IF GOD EXISTS, THEN HE CERTAINLY DOES NOT CARE FOR YOU AT ALL

[clemdog14]

Lion, here is the Kierkegaard quotation. I have also included information from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which one of my undergraduate professors founded).

"The decision rests in the subject; the appropriation is the paradoxical inwardness that is specifically different from all other inwardness. Being a Christian is defined not by the “what” of Christianity but by the “how” of the Christian. This “how” can fit only one thing, the absolute paradox. Therefore there is no vague talk that being a Christian means to accept and accept, and accept altogether differently, to appropriate, to have faith, to appropriate in faith altogether differently (nothing but rhetorical and sham definitions); but to have faith is specifically qualified differently from all other appropriation and inwardness. Faith is the objective uncertainty with the repulsion of the absurd, held fast in the passion of inwardness, which is the relation of inwardness intensified to its highest. This formula fits only the one who has faith, no one else, not even a lover, or an enthusiast, or a thinker, but solely and only the one who has faith, who relates himself to the absolute paradox."

Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Vol I Hong p. 610-611

Here is the backstory describing this quotation:

Søren Kierkegaard, arguably the father of existentialism, was a profound religious thinker. He came up with an unequivocal view of faith and reason much like Tertullian’s strong incompatibilism. If Kant argued for religion within the limits of reason alone, Kierkegaard called for reason with the limits of religion alone. Faith requires a leap. It demands risk. All arguments that reason derives for a proof of God are in fact viciously circular: one can only reason about the existence of an object that one already assumes to exist. Hegel tried to claim that faith could be elevated to the status of objective certainty. Seeking such certainly, moreover, Kierkegaard considered a trap: what is needed is a radical trust. The radical trust of faith is the highest virtue one can reach.

Kierkegaard claimed that all essential knowledge intrinsically relates to an existing individual. In Either/Or, he outlined three general forms of life individuals can adopt: the aesthetic, ethical, and ethico-religious. The aesthetic is the life that seeks pleasure. The ethical is that which stresses the fulfillment of duties. Neither of these attains to the true individuality of human existence. But in the ethico-religious sphere, truth emerges in the authenticity of the relationship between a person and the object of his attention. With authenticity, the importance is on the “how,” not the “what,” of knowledge. It attains to a subjective truth, in which the sincerity and intensity of the commitment is key. This authenticity is equivalent to faith understood as “an objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation-process of the most passionate inwardness.” The coexistence of this “objective uncertainty” with “passionate inwardness” is strikingly paradoxical. Kierkegaard makes a similarly paradoxical claim in holding that “nothing historical can become infinitely certain for me except the fact of my own existence (which again cannot become infinitely certain for any other individual, who has infinite certainty only of his own existence) and this is not something historical.” Thus faith can never be a matter of objective certainty; it involves no reckoning of probabilities, it is not an intellectual acceptance of a doctrine at all. Faith involves a submission of the intellect. It is not only hostile to but also completely beyond the grasp of reason.

-James Swindal, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

---

How exactly does [reason] falter?

Philosophically, I have to accept certain things as givens. Based on my understandings from Descartes, I have to accept certain faculties, such as my five senses and even reason as givens.

How can I truly know that these "givens" are working properly 100% of the time? How can I know that my reason is true 100% of the time? How do I know that I am not being fooled by an evil genius as Descartes stated?

The thing with reason, intellect, and my other senses is that I have faith that these faculties are working correctly. I can never truly test whether these faculties are telling me the truth. How can I test my facilities?

I could not test them by myself (because my faculties may be malfunctioning).

I could not ask bystanders (because they may be deceiving me).

I could not ask a higher power (because how do I know that it is not deceving me).

So how can I know?

I can't.

Therefore, I have to have faith that these faculties are telling me the truth.

So how does reason falter? Reason falters because I have to have faith that my reasoning is functioning correctly. I am not downplaying reason, rather, I am admitting that I have to use other things besides reasoning in order to accept it.

This quotation:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended for us to forego their use.

is accurate because God gave me these faculties so that I could use them.

So why don't I just limit myself to reason? Reason itself has its limitations. Once again, I have to take a leap of faith into believing that my faculties (including my reason) are functioning correctly.

How can I truly know that my reasoning is correct?

I can never truly know. Therefore, I acknowledge that I have to have faith in certain things (including reasoning).

Furthermore, this does not conflict with my faith. In other words, I have to abandon my reason in order to take a leap of faith in believing in Christ. I have to have faith in the "absolute paradox.". See my post on Kierkegaard for this notion.