"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
This line, from Philippians 2:12, is the verse that Kierkegaard alludes to in his Fear and Trembling. He makes reference to this in order to espouse his belief that faith should not be a matter taken lightly, but a very serious endeavor for which much thought and consideration is given. He considers true faith to be the abandonment of reason, an embrace of logical paradox with the goal of obtaining a strong relationship with the absolute.
The example of such a "teleological suspension of the ethical" that he provides us with is the story of Abraham and Isaac. In short, God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac (through whom God promised Abraham a great nation of people), but then stops him just before he can follow through. Abraham's reason has clearly been put on hold here, as his belief in God necessitates that he both thinks that Isaac will die and that he will survive so that God's promise will not go unfulfilled. Such acceptance of a logical contradiction is the only way, in Kierkegaard's eyes, to reach the realm of religious faith.
As we discussed in class, the fact that Abraham, who so well forsook reason for faith, is considered a model for the Judeo-Christian belief is more than a little disturbing. In any other arena, such ignorance of reason would be cause for great concern, and anyone that actively practiced faith would be thought of as mad. However, in religion, such strong belief is highly valued. For a species that prides itself on being set apart due to its superior ability to reason, the abandonment of said reason is a surprisingly widespread ideal.
If these most powerful religions can support this sort of behavior, not to mention idolize it, does that not teach followers to leave behind their ability to think and question? In my experience, although very few religious people abandon reason to the extent of Abraham, they do in fact seem to ignore the discrepancies and other unsavory parts of the Bible. Many do not go past what they hear in church to discover that the Biblical God was often terribly cruel and unjust, in contrast to the conventional portrayal of an all-loving and forgiving Lord. Reading the Bible in an academic setting can be eye-opening to such people as they may realize that they have not been told the whole story.
Kierkegaard's hope that one will consider his faith with fear and trembling is definitely a valid concern. I feel that reason should never be forsaken, whether or not it is to the extent that Abraham took it, and religion sometimes asks that you do exactly that. If that isn't just cause for fear, then what is?
It is interesting that you claim that "reason should never be forsaken." As a skeptic of religion and pseudoscience, I may believe in the superiority of reason over what is called blind faith or truthiness. My concern is that you do not adequately addressed Kierkegaard concern that we live in an age of reflection but not action (Kierkegaard 3-4). Let us assume that as part of the human condition a person contemplating whether or not he should get out of bed. There is no reason to actually continue living and troubling oneself with the consequences of life. Some people may invent reasons to live, but the point is that those "reasons" are not achieved through rigorous use of reason but acceptance of a belief. If one accepts this, then one might be more ready to make an exception in there universal rule of reason. The readiness, however, to amend the universal is not fueled by reason but by the fear and trembling involved with accepting death. I do have a way out of this, but it requires dismissing deontological ethics.
ReplyDeleteThe citation is from the textbook.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Abraham put reason on hold when he began to sacrifice his son Isaac, but it seems as if it was a very specific type of reason that was compromised. Abraham's ethical reasoning (not sure if that is actually a term that is used in philosophical discussions, but I'm just referring to the reasoning used to determine what is right and wrong) was beaten out by his logical reasoning when he chose to kill his own son (which is generally considered to be wrong or unethical by society nowadays). It seems as if he is forced to embrace an illogical paradox when expecting Isaac to die and also expecting him to fulfill God's promise, but I don't necessarily think that's the case. Every time I've heard the story of Isaac and Abraham, I always thought Abraham fully expected Isaac to perish. It would stand to reason that if God was able to give the elderly and formerly barren Sarah a son once, God would be able to do it a second time. Abraham could have been operating under the assumption that God had a plan and that perhaps Isaac was merely a means to the ultimate end of the prophesy.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not terribly familiar with the plot points leading up to the actual sacrifice story, so I'm not sure if God specified in his promise to Abraham that it would be he and Sarah's FIRST son to create the "great nation." If that's the case, my whole argument kind of falls through. Of course, I'm sure it is well within the means of the Old Testament God to alter the fine print in some promises on occasion.
Allison, I don't think Abraham 'leaves behind' his reason, but rather 'goes beyond' it. Abraham does not abandon all reason and believe that he is embracing any kind of 'good' as it could possibly be communicated to anyone else. Abraham (or the knight of faith generally) must employ logic and reason to first identify the paradox as a paradox before he can embrace it.
ReplyDelete