Saturday, March 27, 2010

Fear and Trembling -are they necessary for true faith?

I would like to preface this post by recognizing that I have never before read any of Kierkegaard's works, and only have a very limited knowledge of his philosophy. Thus, I pose this more as a question relying on my inference from the title of the book, and the limited knowledge that I have gleaned of its meaning. (I feel a bit like Johannes de Silentio in my former explanation, attempting to redirect any criticism, but rather than deflecting the critiques I invite them as I truly just wish to be more informed. So please do not see this as a cop out, ha ha, as it is not meant to be- thanks)

So from what we have discussed, I feel it is safe to say that this work, Fear and Trembling, is all about the qualification of faith, and how we should seek to gain access to this notion. I feel as though Soren, through his mouthpiece Johannes, criticizes the world for being far too lenient with the qualification of 'faith.' It seems to be a given association that we give and allow to be taken for granted, that any who attend a religious organization with regularity [or not as the case may be extended to] has 'faith.'

Yet Soren is disgruntled by the ease in which we are allowed our status of 'faithful' servants of the lord, when others such as Abraham had to go through immense trials and tribulations in order prove his faith to the lord. He had to engage in an act that seemed insane and ludicrous when looked at through an Ethical and public lens. He had to actually attempt to sacrifice his only son! Now the faith in this, is not blind faith in following God's word to a 'T' and expecting some good to come about it, but rather a faith in God's perfection [as I see it], for god, in being perfect must not be able to lie to us. Thus, Abraham's promise that his son Isaac would be the father of many nations could not be jeopardized by God's new assertion. Abraham had enough faith in this notion of God's perfection and the reality of that perfection, that he indeed was willing to kill his only son, maintaining the belief that his son would be saved from [actual] death through God's divine power.

This is how I have understood the work thus far, and by looking at the title, I have to infer that Abraham, being a rational and sane man, had many doubts and fears that he had to overcome in order to allow this faith to manifest. As I see it; placing your most valued possession, your only son's life [when you are hopelessly elderly], in the hands of an immaterial divine being, of which no absolute certainty can be displayed for its existence, save perhaps the voice that resonates through your own mind. How can you be sure this voice is God? Is it not just as likely that your insane and thus are being prompted by your own lunacy to act in a way that neither furthers your own insanity? Or perhaps in a theological sense, it is as possible that the voice you hear is that of the devil's temptation, after all it is prompting you toward a deadly sin. Is it not true that its not only as likely to be one of these options, but rather MORE likely? These thoughts would have to cross the mind of a rational being in such a circumstance, promoting and prompting the responses that indeed give title to this book; fear, and trembling. But, as I see it, the point of the argument is that faith is not rational. It is the absurdity that you can actually overcome such potent objections and BELIEVE that your actions are truly being demanded by the almighty. This is what true faith is. The ability to stand up to all claims that oppose your beliefs, and embrace the absurdity of the divine, allowing God's will to be done, and in the end reaching the stage of the Knight of Faith, gaining both the infinite and finite.

So then my question is, do you agree? Must we all endure such an ordeal as facing the paradox of religion, and holding fast to beliefs in opposition to all rational universalities and ethical claims that are offered by the public sphere in order to truly gain faith? Is that what this Abraham, this Father of Faith, teaches us within the context? If so, those of you who were raised christian in house and home, and upon coming to college found that faith in question, do you find any parallels between such an ordeal, and the collegiate attitudes toward faith and religion?

I offer no side in this argument except that I can see where it could be an interesting application and twist for each of us, if we began to see this period of our life as the two day struggle that Abraham had, knowing that the essence of our faith [and depending on your beliefs, your eternal soul...?] is being held in the balance. And I apologize again if this is far off of Kierkegaard's own argument, I just began putting myself in the situation and decided it might be an interesting blog post. Let me know what you think!

2 comments:

  1. When considering a faith that trumps reason, I usually conclude that it is both dangerous for human rights (in its false manifestations) and beautiful (in that it allows humans greater certainty even than that faculty by which we judge).

    This being said, did Abraham truly act irrationally? Given his faith in God, it would seem he had every reason to believe he could sacrifice Isaac who would still be the father of nations. In this he was affirmed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really appreciate the way that you describe faith, as being beautiful and dangerous. This is very accurate I think, and you qualify each very well.

    As to adress your second concern dealing with the possibility that his action could be seen as rational, I took the reading and our discussion to presume that the rational belonged the the sphere of universals. Thus in order for an action to not be irrational it would be mandatory for other rational humans to understand his actions. That being said, how would you yourself react if someone today said that they were going to take their son up a mountain to sacrifice him to the lord, but it would be okay because God promised him that his life would be spared... I would assume that you would judge the man to be deranged.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.