Philosophy of Philosophy of ReligionReligion

Definitions of FaithDefinitions of FaithI. I. CredentialCredential —acceptance of —acceptance of unproven dogma and informationunproven dogma and information

II. II. FiduciaFiducia —more than intellectual —more than intellectual assent; involves hear and willassent; involves hear and will

III. III. FideisFideis —trust with cognitive —trust with cognitive element, uses history and reasonelement, uses history and reason

Three Distortions Three Distortions of Faithof Faith

I. Intellectual distortion—acceptance I. Intellectual distortion—acceptance of proposition given by authorityof proposition given by authority

II. Voluntaristic distortion—lack of II. Voluntaristic distortion—lack of evidence made up for by act of willevidence made up for by act of will

III. Emotionalistic distortion—no III. Emotionalistic distortion—no concrete fact, only subjective concrete fact, only subjective emotionemotion

Challenges to Religious Challenges to Religious Belief.Belief.

Introduction.Introduction.– In recent centuries, several In recent centuries, several

philosophers have challenged philosophers have challenged central assumptions of religious central assumptions of religious belief, often with the purpose of belief, often with the purpose of advancing atheism.advancing atheism.

1. The Irrationality of Believing in 1. The Irrationality of Believing in MiraclesMiracles– a. Thesis: it is never reasonable to a. Thesis: it is never reasonable to

believe second hand reports believe second hand reports concerning miracles.concerning miracles.

– The wise person should proportion The wise person should proportion his belief to the evidence; this his belief to the evidence; this counts for sensory evidence from counts for sensory evidence from testimony as well.testimony as well.

David Hume.David Hume.

b. Evidence and belief.b. Evidence and belief. c. Reasons for not trusting testimonies.c. Reasons for not trusting testimonies.

– ii. The character or number of the ii. The character or number of the witnesses: too few or of a doubtful witnesses: too few or of a doubtful character.character.

– i. The opposition of contrary i. The opposition of contrary testimony: when witnesses contradict testimony: when witnesses contradict each other.each other.

– iii. The manner of delivering the iii. The manner of delivering the testimony: when delivered with bias, testimony: when delivered with bias, hesitation, violent declaration.hesitation, violent declaration.

d. Definition of a Miracle.d. Definition of a Miracle.– i. General definition: "a miracle is a i. General definition: "a miracle is a

violation of the laws of nature".violation of the laws of nature".– ii. More accurate definition: "a ii. More accurate definition: "a

transgression of a law of nature by transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity, or a particular volition of the deity, or by the interposition of some by the interposition of some invisible agent".invisible agent".

e. Main argument against miracles.e. Main argument against miracles.– i. Uniform experience of nature amounts to a i. Uniform experience of nature amounts to a

direct and full proof against the existence of direct and full proof against the existence of any miracle.any miracle.

– ii. Argument in propositional form.ii. Argument in propositional form. (1) The evidence from experience in support (1) The evidence from experience in support

of a law of nature is extremely strong.of a law of nature is extremely strong. (2) A miracle is a violation of a law of nature.(2) A miracle is a violation of a law of nature. (3) Therefore, the evidence from experience (3) Therefore, the evidence from experience

against the occurrence of a miracle is against the occurrence of a miracle is extremely strongextremely strong..

– iii. General maxim about testimonies: a iii. General maxim about testimonies: a testimony is reasonable only if its truth is more testimony is reasonable only if its truth is more likely than its falsehood.likely than its falsehood.

f. Four additional arguments against f. Four additional arguments against miracles.miracles.– i. Witnesses lack Integrity.i. Witnesses lack Integrity.– ii. Predisposition to Sensationalize.ii. Predisposition to Sensationalize.– iii. Abound in Barbarous Nations.iii. Abound in Barbarous Nations.– iv. Miracles Support Rival Religious iv. Miracles Support Rival Religious

Systems.Systems.

g. Miracles in Christianity: two g. Miracles in Christianity: two interpretations of Hume’s point.interpretations of Hume’s point.– i. Friendly interpretation: the miracles i. Friendly interpretation: the miracles

and prophecies in the Bible are not and prophecies in the Bible are not rational, and can only be believed rational, and can only be believed through an act of divinely inspired through an act of divinely inspired faith.faith.

– ii. Unfriendly interpretation: belief in ii. Unfriendly interpretation: belief in miracles is so irrational that it miracles is so irrational that it requires miraculous stupidity on the requires miraculous stupidity on the part of the believer.part of the believer.

. Religion as the Opium of the Masses. Religion as the Opium of the Masses a. Thesis: religion is like a drug insofar as it a. Thesis: religion is like a drug insofar as it

is created by people as a means of dealing is created by people as a means of dealing with genuine suffering and oppression.with genuine suffering and oppression.

b. 19th century critics of religion commonly b. 19th century critics of religion commonly offered psychological and sociological offered psychological and sociological explanations for how presumably erroneous explanations for how presumably erroneous religious convictions arise in the minds of religious convictions arise in the minds of believers and how they function in society.believers and how they function in society.

Karl Marx

c. The opium of the people.c. The opium of the people.– i. It is a projection of the best conception i. It is a projection of the best conception

we have of human life. It lulls people we have of human life. It lulls people into complacency to accept their into complacency to accept their present status in hopes for a better life present status in hopes for a better life in the hereafter.in the hereafter.

d. Marx’s Naturalism.d. Marx’s Naturalism.– i. Theologians often defend the concepts i. Theologians often defend the concepts

of God and religion with arguments of God and religion with arguments about the first cause of the world; Marx about the first cause of the world; Marx believes that these questions are believes that these questions are misguided and prove nothing misguided and prove nothing

The Death of God: The Death of God: a. Thesis: civilization has “killed” (i.e., a. Thesis: civilization has “killed” (i.e.,

outgrown) God through advances, and we outgrown) God through advances, and we need to find a new value system as a need to find a new value system as a replacement for religion.replacement for religion.

b. The significance of the end of religious b. The significance of the end of religious belief.belief.– i. Parable of the madman: announces i. Parable of the madman: announces

the death of God and the effects this has the death of God and the effects this has produced.produced.

Friedrich Nietzsche.

c. The consequences of the end of c. The consequences of the end of religious belief.religious belief.– i. The value system of religion is i. The value system of religion is

gone, and we have no fixed truth to gone, and we have no fixed truth to rely on – not even science, which is rely on – not even science, which is left over from belief in God.left over from belief in God.

d. Religion, science, pessimism, and d. Religion, science, pessimism, and needneed..– ii. People are reluctant to give up . People are reluctant to give up

religion because of a certain need to religion because of a certain need to believe and to rely on something. The believe and to rely on something. The instinct of weakness preserves instinct of weakness preserves religions, metaphysics, and other religions, metaphysics, and other kinds of convictions.kinds of convictions.

. The Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil

Introduction.Introduction. a. Principal question: how could an all-a. Principal question: how could an all-

good God permit human suffering and good God permit human suffering and other evils.other evils.

b. Sometimes discussed to clarify b. Sometimes discussed to clarify God’s nature and human expectations God’s nature and human expectations of God; other times as an argument of God; other times as an argument against the existence of God.against the existence of God.

Fyodor Dostoevsky.Fyodor Dostoevsky.

. God and Human Suffering: . God and Human Suffering: a. Thesis: the suffering of innocent a. Thesis: the suffering of innocent

animals and children seems to serve animals and children seems to serve no greater good, and we would no greater good, and we would expect God to prevent these things.expect God to prevent these things.

b. Dialogue between two brothers, b. Dialogue between two brothers, Ivan (an atheist) and Alyosha (novice Ivan (an atheist) and Alyosha (novice monk).monk).

c. Main problem.c. Main problem.– i. Innocent animals and children i. Innocent animals and children

frequently suffer, and there is no frequently suffer, and there is no apparent good that comes from this to apparent good that comes from this to justify it.justify it.

– ii. Believers in God are often the sources ii. Believers in God are often the sources of suffering, which compounds the of suffering, which compounds the problem.problem.

– iii. Divine punishment of the offenders iii. Divine punishment of the offenders would not solve the problem.would not solve the problem.

John MackieJohn Mackie

The Logical Problem of EvilThe Logical Problem of Evil a. Thesis: belief in an all good and a. Thesis: belief in an all good and

all powerful God is logically all powerful God is logically inconsistent with the fact of suffering inconsistent with the fact of suffering in the worldin the world

b. The only adequate solutions to the b. The only adequate solutions to the problem are to deny God’s goodness, problem are to deny God’s goodness, God’s power, or the existence of evil. God’s power, or the existence of evil. However theologians do not take However theologians do not take this routethis route

c. Inadequate solutionsc. Inadequate solutions– i. Goodness cannot exist without evil. Mackie i. Goodness cannot exist without evil. Mackie

responds that evil may be necessary to responds that evil may be necessary to recognize goodness, but evil is not recognize goodness, but evil is not ontologically necessary for goodness to existontologically necessary for goodness to exist

– Ii. The universe is better with some evil in it; Ii. The universe is better with some evil in it; for example, without poverty (a first-order for example, without poverty (a first-order evil) there would be no charity (a second-order evil) there would be no charity (a second-order good). Mackie responds that first-order evils good). Mackie responds that first-order evils like poverty will also allow for second order like poverty will also allow for second order evils, such as malevolenceevils, such as malevolence

– Iii. Free will defense: evil is the result of Iii. Free will defense: evil is the result of human choice, for which God bears no human choice, for which God bears no responsibility. He responds that God could responsibility. He responds that God could have created a world containing free creatures have created a world containing free creatures that always chose to do goodthat always chose to do good

John HickJohn Hick A Soul-Making TheodicyA Soul-Making Theodicy a. Thesis: human creation is a a. Thesis: human creation is a

developmental process during which time developmental process during which time we evolve to eventually become a more we evolve to eventually become a more perfect likeness of God; suffering is part of perfect likeness of God; suffering is part of the process.the process.

b. Hick follows Irenaeus, who maintained b. Hick follows Irenaeus, who maintained that human creation involves a two step that human creation involves a two step process: (1) we are created in the image of process: (1) we are created in the image of God, and, (2) after much development, God, and, (2) after much development, become re-created in the likeness of God.become re-created in the likeness of God.

c. Hick’s view is compatible with c. Hick’s view is compatible with evolutionary theory.evolutionary theory.

Mysticism and Religious Mysticism and Religious ExperienceExperience

IntroductionIntroduction a. Mystical experiences are a kind of a. Mystical experiences are a kind of

religious experience that specifically religious experience that specifically involves a sense of union with God.involves a sense of union with God.

b. Unanimity thesis: there is a b. Unanimity thesis: there is a presumption in favor of the reliability presumption in favor of the reliability of mystical experiences because of mystical experiences because mystics in different religions mystics in different religions generally report the same thing (i.e., generally report the same thing (i.e., a unity of all things).a unity of all things).

. Hindu Mysticism.. Hindu Mysticism. a. Thesis: Hindu mysticism involves a. Thesis: Hindu mysticism involves

experiencing the Self-God (Atman experiencing the Self-God (Atman Brahman), which is the ultimate reality of Brahman), which is the ultimate reality of all things that lies at the core of each of all things that lies at the core of each of our identities.our identities.

b. b. Bhagavad Gita.Bhagavad Gita. i. Dialogue between Arjuna (an expert i. Dialogue between Arjuna (an expert

archer) and Krishna (his chariot driver archer) and Krishna (his chariot driver Krishna) about engaging in a bloody Krishna) about engaging in a bloody family feud. Krishna teaches Arjuna family feud. Krishna teaches Arjuna about the Self-God and the meditative about the Self-God and the meditative path of yoga.path of yoga.

ii. Those who cannot accomplish it in this ii. Those who cannot accomplish it in this life can try again in the next.life can try again in the next.

c. Patanjali’s c. Patanjali’s Yoga SutraYoga Sutra describes describes an eight-step meditative process an eight-step meditative process that leads to this mystical that leads to this mystical experience.experience.

i. Appetitive restraint, social i. Appetitive restraint, social observance, bodily postures, breath observance, bodily postures, breath regulation, suppression of the regulation, suppression of the senses, focus, even awareness, and senses, focus, even awareness, and meditative union.meditative union.

The Limited Authority of Mystical The Limited Authority of Mystical Experiences: William James.Experiences: William James.

a. Thesis: the claims of various a. Thesis: the claims of various mystics and concluded that they mystics and concluded that they may be justly authoritative for the may be justly authoritative for the mystic having the experience, but mystic having the experience, but they have no authority over the they have no authority over the nonmystic nonmystic

b. James defends three points.b. James defends three points. i. Mystical states are authoritative for the i. Mystical states are authoritative for the

mystic because they are directly mystic because they are directly perceived in a way similar to the way our perceived in a way similar to the way our senses perceive the world around us.senses perceive the world around us.

ii. “No authority emanates from them ii. “No authority emanates from them which should make it a duty for those which should make it a duty for those who stand outside of them to accept who stand outside of them to accept their revelations uncritically”.their revelations uncritically”.

iii. Mystical experiences show that our iii. Mystical experiences show that our normal consciousness of normal consciousness of

The Untrustworthiness of Mystical The Untrustworthiness of Mystical Experiences: Bertrand Russell.Experiences: Bertrand Russell.

a. Thesis: mystical claims about the a. Thesis: mystical claims about the world are untrustworthy because world are untrustworthy because they require abnormal physical they require abnormal physical states.states.

b. Three common points in reports of b. Three common points in reports of mystical experiences: the unity of mystical experiences: the unity of the world, the illusory nature of evil, the world, the illusory nature of evil, and the unreality of time.and the unreality of time.

c. In spite of the unanimity of c. In spite of the unanimity of reports of mystical experiences, reports of mystical experiences, Russell argues that they should be Russell argues that they should be dismissed because they require dismissed because they require abnormal bodily states.abnormal bodily states.

d. There may be some d. There may be some psychological benefits to moderate psychological benefits to moderate mystical experiences, particularly mystical experiences, particularly as it gives the sense of “Breadth as it gives the sense of “Breadth and calm and profundity and calm and profundity

Relationship of Relationship of God to the WorldGod to the World

I. God as Efficient Cause—shapes the I. God as Efficient Cause—shapes the cosmic process from preexistence matter cosmic process from preexistence matter and formsand forms

II. God as the source of the cosmic process II. God as the source of the cosmic process which arises as an inner self-manifestation which arises as an inner self-manifestation from the Divine Beingfrom the Divine Being

A. Plotinus—all reality consists of a A. Plotinus—all reality consists of a series of series of necessary emanations from necessary emanations from the One as the the One as the Eternal SourceEternal Source

B. Spinoza—the universe arises by B. Spinoza—the universe arises by logical logical necessity from the Divine Nature necessity from the Divine Nature and is and is itself Goditself God

C. Hegel—the universe is a dynamic C. Hegel—the universe is a dynamic evolution of the Absolute Spiritevolution of the Absolute Spirit

III. God as the ever-changing final III. God as the ever-changing final stage of the ongoing cosmic processstage of the ongoing cosmic process—not its efficient cause or ground—not its efficient cause or ground

A. According to Samuel A. According to Samuel Alexander, in Alexander, in its evolution from its evolution from primal space-time primal space-time the world is the world is ever on the move toward ever on the move toward an an infinitely perfect goalinfinitely perfect goal

B. While it perpetually strives B. While it perpetually strives toward toward this goal it never attains a this goal it never attains a state of state of absolute perfectionabsolute perfection

IV. God is the final cause of the Cosmic IV. God is the final cause of the Cosmic ProcessProcess

A. Aristotle’s view of matter as A. Aristotle’s view of matter as uncreated and eternal, but considers uncreated and eternal, but considers God not only the efficient cause but God not only the efficient cause but also the final cause that at its ends or also the final cause that at its ends or goal induces change in the worldgoal induces change in the world

B. Whitehead modifies this B. Whitehead modifies this approach approach and rejects God as and rejects God as efficient Cause or efficient Cause or creator, but creator, but considers God as the final considers God as the final cause that cause that brings order into the worldbrings order into the world

Proofs for the Proofs for the Existence of Existence of

GodGod

Cosmological Cosmological (Causal)(Causal)

Thomas AquinasThomas AquinasI. Attempts to prove God’s existence I. Attempts to prove God’s existence from everyday experiences of the from everyday experiences of the ordinary world around usordinary world around us

A. Knowledge must be fed to us A. Knowledge must be fed to us through the sensesthrough the senses

B. Since God, thus, cannot be B. Since God, thus, cannot be seen, seen, we know God directly, but we know God directly, but only through only through his effectshis effects

II. He produced the “Five Ways”II. He produced the “Five Ways”

A. The first is from movement in A. The first is from movement in the the sense of change from potency to sense of change from potency to act; act; the the Final MoverFinal Mover

B. The second seeks to prove B. The second seeks to prove God’s God’s existence as Efficient Cause, existence as Efficient Cause, from from whom we must have whom we must have derived our derived our existence and the existence and the existence of the existence of the worlds as we know worlds as we know it; it; The Creator or The Creator or MakerMaker

C. The third way deals with the very C. The third way deals with the very nature of being—this being is called nature of being—this being is called “contingent”, beings happen to exist, “contingent”, beings happen to exist, but they might never have existed but they might never have existed all; the all; the Necessary BeingNecessary Being

D. The fourth way begins from the D. The fourth way begins from the pattern which objects make in the pattern which objects make in the “Hierarchy of Nature”“Hierarchy of Nature”

1. Some things are more perfect 1. Some things are more perfect than than othersothers

2. Different things can be good 2. Different things can be good in in varying degrees according to varying degrees according to their their position in the “Hierarchy of position in the “Hierarchy of Being”Being”

3. This hierarchical goodness 3. This hierarchical goodness must must have some ultimate have some ultimate explanation which explanation which must itself be must itself be unlimited; the unlimited; the Source of Source of all all Perfection and Value Perfection and Value

E. The Teleological Way—argues E. The Teleological Way—argues from the complexity of nature and from the complexity of nature and the law and order underlyingthe law and order underlying

Teleological ProofTeleological Proof

I. William Paley wrote I. William Paley wrote Natural Natural TheologyTheology (1802) represents the 18 (1802) represents the 18thth century view in its “classical form”century view in its “classical form”

II. He writes that there could not be a II. He writes that there could not be a design without a designer:design without a designer:

Arrangement, disposition of parts,Arrangement, disposition of parts,subserviency of means to an end,subserviency of means to an end,relation of instruments to arise, implyrelation of instruments to arise, implythe presence of intelligence with the presence of intelligence with

mind.mind.The existence of such a complicatedThe existence of such a complicatedand interrelated world requires theand interrelated world requires theexistence of an eternal omniscientexistence of an eternal omniscientdesigner for such a magnificent worlddesigner for such a magnificent worldcould not have been the result of could not have been the result of

blind,blind,unthinking chaos.unthinking chaos.

III. Paley’s world was Newtonian, III. Paley’s world was Newtonian, based on a static mechanical model based on a static mechanical model of natureof nature

A. It was a world of design, not A. It was a world of design, not developmentdevelopment

B. It was concerned with the B. It was concerned with the order of order of nature, not the history of nature, not the history of naturenature

Ontological Ontological ArgumentArgument

I. Anselm (1033-1109) was foremost I. Anselm (1033-1109) was foremost among scholastic thinkersamong scholastic thinkers

II. Wanted to defend the faith by II. Wanted to defend the faith by intellectual reasoning rather than by intellectual reasoning rather than by arguments based on Scripture and arguments based on Scripture and other authoritiesother authorities

III. III. Cur Deus HomoCur Deus Homo; important ; important contribution to the theology of the contribution to the theology of the Atonement—interpreted the doctrine Atonement—interpreted the doctrine in terms of the satisfaction due to the in terms of the satisfaction due to the outraged majesty of Godoutraged majesty of God

IV. IV. The MonologianThe Monologian; was to establish ; was to establish the being of God solely from the the being of God solely from the consideration of truth and goodness consideration of truth and goodness as intellectual notionsas intellectual notions

V. V. The ProslogianThe Proslogian; the above reasoning ; the above reasoning was given a more systematic formwas given a more systematic form

VI. Popular until the latter half of the VI. Popular until the latter half of the 1313thth century: Descartes and Leibniz century: Descartes and Leibniz would revive itwould revive it

VII. If we accept Anselm’s definition of VII. If we accept Anselm’s definition of God as God as that being greater than which that being greater than which cannot be conceivedcannot be conceived, the ontological , the ontological argument asserts that it is contradictory argument asserts that it is contradictory to conceive fo God’s non-existence, to conceive fo God’s non-existence, since existence is inherent in God’s since existence is inherent in God’s perfectionperfection

VIII. To simplify this proof, one scholar VIII. To simplify this proof, one scholar devised the following outline:devised the following outline:

A. I have an idea of GodA. I have an idea of God

B. I am finiteB. I am finite

C. My idea of God is infiniteC. My idea of God is infinite

D. Therefore the idea of God must D. Therefore the idea of God must be—the idea must have originated be—the idea must have originated

with with the infinite mindthe infinite mind

IX. Anselm’s argument is IX. Anselm’s argument is a prioria priori, , without recourse to empirical existencewithout recourse to empirical existence

Moral ProofMoral Proof

I. Immanuel Kant develops this proof I. Immanuel Kant develops this proof after he destroyed the first threeafter he destroyed the first three

II. He established the possibility of II. He established the possibility of belief in God by means of a method belief in God by means of a method which would have vast repercussions which would have vast repercussions in modern and contemporary in modern and contemporary philosophical theologyphilosophical theology

III. His proof:III. His proof:

A. Duty comes to us in the form A. Duty comes to us in the form of a of a categorical imperativecategorical imperative

B. It is B. It is categoricalcategorical in in contradistinction contradistinction to to hypotheticalhypothetical, it , it is absolute and is absolute and unconditionalunconditional

C. It could not follow the C. It could not follow the formula; formula; you you ought to do your duty ifought to do your duty if because this is because this is reconcilable with reconcilable with you ought to do your you ought to do your duty if you duty if you have sufficient desire or have sufficient desire or inclination inclination to do itto do it

D. The hypothetical imperative D. The hypothetical imperative concerns concerns prudential, not moralprudential, not moral actionsactions

E. Kant held that if this analysis of E. Kant held that if this analysis of morality was correct; then three morality was correct; then three things would follow:things would follow:

1. The Freedom of the Will, it 1. The Freedom of the Will, it would would be ludicrous to feel obliged be ludicrous to feel obliged to do an to do an action if in fact we were action if in fact we were unable to do unable to do it, it, ought implies canought implies can

2. The Immortality of the Soul, 2. The Immortality of the Soul, in spite in spite of repeated attempts we of repeated attempts we never achieve never achieve our highest desireour highest desire—to be wholly moral —to be wholly moral or goodor good

(a) Therefore we must have (a) Therefore we must have faith faith in and live in the in and live in the expectation of a expectation of a life beyond this life beyond this one where the one where the supreme supreme achievement is possible achievement is possible and and actualactual

(b) Thus, mortality (b) Thus, mortality demands that demands that we believe in we believe in the immortality of the immortality of the soulthe soul

3. The Existence of God3. The Existence of God(a) He was aware that the pursuit (a) He was aware that the pursuit

of of the moral life does not always the moral life does not always lead to lead to happiness and the pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of happiness happiness does not necessarily lead does not necessarily lead to the to the achievement of virtueachievement of virtue

(b) Kant held that this insight (b) Kant held that this insight leads a leads a moral agent to believe in a moral agent to believe in a God who God who can correlate the two—can correlate the two—happiness and happiness and virtuevirtue

(c ) Technically, Kant did not (c ) Technically, Kant did not regard regard this as a “proof” of God; this as a “proof” of God; rather it is rather it is regarded as an regarded as an “invitation”“invitation”

Soren Soren KiekegaardKiekegaard(1813-1855)(1813-1855)

IntroductionIntroduction

I. Lived in the 19I. Lived in the 19thth century, but many century, but many scholars believe he belongs to the scholars believe he belongs to the 2020thth

II. His influence became prominent II. His influence became prominent after WWIafter WWI

III. Known as the “Father of Christian III. Known as the “Father of Christian Existentialism”Existentialism”

IV. His family lifeIV. His family life

A. Father was a dominating A. Father was a dominating personality—successful in business personality—successful in business and and retired at age of 40retired at age of 40

B. Kierkegaard with the 7B. Kierkegaard with the 7thth and and last last child (first child came after 4 child (first child came after 4 months of months of marriagemarriage

C. His mother was 45 and his C. His mother was 45 and his father as father as 56 at his birth56 at his birth

D. His father was a man of great D. His father was a man of great guilt feelings, interpreted asguilt feelings, interpreted as

1. a result of the “premature” 1. a result of the “premature” birth of birth of his first childhis first child

2. a result of his cursing God as 2. a result of his cursing God as a a young manyoung man

E. His father enjoyed taking him on E. His father enjoyed taking him on imaginary tripsimaginary trips

F. Strict religious orthodoxy was part F. Strict religious orthodoxy was part of his younger yearsof his younger years

G. He would break from his father’s G. He would break from his father’s influence for a while but would influence for a while but would reconcile and experience a sort of reconcile and experience a sort of “conversion” at the age of 25“conversion” at the age of 25

V. He entered the University of V. He entered the University of Copenhagen in 1920 to study Copenhagen in 1920 to study philosophyphilosophy

A. His real interest were in A. His real interest were in literature literature and philosophyand philosophy

B. While at the university he B. While at the university he seemed seemed to have been a charming to have been a charming and very and very popular studentpopular student

His “Conversion”His “Conversion”

I. A series of events brought about a I. A series of events brought about a spiritual crisis in his lifespiritual crisis in his life

A. His father’s confession of a A. His father’s confession of a “moral “moral sin” committed with his sin” committed with his servant girlservant girl

B. His broken engagement with his B. His broken engagement with his fiancé, Regine Olson in 1837fiancé, Regine Olson in 1837

1. She was a lovely and bright 1. She was a lovely and bright young young ladylady

2. He became engaged to 2. He became engaged to Regine after Regine after completing his degreecompleting his degree

3. After a year he realized he 3. After a year he realized he had had made a mistake and the made a mistake and the engagement engagement was brokenwas broken

4. He never answered the “why” 4. He never answered the “why” of of the breakupthe breakup

a. He claimed to have loved a. He claimed to have loved her her and never loved any otherand never loved any other

b. In his b. In his JournalsJournals, he spoke , he spoke of a of a “divine protest”“divine protest”

c. This experience began c. This experience began what he what he referred to as his referred to as his aesthetiaesthetic c periodperiod

5. He wrote several books under 5. He wrote several books under a a pseudonym which dealt with his pseudonym which dealt with his

relationship to Reginerelationship to Regine

a. a. Either/orEither/or

b. b. RepetitionRepetition

c. c. Fear and TremblingFear and Trembling

d. d. Editying Discourses Editying Discourses

C. He had written against a C. He had written against a “scandalous paper” and he had “scandalous paper” and he had expected his attacks would elicit expected his attacks would elicit support, such did not happensupport, such did not happen

1. The paper turned on him with 1. The paper turned on him with a a series of savage articles and series of savage articles and cartoons cartoons which held him up to which held him up to ridiculeridicule

2. He then suffered a 2. He then suffered a “martyrdom of “martyrdom of laughter” which laughter” which resulted in isolating resulted in isolating him further him further from the masses, which he from the masses, which he likened likened at this time of a at this time of a flock of dumb flock of dumb geesegeese

3. He saw this experience as 3. He saw this experience as “providential” and increased his “providential” and increased his resolve to pursue his religious writingsresolve to pursue his religious writings

4. During this period he wrote his two 4. During this period he wrote his two philosophical masterpiecesphilosophical masterpieces

a. a. Philosophical FragmentsPhilosophical Fragments (1844) (1844)

bb. Concluding Unscientific . Concluding Unscientific PostscriptsPostscripts (1846)(1846)

5. His other works at this time 5. His other works at this time included:included:

a. a. Purity of HeartPurity of Heart

b. b. The Concept of DreadThe Concept of Dread

c. c. Sickness Unto DeathSickness Unto Death

d. d. Training in ChristianityTraining in Christianity

e. e. For Self-ExaminationFor Self-Examination

II. During the last decades of his life he II. During the last decades of his life he came to a profound awareness of came to a profound awareness of Christian truth and believed that he was Christian truth and believed that he was called to witness to this truth as he saw called to witness to this truth as he saw itit

A. He realized this would entail A. He realized this would entail suffering for him as an individual at the suffering for him as an individual at the hands of the majorityhands of the majority

B. The writings of these years all B. The writings of these years all point point to the difficulty of becoming a to the difficulty of becoming a Christian Christian and the “hypocrisy” of and the “hypocrisy” of conventional conventional Christianity and the Christianity and the institutional churchinstitutional church

C. He finally felt called to make a C. He finally felt called to make a direct and unsparing attack on the direct and unsparing attack on the state church of Denmarkstate church of Denmark

D. Articles and pamphlets which D. Articles and pamphlets which appeared between 1854 and 1855 appeared between 1854 and 1855 were published in English as were published in English as Attack Attack Upon ChristendomUpon Christendom

E. According to Kierkegaard, where E. According to Kierkegaard, where everyone is considered Christian by everyone is considered Christian by the conventional act of baptism, the conventional act of baptism, true true Christianity does not exitChristianity does not exit

His ThoughtHis ThoughtI. His work can be seen as a sustained I. His work can be seen as a sustained attack upon all forms of rational attack upon all forms of rational theologytheology

A. Like Hegel, he uses a dialectical A. Like Hegel, he uses a dialectical method—but his methodology was method—but his methodology was existential, that is:existential, that is:

B. It does not move within a B. It does not move within a closed, closed, necessary, logical systemnecessary, logical system

C. It begins, rather, with a single C. It begins, rather, with a single individual confronted with the individual confronted with the possibilities of one’s own existencepossibilities of one’s own existence

II. His existential dialectic moves II. His existential dialectic moves with three chief sphereswith three chief spheres

A. The A. The AestheticAesthetic1. This period is identified 1. This period is identified

with with “romantic sensibility”“romantic sensibility”(a) sensual immediacy(a) sensual immediacy

—Don —Don JuanJuan(b) doubt—Faust(b) doubt—Faust(c) despair—the (c) despair—the

wandering wandering JewJew

2. Chief characteristic of this sphere is 2. Chief characteristic of this sphere is the lack of involvement, an inability to the lack of involvement, an inability to make a determined and permanent make a determined and permanent actionaction

3. One becomes a drifting victim of 3. One becomes a drifting victim of one’s own search for the “pleasurable” one’s own search for the “pleasurable” moment, which is never satisfied and moment, which is never satisfied and leads to restlessnessleads to restlessness

4. This futility leads to the second stage 4. This futility leads to the second stage of the aesthetic despair—the skepticism of the aesthetic despair—the skepticism of Faust—which is a qualified form of of Faust—which is a qualified form of despair despair

5. The recognition of despair is invoked 5. The recognition of despair is invoked in the figure of the Wandering Jew, in in the figure of the Wandering Jew, in whom lurks the profounder despair which whom lurks the profounder despair which results in complete absence of hoperesults in complete absence of hope

6. In Sickness Unto Death, he analyses 6. In Sickness Unto Death, he analyses the dialectic of despair with brilliant the dialectic of despair with brilliant insightinsight

a. Despair must come before one a. Despair must come before one realizes the true consciousness of liferealizes the true consciousness of life

b. Despair can lead to a spiritual b. Despair can lead to a spiritual hardening and deathhardening and death

c. Yet, it can also lead one to c. Yet, it can also lead one to awaken awaken to one’s eternal validityto one’s eternal validity

7. Anxiety and despair will bring one 7. Anxiety and despair will bring one before a decision and this decision before a decision and this decision requires a “leap” to a new stagerequires a “leap” to a new stage

II. The EthicalII. The EthicalA. The leap to the Ethical Stage A. The leap to the Ethical Stage

can can be summed up with the phrase, be summed up with the phrase, choose thyselfchoose thyselfB. The aim of the ethical life is B. The aim of the ethical life is

not not simply to simply to know the truthknow the truth but to but to become the truthbecome the truth; not to ; not to

produce produce objective truth but to objective truth but to transform transform one’s subject selfone’s subject self

C. Most ethical systems are overly C. Most ethical systems are overly formal and cannot take into account formal and cannot take into account certain indispensable existential certain indispensable existential realitiesrealities

1. For instance, he would criticize 1. For instance, he would criticize Kant’s Moral Theology for the following Kant’s Moral Theology for the following reasons:reasons:

2. It tended to make evil and sin 2. It tended to make evil and sin superficial rather than radicalsuperficial rather than radical

3. It failed to deal adequately with 3. It failed to deal adequately with the the motivation or will to carry out the motivation or will to carry out the moral imperativemoral imperative

D. In Fear and Trembling, he wrote D. In Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the about the teleological suspension teleological suspension of the ethicalof the ethical

1. Could there be situations in 1. Could there be situations in which which one’s absolute obedience to one’s absolute obedience to God would God would contravene the contravene the Categorical Categorical Imperative—such as Imperative—such as Abraham’s Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaacsacrifice of his son Isaac

2. He would answer 2. He would answer yesyes! For one ! For one who who knows the living knows the living God God determines determines his relation to the universal his relation to the universal by his by his relation to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute, not his

relation to the relation to the absolute by his absolute by his relation relation to the universalto the universalD. For Kierkegaard, most ethical D. For Kierkegaard, most ethical systems fail and there must be an systems fail and there must be an existential leapexistential leap to the religious stage to the religious stage of existenceof existence

III. III. The ReligiousThe Religious

A. There are two possibilities in A. There are two possibilities in the the religious stagereligious stage, as recorded in , as recorded in Philosophical Fragments in which he Philosophical Fragments in which he

compares the religion of compares the religion of Socrates (who Socrates (who is symbol of all is symbol of all philosophical idealism) philosophical idealism) with the with the Christian doctrine of creationChristian doctrine of creation

1. 1. The religion of immanenceThe religion of immanence: the : the religion of Socrates presupposes that religion of Socrates presupposes that religious truth is in every human beingreligious truth is in every human being

a. All people posses truth; what is a. All people posses truth; what is needed is a teacher or midwife needed is a teacher or midwife

who, by who, by skillful means, can induce the skillful means, can induce the student student to give birth to the knowledge to give birth to the knowledge located located withinwithin

b. Each student is his/her own b. Each student is his/her own center center and the entire world centers and the entire world centers on the on the studentstudent

c. The teacher and the occasion of c. The teacher and the occasion of his his teachings have no special teachings have no special significancesignificance

2. 2. The religion of JesusThe religion of Jesus: :

a. But what if Socrates is wronga. But what if Socrates is wrong—what —what if a specific moment in time if a specific moment in time is of vital is of vital significance for the significance for the acquisition of truth?acquisition of truth?

b. Then, the teacher becomes b. Then, the teacher becomes an an indispensable and unique bearer indispensable and unique bearer of the of the truthtruth

c. The teacher must bring truth c. The teacher must bring truth to the to the student and give to the student and give to the student the student the conditions necessary conditions necessary for understanding for understanding itit

d. A teacher who gives the d. A teacher who gives the student the student the requisite condition and requisite condition and truth is no truth is no ordinary teacher, but ordinary teacher, but should be called should be called Savior and Savior and RedeemerRedeemer

e. The disciple, who, in a state e. The disciple, who, in a state of error of error receives the condition and receives the condition and the truth the truth becomes another man . becomes another man . . . A man of a . . A man of a different quality, or different quality, or as we may call him, as we may call him, a new creaturea new creature

3. He regards the Incarnation as a 3. He regards the Incarnation as a paradox since it exceeds all limits of paradox since it exceeds all limits of human comprehensionhuman comprehension

4. It is the 4. It is the Absolute ParadoxAbsolute Paradox, the , the AbsurdAbsurd to which we can respond to which we can respond either in either in FaithFaith or in or in OffenseOffense

5. The paradox of the Incarnation is 5. The paradox of the Incarnation is doubly absurd for:doubly absurd for:

a. It claims that God has a. It claims that God has become become human, that the Eternal has human, that the Eternal has become become temporal, and; temporal, and;

b. Human happiness can have b. Human happiness can have its point its point of departure in a historical of departure in a historical event, the event, the historicity of which can historicity of which can be only be be only be accorded probabilityaccorded probability

6. He stresses that one’s eternal 6. He stresses that one’s eternal happiness can be based upon happiness can be based upon historical knowledge alone, for historical knowledge alone, for history is the sphere of the relative history is the sphere of the relative and the probableand the probable

7. Eternal truth can be appropriated 7. Eternal truth can be appropriated only by a only by a Faith in the ParadoxFaith in the Paradox held held in infinite passionin infinite passion

III. III. Truth is SubjectivityTruth is Subjectivity

A. Kierkegaard did not deny that A. Kierkegaard did not deny that there there truths independent of the truths independent of the knower—knower— what he insisted was what he insisted was that it wrong to that it wrong to think of religious think of religious truth--, i.e., faith, as truth--, i.e., faith, as acquired in the acquired in the same way one obtains same way one obtains knowledgeknowledge

B. He wrote in his Journals:B. He wrote in his Journals:

The thing is to find a Truth which The thing is to find a Truth which is is true for me, to find the idea for true for me, to find the idea for which I which I can live and die . . . What can live and die . . . What good would good would it do me to be able to it do me to be able to explain the explain the meaning of Christianity meaning of Christianity if it had no if it had no deeper significance for deeper significance for me and my lifeme and my life

C. In Concluding Unscientific C. In Concluding Unscientific Postscripts, he stresses that it is not Postscripts, he stresses that it is not the objective truth of Christianity, but the objective truth of Christianity, but the relationship of the existing the relationship of the existing individual to Christianity which is the individual to Christianity which is the fundamental problem—in religion fundamental problem—in religion truth is subjective because it is a truth is subjective because it is a truth that requires personal truth that requires personal appropriationappropriation

d. He is referring to a special kind of d. He is referring to a special kind of truth—it is existential truth, truth that truth—it is existential truth, truth that cannot be known through a cannot be known through a parrot-like parrot-like echoecho but only through one’s own but only through one’s own activityactivity

6. Thus, religious truth requires a 6. Thus, religious truth requires a leap of faithleap of faith

7. This leap is a moral and religious 7. This leap is a moral and religious category and has to do with what category and has to do with what William James called live options, William James called live options, those existential decisions of life those existential decisions of life involving new situationsinvolving new situations

His InfluenceHis InfluenceI. The immediate effect of his writings I. The immediate effect of his writings outside Denmark was extremely smalloutside Denmark was extremely small

II. For over a century his influence II. For over a century his influence would be small, but when his impact would be small, but when his impact was felt, it was felt hardwas felt, it was felt hard

III. He may be called the III. He may be called the Father of Father of Neo-OrthodoxyNeo-Orthodoxy; his system is call the ; his system is call the Theology of CrisisTheology of Crisis