Fear and Trembling

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi All

I am new here. I'm not a Christian - I'm a Taoist/Hindu. I am also a philosophy student and an administrator for the forum run by Richard Dawkins, with whom I agree on some things (disbelief in an anthropomorphised God) but disagree strongly on others (his materialistic scientism, his general attack on the whole of religion rather than just fundamentalism, his questionable stance on ethics and his claim that science and religion are not non-overlapping magisteria - I believe science and religion can co-exist peacefully if both understand their own limits.)

I am happy to talk about any of the above but I also have a specifically Christian-related question too, regarding Kierkegaard, "Fear and Trembling" and the meaning of the Abraham/Isaac story.

If you are unaware of Kierkegaard, please just tell me what the Abraham story means to you. What is the message? What does it say about faith?

If you are aware of Kierkegaard, please tell me what you think "Fear and Trembling" is about, and how that might differ to the sorts of answers given by ordinary Christians. This book is surely, to some extent, an attempt to reform mainstream Christianity?

Geoff

 

[The Nihilist]

Kierkegaard is probably the best theologian I've ever studied. He makes me wish so much that God were real. Oh well.


I think anything ever written by any theologian is an attempt to reform christianity. This is one of the side-effects of believing in a fallen world.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi RP,

Yes, I see that. One of the main difference between eastern and western religion is that the eastern religions tend see the world as already in a state of perfect balance, and therefore not really in need of reform.

Western religion, especially Christianity, always seems to be trying to reform itself and the world.

Geoff

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Do you mean Kierkegaard's idea called the angst of abraham? Since all and all kierkegaard was a christian opposed to christian basis's hes almost an anarchist of christian situations. He spent his entire life fighting the church of denmark and it would be one of the things that exhausted him to his death.

His writings are some of the most beautiful things ive ever read, his letters to the women he loved are the most incredibly written poetry i have had the possiblity to lay myself upon. They are printing a number of volumes of his notes in 2009, nearly 7 thousand pages of notes in his journals will be revealed to the world.

His idea that god needs humanity, and that humanity needs god are incredibly emotional concepts.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

EPE,

Thankyou, that was exactly the sort of feedback I was looking for.

Geoff

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Not many people, even on the philosophy board know who Kierkegaard is, if they used his abdications, they would learn a great deal about themselves and their faith. Thank you.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Not many people, even on the philosophy board know who Kierkegaard is, if they used his abdications, they would learn a great deal about themselves and their faith. Thank you.

That is unfortunate. I came here hoping there would be people who knew Kierkegaard. Not especially surprising, though. There is no shortage of people on Dawkins' board who have no idea who Friederich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sarte were either. Well, they may have heard the name before, but that's about it. They would also learn a great deal about themselves and their faith if they did.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

That is unfortunate. I came here hoping there would be people who knew Kierkegaard. Not especially surprising, though. There is no shortage of people on Dawkins' board who have no idea who Friederich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sarte were either. Well, they may have heard the name before, but that's about it. They would also learn a great deal about themselves and their faith if they did.

Richard Dawkins considers many existentialist, and post-modernistic viewpoints into his scientific analysis and desanctioning of religion, has he considered himself to be associated with those fields?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Richard Dawkins considers many existentialist, and post-modernistic viewpoints into his scientific analysis and desanctioning of religion, has he considered himself to be associated with those fields?

No. Dawkins' position on things like Buddhism or post-modernism is unclear. "The God Delusion" is primarily an attack on abrahamic religion, but it sometimes veers towards a much stronger position which isn't very well supported.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Ive listened to many of his debates, and he does hold many existential and post-modernistic outlooks upon his statements, i dont believe ive misunderstood them either. I dont think i support his total war on religion, but he is a very intelligent man on what he is talking about. His themes that we are alone in the world and that this life is the only one, and that only we can choose what we do, hold many associated existential and post-modernistic outlooks along with a very phenomenological ontology outlook.

 

[Received]

So...the religious is incommensurable with the ethical. Which means that anyone arguing aganist Abraham from the standpoint of the ethical is -- making a moot point. "But Abraham was a murderer" -- "well, no, actually he was righteous; his faith justified him." Hm. I do think it's utterly important that we see the extremely anti-ethical commandments by God as exceptions, rather than verging on rules (rules is actually deceiving; it implies morality). According to Kierkegaard, the particularity of each and every individual is found in the religious sphere -- and even if a person isn't religious, his consummation of "the Eternal" -- present to him, subconsciously or consciously durning moments of self-relation -- makes him unique in relation to the man next to him. It's this continual consummation of a particular ideal for each man that makes each man -- each man. Kierkegaard considered selfhood constituted in movement. Existence was a verb for Kierkegaard. His concept of salvation is analogous to existence; as Bonhoeffer once stated, to be a Christian means "to be". Tillich spoke about the "courage to be". And it does take courage to be -- to shuffle off the constraints of conformity. Because really: the greatest obstacle to salvation is almost certainly being-for-others, which is what (going with the Sartrean idea) power essentially is based in: in such a sense power is weakness. It means doing something, fueling oneself, growing in a particular way for the sake of the attention of the crowd, and even worse: the attention of the crowd in abstractio.

If it wasn't for Kierkegaard I almost certainly wouldn't be a Christian. He makes Christianity reasonable -- by making it absurd, by clarifying the absolute necessity of the "leap", by pointing out (in a mere 800 pages in a single book) the silliness of the aesthetic standing, and the limitation of happiness entailed with it; not to mention the blandness and uniformity of a life dedicated to the ethical.

Have you read the new (published in '99 in Denmark) extensive biography on Kierkegaard -- going on 800 pages?

 

[The Nihilist]

So...the religious is incommensurable with the ethical. Which means that anyone arguing aganist Abraham from the standpoint of the ethical is -- making a moot point. "But Abraham was a murderer" -- "well, no, actually he was righteous; his faith justified him." Hm. I do think it's utterly important that we see the extremely anti-ethical commandments by God as exceptions, rather than verging on rules (rules is actually deceiving; it implies morality).

I think you've missed the point. The point isn't whether God asked for something crazy or not. The point is that if Abraham was ethical, he would have said no.

 

[elman]

Hi All

I am new here. I'm not a Christian - I'm a Taoist/Hindu. I am also a philosophy student and an administrator for the forum run by Richard Dawkins, with whom I agree on some things (disbelief in an anthropomorphised God) but disagree strongly on others (his materialistic scientism, his general attack on the whole of religion rather than just fundamentalism, his questionable stance on ethics and his claim that science and religion are not non-overlapping magisteria - I believe science and religion can co-exist peacefully if both understand their own limits.)

I am happy to talk about any of the above but I also have a specifically Christian-related question too, regarding Kierkegaard, "Fear and Trembling" and the meaning of the Abraham/Isaac story.

If you are unaware of Kierkegaard, please just tell me what the Abraham story means to you. What is the message? What does it say about faith?

If you are aware of Kierkegaard, please tell me what you think "Fear and Trembling" is about, and how that might differ to the sorts of answers given by ordinary Christians. This book is surely, to some extent, an attempt to reform mainstream Christianity?

Geoff

I am not familar with kirkegard and I don't see how fear and tremblilng refers to Abraham, but in the New Testament fear and trembling is, in my opinion, about understanding we don't understand, understanding we are the created, not the Creator and not in charge, and understanding that no matter how well we understand theological matters, we will make many mistakes. It is about humility as opposed to pride.

 

[elman]

Hi RP,

Yes, I see that. One of the main difference between eastern and western religion is that the eastern religions tend see the world as already in a state of perfect balance, and therefore not really in need of reform.

Western religion, especially Christianity, always seems to be trying to reform itself and the world.

Geoff

How does all the evil and suffering indicate this world is in perfect balance?

 

[elman]

Ive listened to many of his debates, and he does hold many existential and post-modernistic outlooks upon his statements, i dont believe ive misunderstood them either. I dont think i support his total war on religion, but he is a very intelligent man on what he is talking about. His themes that we are alone in the world and that this life is the only one, and that only we can choose what we do, hold many associated existential and post-modernistic outlooks along with a very phenomenological ontology outlook.

How could he know we are alone in the world without hope or purpose? That can only be a belief, not knowledge. We can make some choice but somethings are not within our control and if we are alone in the world, ultimately our choices are meaningless as is our existence.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I am not familar with kirkegard and I don't see how fear and tremblilng refers to Abraham, but in the New Testament fear and trembling is, in my opinion, about understanding we don't understand, understanding we are the created, not the Creator and not in charge, and understanding that no matter how well we understand theological matters, we will make many mistakes. It is about humility as opposed to pride.

Have you ever heard of the "Anguish of Abraham"?

"“Everyone does not do so.” But in truth, one ought always to ask oneself what would happen if everyone did as one is doing; nor can one escape from that disturbing thought except by a kind of self-deception. The man who lies in self-excuse, by saying “Everyone will not do it” must be ill at ease in his conscience, for the act of lying implies the universal value which it denies. By its very disguise his anguish reveals itself. This is the anguish that Kierkegaard called “the anguish of Abraham.” You know the story: An angel commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son; and obedience was obligatory, if it really was an angel who had appeared and said, “Thou, Abraham, shalt sacrifice thy son.” But anyone in such a case would wonder, first, whether it was indeed an angel and secondly, whether I am really Abraham. Where are the proofs? A certain mad woman who suffered from hallucinations said that people were telephoning to her, and giving her orders. The doctor asked, “But who is it that speaks to you?” She replied: “He says it is God.” And what, indeed, could prove to her that it was God? If an angel appears to me, what is the proof that it is an angel; or, if I hear voices, who can prove that they proceed from heaven and not from hell, or from my own subconsciousness or some pathological condition? Who can prove that they are really addressed to me?"

 

[elman]

Have you ever heard of the "Anguish of Abraham"?

"“Everyone does not do so.” But in truth, one ought always to ask oneself what would happen if everyone did as one is doing; nor can one escape from that disturbing thought except by a kind of self-deception. The man who lies in self-excuse, by saying “Everyone will not do it” must be ill at ease in his conscience, for the act of lying implies the universal value which it denies. By its very disguise his anguish reveals itself. This is the anguish that Kierkegaard called “the anguish of Abraham.” You know the story: An angel commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son; and obedience was obligatory, if it really was an angel who had appeared and said, “Thou, Abraham, shalt sacrifice thy son.” But anyone in such a case would wonder, first, whether it was indeed an angel and secondly, whether I am really Abraham. Where are the proofs? A certain mad woman who suffered from hallucinations said that people were telephoning to her, and giving her orders. The doctor asked, “But who is it that speaks to you?” She replied: “He says it is God.” And what, indeed, could prove to her that it was God? If an angel appears to me, what is the proof that it is an angel; or, if I hear voices, who can prove that they proceed from heaven and not from hell, or from my own subconsciousness or some pathological condition? Who can prove that they are really addressed to me?"

When I was a young man I heard my father express the opinon that this story was baloney because the Creator would not ask us to sacrifice our son. He said he would not even consider doing that. At the time I thought my father was theologcially weak, but now after my father is deceased and I have sons and grandsons, I also think that story is not from God. If God told me to kill my son or my grandson, I believe, assuming I am convinced it is really God, suggest to God that He did not create me to believe that is the right thing to do, and I will have to remain true to the way He created be as in being loving and not murdering people I love. If He wants my son murdered He must do it Himself, and if I were able to stop Him, I would, because that is how He created me. If He wants me to be different He should have crated me different than I am. Sorta like the mythical statment of Luther. Here I stand and I can do no other.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How does all the evil and suffering indicate this world is in perfect balance?

On its own, it doesn't. The whole thing balances eventually, but if you look at one thing on its own then you don't see the whole thing.

Most of the suffering is caused by human action anyway. In fact, nearly all of it is.

 

[Received]

I think you've missed the point. The point isn't whether God asked for something crazy or not. The point is that if Abraham was ethical, he would have said no.

And precisely because he rejects living ethically, considerations from the ethical stance ("that's not right: murder is always wrong!") would have been incommensurable with the faith-based initiative of Abraham -- and such is a sum of the religious standing.

I'm not saying that being religious necessarily means you act crazy; but craziness sure is oftentimes with the particularity of the religious stance, even if this means being "crazy" in a lighter sense because a person doesn't follow the crowd (the Ethical itself emits universality, not particularity).

 

[elman]

On its own, it doesn't. The whole thing balances eventually, but if you look at one thing on its own then you don't see the whole thing.

Most of the suffering is caused by human action anyway. In fact, nearly all of it is.

So you are saying man is not part of this perfect balance?