Faith as a Passionate Acceptance of the Irrational

Religion – within the context of Kierkegaard’s philosophy – is a personal, passionate relationship with the absolute. The religious “sphere of existence,” as defined by Kierkegaard is not an object or a specific event. It is a preference – just as any of his other realms of existence are – of an approach to life; and though one cannot be born into it, it is accessible to all. For Kierkegaard, this approach to life was not a logical desire but a psychological need; and, while he would never claim it to be the right “sphere,” he seems to be under the impression that it is a more correct choice.

Faith within this realm is defined by a paradoxical nature and complete irrationality. It, therefore, cannot be understood by anyone – ostracizing those who experience it (which fits nicely within Kierkegaard’s own feelings of ostracism, and can explain his focus on inner integrity as part of “Problema I”). Multiple questions then arise. Excluding a lack of substantial evidence – how can the surrender to faith, given that it is defined by its irrationality, be justified? Perhaps it quells a hidden inability to reconcile with the paradox Kierkegaard sees throughout Christianity – his example being the obedience of Abraham (though it could be argued in response that the version of Christianity that he is so opposed to at the time seems inferior because it striving toward the same goal, but I digress). Could such a submission to something so illogical be subtly dangerous – promoting dangerous actions such as those found by extremists? Certainly Kierkegaard would argue that those individuals who use this justification for nefarious action do not understand his philosophy, but that does not change the idea; it does not prevent his words from being interpreted as such. Kierkegaard’s philosophy is known for its focus on the individual – especially in a self-righteous light – but if the acceptance of irrationality of faith were to cause a tendency to accept any other seemingly senseless event or ideal then there is an inherent danger in accepting this “lifestyle” choice.

Kierkegaard does not view religion as a positive force, but rather something to be endured. Kierkegaard ends “Problema I” stating that faith is accessible to anyone because it is a passion – following the Latin origin defined as something to suffer. Though there is something intrinsically glorious in the irrationality of Kierkegaard’s “faith.” It is mystifying and, therefore, appealing. It has an allure that is charming, but not pleasurable. There is a beauty in the ostracizing it creates as a “single individual” above “the universal” – though this beauty is not equitable to that as found by order. Faith, therefore, is neither positive nor negative but a hybrid, which is itself a contradiction.

Religion is a lifestyle – not dawned on like a costume but neither is it intrinsic to the core composition of a person. Instead, it is part of the malleable pieces of our outward expression – casting a teleological suspension of the ethical, superficially, as a persona. Begging, and I understand how unprofessional it is to end on a question, but why does a suspension of the ethical for a telos matter at all outside of the context of faith?