th century christianity - which only makes sense given the culture and childhood he had.

We can't explain everything; one might even justifably proclaim that we don't know much at all about our world and existence. Making a leap to faith is but one way we deal with our gaps in knowledge of <this> or <that> - bearing in mind it most certainly isn't a human coping mechanism that's exclusive to religion.

How much, how often and how satisfying this method succeeds in coping with our collective ignorance depends on you.

Good luck!

I am not sure about Kierkegaard, but as for myself: I am angered by those who dont take their religion seriously. If you dont believe in something and so you dont practice it, then I'm fine. I'm talking about those religious ones who admit that what they do is wrong, but do it anyway. Or even worse, those who never think about it. Those who go to church every sunday, or maybe just C&E, and forget about religion as soon as they step out of the door. They dont take it seriously.

When I was religious I had an extreme case of Scrupulosity ( Scrupulosity and OCD ) it is still with me as I'm an atheist who tries to live ethically, but it is no where near what it was before. When I was christian I tried, and still kinda do, force this scrupulosity onto others. It wasnt so much that I was trying to force them to be like me, but I just couldnt, and still cant, understand how someone cant take christianity and/or god seriously.

Thunder:
The metaphor "leap of faith" is a call to action. In a Kierkegaardian sense the term is used as a noun (a/the [leap of faith]) as in one must take a leap of faith. the metaphor itself however containing the verb 'leap' is a call to action without the actual leap one remains stationary, or one remains at the crossroads. To us a pop culture reference, the leap of faith in Indiana Jones' third movie is a noun, the place where one must put trust in the unseen to cross the chasm of the seemingly impossible, yet indie must leap out into seeming thin air.

Back in our world the leap of faith is tranformative and in some cases transcendental. Once it is taken there is no returning to one's previous self. There is no backtracking to the previous position reversing the leap in the same manner taken forward. Those who leap either find themselves in "the anti chamber with Indy picking the Challis of Christ" or they find themselves demystified and disillusioned with what they were hoping was on the other side of the chasm.

What I think Kierkegaard lacks is a proper resonse to the latter experience of disillusionment. The leap of faith itself is a closed function as it is explained in most modern especially Christian doctrine. If one ends up disillutioned one has theoretically not made a true leap of faith. This leads back to the what Khetil was saying, that one must accept 'unconditionally' or else it really isn't faith. This does not mean that one after having lept will not still have doubts about everything, it simply means that one accepts and is willing to act upon the doctrine accepted by taking that leap in spite of doubt.

The problem with the leap to faith in a belief that has no proof is that it is equivalent to something such as the Flying Unicorn. Who can fault me for believing in it? There is no proof! I have faith; therefore, I need no proof. Why do you believe in it? I can feel it in my heart. Do any others believe in it? Consensus does not matter to me. Why don't you believe in it?

Earl: How is that a problem with faith? It is basically its definition. Belief in something that has no physical evidence. One might not want to have faith but it isn't a problem with the concept or the practice of faith.