The following comment was left on my previous post. I'm posting it this way since those who read the posts are getting them by email mostly and haven't seen the comments.

"You've got it wrong, Kierkegaard didn't mean the leap of faith as you described it. It's not that faith is to believe things that are not true. Kierkegard does NOT say you should have faith that 1+1=3.

A leap of faith is a sign of authenticity; in other words, our actions are an honest manifestation of our beliefs, rational thinking, personality, etc. Faith is the highest passion, passion to believe in ourselves, not in irrational things.

We've got to kill the mis-interpretation of Kierkegaard once and for all."

November 16, 2009 6:13 PM

The comment was left anonymously, but I welcome it. The more discussion the better. There is something in this comment that I definitely agree with. Our actions are manifestations of our beliefs, etc. In fact, that fits precisely with what I think is a good definition of faith: the ability to behave according to what we say we believe. Or, to believe something at a level that we can act on it.

But that is also why I disagree with Kierkegaard. In Fear and Trembling he is quite emphatic, many times over, that faith is a belief in the absurd. Abraham is, of course, his object of study there. He assiduously proclaims that what Abraham did, and the faith he had, was absurd. He might as well have said Abraham believed that 1 + 1 = 3. But he disregards what else we know about Abraham. Paul said in Romans 4:20 - 21 (ESV), "No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised." Abraham had come a long way in his relationship with God. He followed God's direction to Canaan, had personally received the covenants (Gen 12, 15, 17). He entertained and challenged angels and the Lord Himself (Sodom and Gomorrah). Yet we see him fail on occasion. He disowned his wife twice out of fear, once in Egypt and once with Abimelech king of Gerar (he was a slow learner at times). Hagar bore Ishmael because of Abrahams lack of faith. But by the time God called him to sacrifice Isaac Abraham had learned a lot. The knowledge that God would keep his promises and could bring Isaac back from the dead was no longer an absurd idea. It may seem absurd to you and me, and Kierkegaard, but we haven't had the same relationship with God that Abraham did.

That's my main point. What Abraham did wasn't absurd from the perspective of someone who could see things more and more from God's perspective, and less and less from our everyday experience. It is more accurate to say that it was more absurd for Abraham to follow God's first direction and leave the land of his fathers than it was to follow God's direction in regard to Isaac, from Abraham's perspective at that point in his life.

This can be demonstrated also in the life of Karl Barth, who is a descendant of Kierkegaard's in terms of his ideas. Friends of mine have commented that they think Barth was the greatest Protestant theologian in the 20th century. I have to disagree. There is of course much to admire in Barth, and I'm not claiming to be an expert on him. But he made the comment, both in regard to The Fall and the Incarnation/Resurrection, that it is not true as a matter of history, but it is true as a matter of faith/doctrine. Now, that is as clear as you can get. Actually believing in an historical resurrection is as absurd as 1 + 1 = 3, to Barth. But he's going to believe anyway. Not that it really happened, but in his faith.

In my view it is important to believe that the resurrection happened as a matter of fact. See 1 Cor 15. But that's not the point here. The point is that to Kierkegaard, to make that 'leap of faith' is indeed to believe in something absurd. That is not what our faith is supposed to be.

It seems that Kierkegaard wasn't the first to talk about a 'leap of faith'. Pascal, at least, had used the phrase before him. But Pascal was clear that it is a 'leap in the light, not a leap in the dark.' In that sense I have no problem with leaps. But I've seen nothing that changes my view that Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an irrational belief in the absurd.

Finally, the commentator said that faith is the passion to believe in ourselves. Kierkegaard very well may have thought that. It is a very existentialist thing to say. But that is my problem with existentialism. Faith isn't a belief that we just conjure up, and it isn't a belief in ourselves. Properly understood, in my view, it is the object of our faith that is important, and our ability to behave according to what we say we believe.