Kierkegaard's Conception Of Belief In God
Belief in God exists in every culture and has throughout history (www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/). If we can conceive one of the greatest possible beings, then it must exist. Pragmatic arguments have often been active in the support of theistic belief. Theistic pragmatic arguments are not arguments for the suggestion that God exists; they are arguments that believing God exists is rational. Pragmatic arguments are relevant to belief-formation, since teaching a belief is an action. Pragmatic arguments are applied in orientation, justifying actions that are thought to enable the achievement of our goals, or the satisfaction of our desires (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/). Heisenberg discovered the Uncertainty Principle. The
…show more content…
Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know the values of both momentum and position at any given time, in order to view an object one must eject some sort of energy into it, therefore allowing the electrons to leave their ground state (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html). Since it is impossible to have something travel faster than the speed of light, it is impossible to know both momentum and position at the same time. If there is a God, he is not suggested to measure or calculate physical quantities, he just knows them. There is no reason for him to acquire this knowledge in the same way that a human acquires knowledge. In quantum theory, a particle is not characterized by two quantities, its position and its velocity, as in classical Newtonian theory. Instead, it is described by a single quantity, the wave function. The size of a wave function at a point, gives the probability that the particle will be found at that point, and the rate at which the wave function changes from point to point, gives the probability of different velocities (http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html). This paper will argue that there is sufficient evidence to support belief in God by discussing Pascal’s Wager, Kierkagaard’s views on faith, and Kant wanting to save religion from science. Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher, scientist, mathematician, and probability theorist. He offered a pragmatic reason for the belief in God. He argued that if we do not know whether God exists then we should play it safe rather than risk being sorry. The argument comes in three versions (Hacking, Ian). Pascal begins with a two-by two matrix: either God exists or does not, or either you believe or do not. If God exists then theists will enjoy eternal heaven, while atheists will suffer eternal hell. If God does not exist then theists will enjoy limited happiness before they die, and atheists will also enjoy limited happiness, though they will experience anxiety rather than comforts of religion. Regardless of whether God exists, theists have it better than atheists, belief in God is the most rational belief to have (http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/). Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must wager one way or the other. If God exists, the result of wagering for God is at least as good as the best outcome associated with wagering against God; and if God exists, the result of wagering for God is better than the result of wagering against God. According to Pascal, wagering for God and wagering against God are contradictories, as there is no avoiding wagering one way or another. The decision to wager for or against God is one that you make at a time. Wagering for God is an ongoing action that one continues until death. It involves adopting a certain set of practices and living the kind of life that nurtures belief in God (http://171.67.193.20/entries/pascal-wager/). Kant became a follower of Newtonian science. Many of his earliest writings were in Newtonian science, including his Universal Natural and Theory of the Heavens of 1755 (in Cosmogony), dedicated to his king, Frederick the Great, and advocating a nebular hypothesis to explain the formation of our solar system. He had reason to worry that his mechanistic explanation might become unfavorably for Biblical fundamentalists who advocated the traditional policy of strict creationism. This caused a tension with how to settle Christian faith and scientific knowledge. This is the issue on which his philosophy of religion would address.
Near the beginning of Kant’s Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens of 1755, Kant observed that the harmonious order of the universe points to its well governing first cause; near the end of it, he writes that even now the universe is filled by the great energy of an almighty God (Cosmogony, pp. 14 and 153). In his New Exposition of the First Principles of Metaphysical Knowledge he points to God’s existence as the necessary condition of all possibility (Exposition, pp. 224-225). Kant develops that line of arguments towards God as the unconditioned condition of all possibility. The necessary Being that is the ground of all possibility must be one. Immutable, eternal, the highest reality, and a spirit, he argues. The final sentence of the book maintains that, though we must be convinced of God’s existence, logically demonstrating it is not required (Basis pp. 239). In Enquiry concerning the Clarity of the Principles of Natural Theology and Ethics he expresses doubts that any metaphysical system of knowledge has yet been achieved, he yet maintains his confidence that coherent arguments can lead to metaphysical knowledge, including that of God, as the absolute necessary Being (Writings, pp. 14, 25, and 29-30).
Kierkegaard’s conception of faith was not corresponding with the traditional view held by most religious people.
Kierkegaard has been known as the “Christian Socrates” because of the way he challenged traditional beliefs like Socrates did. Kierkegaard’s faith is one of an unusual re-choosing of faith in the impossible. He believed that what many people called “faith” was “hope” because with hope there is a probability for something to be true, whereas true faith is believing in something even one knows it is impossible and there is no reason for one to believe in it. Hope does not have any significance in the existence of impossibility, only faith does. Kierkegaard maintained that faith was higher than reason, meaning that reason has its limit and faith begins where those limits of reason are found. For Kierkegaard, faith was different from the traditional Christian view of faith. One must re-choose faith in the impossible and that reduces one to a private existence within the domain of faith …show more content…
(http://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikelen/Engels/027.%20Kierkegaard%20and%20Faith.pdf).
For Kierkegaard, Christian Faith was not a matter of repeating church belief. It was a matter of personal passion, which cannot be intervened by the clergy or by human objects. Faith is the most important task to be achieved by a human being, because only on the basis of faith does an individual have a chance to become true self. This self is the life-work which God judges for eternity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli).
We must realize that we are always in sin.
This is the condition for faith, and must be given by God. The idea of sin cannot evolve from pure human origins. Rather, it must have been introduced into the world from a transcendent source. Once we understand that we are in sin, we can understand that there is some being against which we are always in the wrong. On this basis we can have faith that, by virtue of the bizarre, we can be redressed with this being. The ridiculousness of amends requires faith that we believe that for God even the impossible is possible, including the forgiveness of the unforgivable. If we can accept God’s forgiveness sincerely, inwardly, contritely, with gratitude and hope, then we open ourselves to the joyous prospect of beginning again. The only obstacle to this joy is our refusal or resistance to accepting God’s forgiveness properly. Although God can forgive the unforgiveable, he cannot force anyone to accept it. Therefore, for Kierkegaard, “there is only one guilt that God cannot forgive, that of not willing to believe in his greatness”
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli).
The support for the existence in God is not only supported through cultures practicing religion through history, but it is also supported by ancient philosophers such as Pascal, Kant, and Kierkegaard. Blaise Pascal argued that it safer to take the risk for believing in God than to not believe at all because if God exists then we will enjoy eternal bliss. Kant had many writings but in one, he says that God’s existence is the necessary of all possibility. He also argues that God is the absolute necessary Being. Kierkegaard’s views on faith were a little different than the average view. He believed that “faith” was having hope because with hope there is a probability for something to be true.
Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know the values of both momentum and position at any given time, in order to view an object one must eject some sort of energy into it, therefore allowing the electrons to leave their ground state (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html). Since it is impossible to have something travel faster than the speed of light, it is impossible to know both momentum and position at the same time. If there is a God, he is not suggested to measure or calculate physical quantities, he just knows them. There is no reason for him to acquire this knowledge in the same way that a human acquires knowledge. In quantum theory, a particle is not characterized by two quantities, its position and its velocity, as in classical Newtonian theory. Instead, it is described by a single quantity, the wave function. The size of a wave function at a point, gives the probability that the particle will be found at that point, and the rate at which the wave function changes from point to point, gives the probability of different velocities (http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html). This paper will argue that there is sufficient evidence to support belief in God by discussing Pascal’s Wager, Kierkagaard’s views on faith, and Kant wanting to save religion from science. Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher, scientist, mathematician, and probability theorist. He offered a pragmatic reason for the belief in God. He argued that if we do not know whether God exists then we should play it safe rather than risk being sorry. The argument comes in three versions (Hacking, Ian). Pascal begins with a two-by two matrix: either God exists or does not, or either you believe or do not. If God exists then theists will enjoy eternal heaven, while atheists will suffer eternal hell. If God does not exist then theists will enjoy limited happiness before they die, and atheists will also enjoy limited happiness, though they will experience anxiety rather than comforts of religion. Regardless of whether God exists, theists have it better than atheists, belief in God is the most rational belief to have (http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/). Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must wager one way or the other. If God exists, the result of wagering for God is at least as good as the best outcome associated with wagering against God; and if God exists, the result of wagering for God is better than the result of wagering against God. According to Pascal, wagering for God and wagering against God are contradictories, as there is no avoiding wagering one way or another. The decision to wager for or against God is one that you make at a time. Wagering for God is an ongoing action that one continues until death. It involves adopting a certain set of practices and living the kind of life that nurtures belief in God (http://171.67.193.20/entries/pascal-wager/). Kant became a follower of Newtonian science. Many of his earliest writings were in Newtonian science, including his Universal Natural and Theory of the Heavens of 1755 (in Cosmogony), dedicated to his king, Frederick the Great, and advocating a nebular hypothesis to explain the formation of our solar system. He had reason to worry that his mechanistic explanation might become unfavorably for Biblical fundamentalists who advocated the traditional policy of strict creationism. This caused a tension with how to settle Christian faith and scientific knowledge. This is the issue on which his philosophy of religion would address.
Near the beginning of Kant’s Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens of 1755, Kant observed that the harmonious order of the universe points to its well governing first cause; near the end of it, he writes that even now the universe is filled by the great energy of an almighty God (Cosmogony, pp. 14 and 153). In his New Exposition of the First Principles of Metaphysical Knowledge he points to God’s existence as the necessary condition of all possibility (Exposition, pp. 224-225). Kant develops that line of arguments towards God as the unconditioned condition of all possibility. The necessary Being that is the ground of all possibility must be one. Immutable, eternal, the highest reality, and a spirit, he argues. The final sentence of the book maintains that, though we must be convinced of God’s existence, logically demonstrating it is not required (Basis pp. 239). In Enquiry concerning the Clarity of the Principles of Natural Theology and Ethics he expresses doubts that any metaphysical system of knowledge has yet been achieved, he yet maintains his confidence that coherent arguments can lead to metaphysical knowledge, including that of God, as the absolute necessary Being (Writings, pp. 14, 25, and 29-30).
Kierkegaard’s conception of faith was not corresponding with the traditional view held by most religious people.
Kierkegaard has been known as the “Christian Socrates” because of the way he challenged traditional beliefs like Socrates did. Kierkegaard’s faith is one of an unusual re-choosing of faith in the impossible. He believed that what many people called “faith” was “hope” because with hope there is a probability for something to be true, whereas true faith is believing in something even one knows it is impossible and there is no reason for one to believe in it. Hope does not have any significance in the existence of impossibility, only faith does. Kierkegaard maintained that faith was higher than reason, meaning that reason has its limit and faith begins where those limits of reason are found. For Kierkegaard, faith was different from the traditional Christian view of faith. One must re-choose faith in the impossible and that reduces one to a private existence within the domain of faith …show more content…
(http://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikelen/Engels/027.%20Kierkegaard%20and%20Faith.pdf).
For Kierkegaard, Christian Faith was not a matter of repeating church belief. It was a matter of personal passion, which cannot be intervened by the clergy or by human objects. Faith is the most important task to be achieved by a human being, because only on the basis of faith does an individual have a chance to become true self. This self is the life-work which God judges for eternity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli).
We must realize that we are always in sin.
This is the condition for faith, and must be given by God. The idea of sin cannot evolve from pure human origins. Rather, it must have been introduced into the world from a transcendent source. Once we understand that we are in sin, we can understand that there is some being against which we are always in the wrong. On this basis we can have faith that, by virtue of the bizarre, we can be redressed with this being. The ridiculousness of amends requires faith that we believe that for God even the impossible is possible, including the forgiveness of the unforgivable. If we can accept God’s forgiveness sincerely, inwardly, contritely, with gratitude and hope, then we open ourselves to the joyous prospect of beginning again. The only obstacle to this joy is our refusal or resistance to accepting God’s forgiveness properly. Although God can forgive the unforgiveable, he cannot force anyone to accept it. Therefore, for Kierkegaard, “there is only one guilt that God cannot forgive, that of not willing to believe in his greatness”
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli).
The support for the existence in God is not only supported through cultures practicing religion through history, but it is also supported by ancient philosophers such as Pascal, Kant, and Kierkegaard. Blaise Pascal argued that it safer to take the risk for believing in God than to not believe at all because if God exists then we will enjoy eternal bliss. Kant had many writings but in one, he says that God’s existence is the necessary of all possibility. He also argues that God is the absolute necessary Being. Kierkegaard’s views on faith were a little different than the average view. He believed that “faith” was having hope because with hope there is a probability for something to be true.