Summary of my thesis:

       Many people think that Kierkegaard thought that belief in God was something very uncertain, even irrational.  It is grounded in a “leap of faith” that is made without any rational support.  This view is completely mistaken.  It arises from confusing (and misunderstanding) what Kierkegaard says about faith in the incarnate Christ (which does indeed require a leap and cannot be rationally proven or demonstrated) with what Kierkegaard says about natural knowledge of God.  This natural knowledge of God is something that every normal human person can achieve, since its basis lies in conscience.  Kierkegaard accepts a divine command theory of morality, and according to this view every person has an awareness of God as the one who requires a life in which we love God and our neighbors.  He is opposed to proofs of God’s existence because they make somethings that should be obvious appear doubtful.

 Some quotations from Kierkegaard:

 “Just as no one has ever proved it [God’s existence], so there has never been an atheist, even though there certainly have been many who have been unwilling to allow what they know [that God exists] to have control of their minds” (Philosophical Fragments, 191-192).

 “With respect to the existence of God, immortality, etc., in short, with respect to all problems of immanence, recollection applies; it [the knowledge that can be recollected] exists altogether in every man, only he does not know it, . . .” (Philosophical Fragments, 192).

 “To prove the existence of one who is present (er til) is the most shameless affront, since it is an attempt to make him ridiculous; . . . For how could it occur to anyone to prove that he exists, unless one had permitted oneself to ignore him, and then makes matters worse by proving his existence right before his nose.” (Concluding Unscientific Postscript, I 545, translation modified)

 “as it [world-history] is seen by humans, God does not play the role of Lord; as one does not see the ethical in it, therefore God is not seen either” (Concluding Unscientific Postscript, I 156)

 “To have a conscience is simply to have a “relationship in which you as a single individual relate yourself to yourself before God” (Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, 129)

 “But that eternal love-history has begun much earlier; it began with your beginning, when you came into existence out of nothing, and just as surely as you do not become nothing, it does not end at the grave” (Works of Love, 149-150)

 “But you shall love God in unconditional obedience, even if what he requires of you might seem to you to be to your own harm, indeed, harmful to his cause; for God’s wisdom is beyond all comparison with yours. . . All you have to do is obey in love” (Works of Love, 20)

 The modern world is “a more or less open intent to depose God in order to install human beings . . . in the rights of God” (Works of Love, 115).

 

Kierkegaard the Natural Theologian?

Kierkegaard on Natural Religious Knowledge

 I.  Introduction:  Kierkegaard’s View of Atheism

 II.  Kierkegaard: Platonist or Existentialist?

       Many textbook characterizations of Kierkegaard see him as affirming that one must believe in God through an irrational “leap of faith.”  This picture comes from Camus, and is even accepted by some Christian writers.  However, this view is false.  Faith as a leap only comes into the picture when one is considering faith in the incarnate Christ.  Belief in God, if it requires any kind of faith, requires only “Socratic faith” and is grounded in recollection.

 III.  Natural Theology and Natural Religious Knowledge

       If one means by “natural theology” someone who tries to demonstrate God’s existence through logical arguments, then Kierkegaard is no natural theologian.  However, if one thinks natural theology might consist of a narrative account of how natural religious knowledge of God is possible, there is an implicit natural theology present in Kierkegaard’s writings.

 IV.  Kierkegaard on Modernity and the Decline of Faith Among Intellectuals

       Kierkegaard rejects the claim that the decline of religious faith among European intellectuals is primarily due to intellectual reasons, as in Russell’s famous quip, “Not enough evidence, God.”  God’s reality is accessible to everyone through ethical demands.  Anyone who has a conscience is aware of God’s demands on his or her life, even though the person’s awareness of what God requires may be very faulty, and of course many people are unaware that the demands of morality are in reality God’s requirements.

       Kierkegaard sees modernity not fundamentally as a triumph of the human intellect and knowledge, but as a kind of revolt or “mutiny” against divine authority. 

 V.  Kierkegaard’s Aversion to Apologetics

       We can now understand Kierkegaard’s antipathy to apologetics, or at least to a certain kind of apologetics, that understands the major barrier to faith as lack of intellectual evidence.  Kierkegaard thinks that this apologetic strategy implies an overly charitable view of unbelief; the apologist assumes that people are ready to believe but just need more evidence.  On Kierkegaard’s view, unbelief is rooted more in the will than in the intellect, and the decline of faith says more about the emotional and imaginative impoverishment of European intellectuals than about the advance of science and knowledge.

 VI.  Subjectivity and Natural Religious Knowledge

       We can now also easily understand Kierkegaard’s emphasis on subjectivity as the vehicle for religious knowledge.  Our emotions and passions play an essential role in becoming aware of what is good and bad, what is right and wrong.  Without the right kind of subjectivity we cannot become aware of God’s claim on our life.  “Subjectivity” thus has nothing to do with arbitrariness, wish-fulfillment, or lack of concern for intellectual honesty.

 VII.  Natural Religious Knowledge and Christian Revelation

       Kierkegaard thus constantly takes for granted that humans can know that God exists through their awareness of God’s claim on their lives.  This natural religious knowledge is not without value; it is part of what prepares a person to encounter the Christian Gospel.  However, it is vitally important to see the limits of this natural religious knowledge as well as its value.  Here are some of those limits:

1.  Mere propositional knowledge of God’s existence has almost no value for Kierkegaard.  However, the natural knowledge of God can be more than a bare knowledge of the proposition “God exists” for it can engage a human’s emotions and aspirations in significant ways.

2.  The natural knowledge of God is highly unreliable, shot through with mistakes.  In the very footnote with which I began, Kierkegaard makes this point.  People may know that a God exists but have all kinds of erroneous views about God and how we should relate to God.  However, the fact that this natural knowledge is unreliable does not mean it has no value at all.  It shows we are naturally oriented towards a reality that transcends the natural world, and if we cannot reliably grasp that reality we may be open to God’s self-revelation to help us.

3.  In Christ we discover a God who is so different from what we would expect that Kierkegaard calls the incarnation “The Absolute Paradox.”  The God we meet is very different from the God we would like to manufacture, a God “made in our image.”  In Christ we discover God’s ideal for ourselves, and also God’s provision for us to realize the ideal.  Christ is both the “Pattern” and the “Redeemer.”  The knowledge of God made possible by the Christian revelation is so stunning that we may well think, “Prior to Christ I really did not know God at all.”  There is truth and wisdom in this view, but also a touch of hyperbole.  For it does not mean that apart from the Christian revelation the most reasonable view of the world would be a form of atheism.