[EDIT] The praxis of making a Leap of Faith ...

[FireDragon76]

It seems obvious to me. I read your post & what you linked to.

Like I was implying, Kierkegaard did not live in a country where UFO religion was a thing. Kierkegaard advocated peasant pietism. While he saw human life as a hopeless mess of contradictions and impossibilities, he advocated for a simple, uncomplicated peasant faith as a leap beyond the hopelessness.

I have read some of Kierkegaard, he is quite a profound thinker (and he didn't just write about religion, but also about philosophy in general). Unlike American evangelicals, he would not be interested at all in the polemical arguing for the correctness of his beliefs, since that would contradict what he saw as the basis for true faith.

Kierkegaard was too much of an existentialist or individualist to be an advocate for the sort of religion that Heaven's Gate advocated. Despite his seemingly dour philosophy about the world, he paradoxically loved people and Copenhagen, and often enjoyed walking about watching people- but he did not believe in an uncritical approach to the world, or accepting an idea merely because it was popular. I doubt he would advocate an uncritical acceptance of a religion that essentially advocated suicide.

 

[ananda]

Lots of modern religions have Jesus as a religious figure. You can find statues or portraits of Jesus in some Hindu or Taoist temples in Asian countries (or even in the US). And of course, Islam and the Bahai religion consider Jesus a prophet. But that doesn't make them meaningfully Christian in the usual sense that is understood.

I agree, they wouldn't be considered "Christian" in the usual (majority) view. But then again, even the Christian scriptures promote a minority view (Matthew 7:14).

 

[ananda]

Like I was implying, Kierkegaard did not live in a country where UFO religion was a thing. Kierkegaard advocated peasant pietism. While he saw human life as a hopeless mess of contradictions and impossibilities, he advocated for a simple, uncomplicated peasant faith as a leap beyond the hopelessness.

I have read some of Kierkegaard, he is quite a profound thinker (and he didn't just write about religion, but also about philosophy in general). Unlike American evangelicals, he would not be interested at all in the polemical arguing for the correctness of his beliefs, since that would contradict what he saw as the basis for true faith.

Kierkegaard was too much of an existentialist or individualist to be an advocate for the sort of religion that Heaven's Gate advocated. Despite his seemingly dour philosophy about the world, he paradoxically loved people and Copenhagen, and often enjoyed walking about watching people- but he did not believe in an uncritical approach to the world, or accepting an idea merely because it was popular. I doubt he would advocate an uncritical acceptance of a religion that essentially advocated suicide.

He accepted the knighthood of Abraham, who was determined to kill his son. That's more or less the same, IMO.

 

[FireDragon76]

He accepted the knighthood of Abraham, who was determined to kill his son. That's more or less the same, IMO.

That doesn't mean I dismiss his entire philosophy out of hand. Perhaps you should not, either.

Kierkegaard did not situate morality with obedience to external rules and abstract principles. That's another place he would differ from American evangelicals. And that's precisely why Abraham's story is so emblematic of his philosophy. For Kierkegaard, relationships are more fundamental than abstract morality.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree, they wouldn't be considered "Christian" in the usual (majority) view. But then again, even the Christian scriptures promote a minority view (Matthew 7:14).

All that verse means to me is that truth isn't a popularity contest. I believe that's wise words.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree, they wouldn't be considered "Christian" in the usual (majority) view. But then again, even the Christian scriptures promote a minority view (Matthew 7:14).

BTW, a profound realization for me some time ago was that Jesus isn't exclusive to any particular religion, and Christians don't even have the market cornered on reverence for him. Giving up Christianity doesn't mean I suddenly have to take an eraser to Jesus. I can respect him in my own way and acknowledge my Christian roots, without having to put what amounts to blind faith in obviously flawed human beings and their interpretations of his life.

 

[ananda]

That doesn't mean I dismiss his entire philosophy out of hand. Perhaps you should not, either.

Kierkegaard did not situate morality with obedience to external rules and abstract principles. That's another place he would differ from American evangelicals. And that's precisely why Abraham's story is so emblematic of his philosophy. For Kierkegaard, relationships are more fundamental than abstract morality.

I was merely pointing out how his philosophy is not universal, in the sense that it can become irrational outside of his own culture and time.

 

[FireDragon76]

I was merely pointing out how his philosophy is not universal, in the sense that it can become irrational outside of his own culture and time.

I agree. It's best not to try to understand him outside his cultural context.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems obvious to me. I read your post & what you linked to.

Ok. That's a good start. Just keep in mind that I chose a relatively short article because a lot folks around here complain about being presented with long articles or videos. So, there's quite a bit more to Kierkegaard in the detail of this thought than simply what is summarized in the article. In fact, I'm still researching his philosophy, and even I haven't covered all of the terrain of his thinking yet. Pascal is a different matter; and he was similar to Kierkegaard in some ways epistemologically speaking, meaning that both thought the bible, in and of itself, was definitely a good thing and a help, but not enough in and of itself to existentially commit to Jesus as the Real, Living, Risen Presence that the N.T. writers attested to. No, Kierkegaard said that some other drive had to motivate a person to get over what is known as Lessing's Ditch, a concept that has to do not so much with distances or with quantifications of evidence, but with our personal risk assessments and hesitations that hold us back from making a commitment to Christ.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read and to respond. I do appreciate it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

bump

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@InterestedAtheist

So, first off, thank you for providing the articles by Bob Seidensticker! You've done me the favor of now being able to spot and add yet one more highly intelligent atheist contender to my existing list, which grows longer by the day.

In assessing these two articles you've provided, I think its only fair and appropriate and academically correct to know who it is that is providing the thoughtful analyses behind the work we'll be scrutinizing. Interestingly enough, we need to realize that Bob S. is an atheist and a graduate of MIT, all of which [to me, anyway] screams bias on one side of things but also serves as a signal that he shouldn't simply be dismissed as a typical newbie atheist who's riding on sheer adrenaline after having read the latest Richard Dawkins book or some other newly minted kick against the Christian faith.

Any comments before we proceed further, @InterestedAtheist?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@InterestedAtheist

So, first off, thank you for providing the articles by Bob Seidensticker! You've done me the favor of now being able to spot and add yet one more highly intelligent atheist contender to my existing list, which grows longer by the day.

In assessing these two articles you've provided, I think its only fair and appropriate and academically correct to know who it is that is providing the thoughtful analyses behind the work we'll be scrutinizing. Interestingly enough, we need to realize that Bob S. is an atheist and a graduate of MIT, all of which [to me, anyway] screams bias on one side of things but also serves as a signal that he shouldn't simply be dismissed as a typical newbie atheist who's riding on sheer adrenaline after having read the latest Richard Dawkins book or some other newly minted kick against the Christian faith.

Any comments before we proceed further, @InterestedAtheist?

That all seems fair, Philo! Why don't you get started. I understand you're going to go through the articles and debate them point by point. I'm going to bed now, I'm afraid, but look forward to reading your thoughts tomorrow.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That all seems fair, Philo! Why don't you get started. I understand you're going to go through the articles and debate them point by point. I'm going to bed now, I'm afraid, but look forward to reading your thoughts tomorrow.

Yes, I can attempt to do so. However, since like yourself, I can become a busy man, this could turn into a protracted project and may move slowly, or more quickly if time permits.

Have a good evening!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, I can attempt to do so. However, since like yourself, I can become a busy man, this could turn into a protracted project and may move slowly, or more quickly if time permits.

Have a good evening!

No problem, Philo. I don't mind waiting. Whenever it's convenient for you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No problem, Philo. I don't mind waiting. Whenever it's convenient for you.

So, the first little bit from the 1st article to tackle is Bob Seidensticker's assertion that:

For a clear and succinct discussion of what evidence is enough to support a claim, there’s not much better than the observations of German philosopher Gotthold Lessing (1729–81). Lessing was a Christian, but he argues that history is insufficient support for religious truths.​

Do you, yourself, agree with this?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So, the first little bit from the 1st article to tackle is Bob Seidensticker's assertion that:

For a clear and succinct discussion of what evidence is enough to support a claim, there’s not much better than the observations of German philosopher Gotthold Lessing (1729–81). Lessing was a Christian, but he argues that history is insufficient support for religious truths.​

Do you, yourself, agree with this?

Short answer: yes.
To speak precisely: I'm not in a position to endorse whether or not Gotthold Lessing is the best observer of what evidence supports a claim; but I trust we won't be debating that, or arguing over whether any other philosophers bettered him; just confining ourselves to Seidenstecker's article about his Ditch.
As to the other two assertions: Since the article says that Lessing was a Christian, and since the article says that he argued that history is insufficient support for religious truths, I'm happy to agree with both of those.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Short answer: yes.
To speak precisely: I'm not in a position to endorse whether or not Gotthold Lessing is the best observer of what evidence supports a claim; but I trust we won't be debating that, or arguing over whether any other philosophers bettered him; just confining ourselves to Seidenstecker's article about his Ditch.
As to the other two assertions: Since the article says that Lessing was a Christian, and since the article says that he argued that history is insufficient support for religious truths, I'm happy to agree with both of those.

I think the main problem here in this whole discussion it that there is the false assumption that the Christian faith SHOULD be somehow provable in order to be valuable or to be seen as true. Pascal, Kierkegaard and other even more modern Christian voices I can refer to---although not of the Christian Apologetic group----will contend with this whole epistemic notion and say that it is not only screwy but ill-fit for dealing with religious questions, especially those that pertain to the Christian Faith.

SO, the implication is that human rationality and intellect should ONLY be expected to add just so much to a person's mental matrix as far as belief is concerned and that somewhere in all of this, a person will have to make a conscious decision to commit to following Christ even without the much vaunted status of having had various historical claims proven beyond some opaque shadow of a doubt or by being T-boned by having one's high expectations for Christianity fulfilled, that is, to have faith without demanding that something supernatural or miraculous has to happen in order to have that faith.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I think the main problem here in this whole discussion it that there is the false assumption that the Christian faith SHOULD be somehow provable in order to be valuable or to be seen as true. Pascal, Kierkegaard and other even more modern Christian voices I can refer to---although not of the Christian Apologetic group----will contend with this whole epistemic notion and say that it is not only screwy but ill-fit for dealing with religious questions, especially those that pertain to the Christian Faith.

SO, the implication is that human rationality, intellect should ONLY be expected to add just so much to a person's mental matrix as far as belief is concerned and that somewhere, a person will have to make a conscious decision to commit to following Christ even without the much vaunted status of having had various historical claims proven beyond some opaque shadow of doubt or T-boned by high expectations that something supernatural or miraculous has to happen in order to have faith.

Okay. But that sounds to me like you're just saying - to simplify, but not, I think, to distort your argument - that it doesn't matter what is true; people should simply believe whatever they wish.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though? Perhaps you're just saying that it's not necessary to prove Christianity absolutely, just beyond reasonable doubt? Is it that you're saying that the ditch is not really all that wide, and you can make the leap of faith to get across it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay. But that sounds to me like you're just saying - to simplify, but not, I think, to distort your argument - that it doesn't matter what is true; people should simply believe whatever they wish.

Not quite.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though? Perhaps you're just saying that it's not necessary to prove Christianity absolutely, just beyond reasonable doubt? Is it that you're saying that the ditch is not really all that wide, and you can make the leap of faith to get across it?

Yes; Kierkegaard thus said this first; that what Lessing sees as an impossible Ditch can actually be crossed through various human and divine measures [together](such as is comically illustrated by Johnny Blaze in that OP movie clip which I'm sure China is blocking out from your individual viewing pleasure). Of course, in an earlier kind of way, it could be said that Pascal before him intimated this kind of JUMP, and if we go even earlier back and look at epistemological things in a slightly different way, there also was of course, Paul the Apostle, and I guess Jesus the Lord in some ways, as well.

So, no, we're not going to give in to Enlightenment predilections of what faith MUST be, and we're going to cogently keep epistemic measures that go with faith in Christ on one side and different epistemic measures that go more appropriately with scientific thinking, on the other side (much in the way that Methodological Naturalist who might be atheists do in contrast to the way that Philosophical Naturalist, like Dawkins, don't).

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes; Kierkegaard thus said this first; that what Lessing sees as an impossible Ditch can actually be crossed through various human and divine measure [together](such as is comically illustrated by Johnny Blaze in that OP movie clip which I'm sure China is blocking out from your individual viewing pleasure). Of course, in an earlier kind of way, there was Pascal before him who intimated this kind of JUMP, and going even earlier back, and in a slightly different way, there was of course, Paul the Apostle, and I guess Jesus the Lord in some ways, as well.

So, no, we're not going to give in to Enlightenment predilections of what faith MUST be, and we're going to cogently keep epistemic measures that go with faith in Christ on one side and different epistemic measures that go more appropriately with scientific thinking, on the other side (much in the way that Methodological Naturalist who might be atheists do in contrast to the way that Philosophical Naturalist, like Dawkins, don't).

Okay. Well, thank you for your forthright approach. In short, you're going to believe whatever you wish, regardless of how much reason there is or isn't to think that it might actually be true.

Fair enough!

And yes, youtube is blocked in China, but I have seen Ghost Rider. I thought the sequel was much better, though!