tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810864952186236836.post3050825364889210368..comments2010-04-26T21:42:24.201-07:00Comments on Evolution & Revolution: A move toward 'radical faith'Doctor Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810864952186236836.post-65795030972589113822010-04-11T19:39:45.324-07:002010-04-11T19:39:45.324-07:00I do understand what you're getting at, I thin...I do understand what you're getting at, I think - but it has more to do with interpretation than with actuality (well, actuality in the case of what Kierkegaard's laid out for us). Perhaps someone could use teleological suspension of the ethical as an excuse for doing something unethical, and use Kierkegaard to back them up, but I think in the true case of a knight of faith, you'd probably have to trust God that what's happening is okay. That requires acceptance of Christianity, on one hand, and this explanation of it, on the other - but we still probably wouldn't have to deal with deciding whether someone is a true knight of faith or not. According to Kierkegaard, we should judge those who break ethical rules accordingly, and knights of faith are no exception - and so we should just let God choose what bad deeds are to be done.<br /><br />Also, agreed - a true knight of faith wouldn't tell us that God made him do it, or be very public about it, probably. But it's still irrelevant in the sense that we should punish them with equal judgment.E.M. Halliburtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16800729315561370525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810864952186236836.post-85514716034174453982010-04-11T16:50:00.838-07:002010-04-11T16:50:00.838-07:00While I do see what Colin is driving at, there is ...While I do see what Colin is driving at, there is one other potential flaw in his argument. Perhaps one of the most important things to Kierkegaard regarding faith is its practice in privacy. Clearly in this example there is nothing private about either the act or the explanation of the action. In this case, the action is explained repeatedly, and to Kierkegaard, a need to explain an act of faith negates the act as faithful in the first place (or at least, that's what I gather).BRBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097764099250015740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810864952186236836.post-11831590855579732712010-04-11T15:06:31.034-07:002010-04-11T15:06:31.034-07:00Well said. Your point is well taken, and my exampl...Well said. Your point is well taken, and my example is faulty. But does it actually negate the worries that I express? The bin Laden's of the world are indeed somewhat understandable, but is it not possible that a man acting completely on his own who, out of the blue, participates in terrorism without affiliations, is it not possible that if this man existed, he would indeed be a violent knight of faith? maybe its not possible, but I can't help from finding it still problematic.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17056233439191832412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810864952186236836.post-87837373174713777192010-04-11T14:52:00.585-07:002010-04-11T14:52:00.585-07:00I think some of Will's points about why Osama ...I think some of Will's points about why Osama couldn't be a knight of faith are correct. However, I don't think disproving this individual case ruins Colin's point. Couldn't we still imagine a case in which some figure like Osama met all the external requirements so that we couldn't definitively say, "No, he cannot be a knight of faith? To me, at least, it seems possible.<br /><br />However, I still disagree with Colin's point. I think that the most you could say is that Kierkegaard's characterization of faith doesn't allow us to know for sure whether or not some radical action was in fact an act of faith. Aside from that, I guess we could also say that some crazy person who hears voices could legitimately think he is a knight of faith. (Certainly though, because it is not actually God speaking to him, Kierkegaard would not call him a knight of faith.) However, this is not the same as her characterization of faith encouraging these types of acts. <br /><br />Abraham was not seeking out some radical opportunity to prove himself prior to God's request. He was just a good Christian, doing his thing.ZackWalkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04572033309967464871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-810864952186236836.post-48300010357688525512010-04-11T13:24:58.983-07:002010-04-11T13:24:58.983-07:00I find your example problematic. Osama bin Laden c...I find your example problematic. Osama bin Laden cannot be a knight of faith. His acts are those of a man seeking a global platform, and he has succeeded in doing so. Using this platform, bin Laden continually offers justification of his actions, something a knight of faith would never do. If you try, I think you can understand bin Laden on some level, regardless of how appalling you might find his actions. I don't think bin Laden is crazy (as we presumably would view a knight of faith). I instead find him hateful and dangerous. Also, those actually acting in this thought experiment (suicide bombers) never talked to God. Bin Laden, with whom we have said God spoke, sacrifices nothing himself, instead becoming a mediator of "the word of God." Also, if you don't believe in God, this seems to negate the possibility of God speaking with anyone and further, turning them toward radicalism. In this scenario, Kierkegaard's characterization of faith is meaningless, rather than dangerous.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05683815637812114243noreply@blogger.com