Kierkegaard was disgusted by the Christianity of his time, and the way he felt it had been overly democratized. Having faith is not easy and should be a very private and difficult achievement. Everyone should find something they passionately care about, and Christianity is not a passion that is meant for everyone. The difficulty of true faith is shown by the story of Abraham and Isaac, and the fact that Abraham has to go against the ethical realm for his faith by his willingness to kill his son.
Kierkegaard's extension of Hegel's philosophy can be taken in two ways in light of modern Christianity. One interpretation could take his philosophy to encourage an extreme zeal for Christianity, such as the evangelical movements that have been occurring in the United States. These evangelical movements want Christianity to be a difficult choice, but with the obligation to spread this zeal to other people and to fight for their strong beliefs. The other interpretation would be one emphasizing the individual nature of the choice, and the fact that it may not necessarily be a passion that is meant for everyone. I think that the second interpretation is the healthiest for modern times, and that Kierkegaard would have wanted Christian faith to be an individual experience.
I have a problem with anyone thinking it is their right to push their personal beliefs on another person. Everyone should find something to be passionate about, but should not assume that others need to also be so passionate. There is nothing wrong with wanting to share your passion, but it goes to far when it seeks to stifle the rights and passions of others. Freedom to be faithful is important, but so it the freedom to not be ruled by the faith of others.
Virginia-
ReplyDeleteOur ability to acknowledge the fact that Christianity is not the 'right choice' for everybody is what allows modern society to run smoothly. Awareness of all the different religious options, as well as the realization that other things (like science) could substitute for religion, has helped society evolve into a diverse, educational environment.
I think whether people want to believe in God or not is largely determined by themselves, rather than by the persuasion of others. Even though we have read so many works that have proved the existence of God and even if some of them do make sense, it is still up to us whether to believe in God or not. Believe in the existence of God is one thing; to have faith in it is another. If an atheist happen to be converted into a Christian, it is probably due to his or her own reason. For example, a painful experience could make him or her feel extremely sad and the only way to get free from it is to pin his or her hope on God. If no painful experience has ever occurred, the person might not even think about believing in God no matter what other people around say about it. So when we come to Kierkegaard’s ideas of the three realms of existence, it makes sense that it takes a leap to go from the second realm to the third realm because it is really hard and rarely happens.
ReplyDeleteI think I disagree with the first application you offer concerning the evangelical movement. While I agree that the level of zeal is comparable to that found in Kierkegaard, I disagree with the notion that evangelical Christianity embraces the message that faith is difficult. It seems to me, in fact, to be just the opposite: in order to spread their message more quickly, evangelical Christians often preach a message that conversion is easy and simple in order to make faith more appealing and easily digestible.
ReplyDelete