Existentialism

Have you ever heard the terms, "the leap of faith", or "all roads lead to heaven"? Both of these stem from the philosophy of a man named Soren Kierkegaard. I wrote a paper on this philosopher last year for a class I was taking, and I thought I would share it with you. Much of the cultural worldview in America today was heavily influenced by Kierkegaard, so I feel there is relevance in understanding his ideas in a little more detail. I know it is quite long, but I hope you learn from it and enjoy it!

Søren Kierkegaard

    Born in 1813, Søren Kierkegaard is considered the father of modern existentialism. Existentialism is defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary as follows:

        Analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual  who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge   of what is right or wrong or good or bad.

While the term did not exist in Kierkegaard’s time, the ideas related to existentialism were in large part pioneered by him. In addition, Kierkegaard was an expressly Christian philosopher. He sought answers regarding the relationship of faith and religion, and ultimately led to the common modern separation between faith and reason. Søren Kierkegaard had many correct insights into the Christian life, but one little error led him, and our culture after him, into miry clay.

     During Kierkegaard’s day, the culture had been widely influenced by Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel. Kant, in his epistemology, defended the principle of a priori knowledge, including the moral law and ethical standards. Thus, he established the idea that moral principles are universal, necessary, and rational. Kant penned the term, “The Categorical Imperative”, which is basically a version of the Golden Rule: The way you should act is the way you want everyone to act. However, Kant did not anchor ethics or morality on any divine standard, but rather simply assumed that they exist a priori without cause. Therefore, ethics became its own end, divorced from God. G.W.F. Hegel reinforced Kant’s system, and ultimately left a morality unmoored from any divine foundation.

     Thus, during Kierkegaard’s day, many “Christians” lived according to ethical principles without any kind of passion or commitment to the God who is the standard of ethics. This left Kierkegaard with a bad taste in his mouth regarding the effects of Kantian Ethics on society. He said, “God comes to be an invisible vanishing point, and impotent thought; his power is only in the ethical, which fills all of existence.” What Kierkegaard experienced was a lack of true, passionate faith amongst Christians; instead, they simply practiced ethics as the chief end of religion. This viewpoint pushed Kierkegaard to develop the concept of the three stages of religious life. The first stage, the aesthetic stage, consists of a selfish pursuit of pleasure and a focus on temporal existence alone. This stage leads to despair, because it does not accomplish the purpose for which God created man. Such despair leads man to move to the second stage, the ethical stage. In this stage, man submits to the universal ethical principles, becoming a “good person”. Finally, when man realizes that the ethical cannot be its own end, he makes a specific decision to move to the religious stage. This stage, characterized by a true relationship with God and a passionate commitment to him, is reached through an irrational “leap of faith”. As a model for this type of blind faith, Kierkegaard turns to Abraham. Specifically, he focuses on the instance of God’s command for Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. The Scripture reads, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love – Isaac – and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” Abraham obeys God, and whilst he begins to plunge the knife at Isaac, God provides a ram in the thicket instead. Throughout Scripture, Abraham is elevated as an exemplar of faith. Kierkegaard then summarizes that Abraham obeyed God out of an irrational, zealous faith. For, to all other men, he would have seemed insane and unethical. In man’s eyes, no universal moral rule can justify Abraham’s actions. However, according to Kierkegaard, true faith is characterized by a radical, desperate, and irrational obedience to God.  By definition, it is subjective, and for each individual the commands differ. Thus, as Kierkegaard himself stated, “Truth is subjectivity.” True religion and faith is characterized by complete abandon of rationality in subjection to God. In fact, Kierkegaard used an example of two men praying. One prays to the Christian God without zeal or passion, and in truth he serves idols. On the other hand, the second man prays to idols with passion, zeal, and complete commitment, and he worships God. Kierkegaard’s continually focused upon the irrational faith of true religion, as opposed to the cultural norm of lackluster service to ethical principles.

      First, let us look at what Kierkegaard got right. The concern he experienced over the works-based faith of his era resounds with many Christians throughout history, including Martin Luther. The need for a saving, life changing faith is certainly Scriptural. Indeed, a radical commitment to God, despite the ridicule from outsiders, is also Biblical. The stages are very insightful, and in some ways adequate for explaining the Christian conversion. Some people simply don’t care about ethics, some are “good” people, and then there are faithful Christians. Finally, Abraham as an example of faith is certainly not out of the ordinary or unbiblical. In fact, many of Scriptures authors, most notably Paul, used Abraham as a supreme example of faith. Thus, many things, especially in the beginning of his quest, Kierkegaard scored a goal on.

      On the other hand, it seems as though when Kierkegaard finally got to the point of concluding the matter, he went off the deep end of sound reasoning. While Abraham was used repeatedly in Scripture as a model of faith, he was never referred to as having irrational faith, but rather a very rational faith. The command to offer Isaac was not the first experience Abraham had with God. Rather, Abraham’s relationship with God was long and tested. God had promised Abraham a son who would produce many offspring. At that time, Isaac had no offspring, and thus Abraham trusted God to carry through with his promise in some way. Hebrews 11:17-19 says:

            By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead…

Thus, Abraham had a rational faith in a God whom he had previously known to follow through with His promises. In addition, what Abraham did was not subjective or “unethical” according to societal norms. God, the giver of life, is the only One who can also take human life. Thus, for God to require the life of Isaac did not violate ethical standards. God, the standard bearer, can take the life of his creation as He sees fit. Thus, in reality, Kierkegaard had a faulty and partial view of Abraham’s faith, and falsely concluded that Abraham had an irrational, subjective faith. He swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction of works-based religion to a religion that entirely excluded reason. Furthermore, he denied the fundamental principle, if not in practice in theory, of Christ as the only way to the Father. Instead, he favored the view that all roads lead to heaven as long as you follow them with passion and zeal.

      For his many insights, Kierkegaard had an equal number of detrimental faults which still influence of culture today. One of the most obvious results of his viewpoints is modern relativism. Since all roads lead to heaven if followed with passion, why should you judge someone else’s religion? Although this may not seem as radical as all relativism, it prevails in today’s world, even among many Christians. Ultimately, this leads to disobeying the fundamental command Christ gave, which is the Great Commission. Furthermore, it becomes a short distance to the full-fledged relativism of our day. Finally, Kierkegaard influenced modern culture, especially the church, regarding faith and reason. Because he created such a gap between faith and reason, the former being all-in-all and the latter unnecessary, Christians now remove themselves from any area of society which calls for reason and logic. One common example of this is science – Christians believe that science belongs in the realm of the world, while they should simply focus on faith. While most would not readily recognize the name of Søren Kierkegaard, they have many of the thought patterns which he introduced ingrained in their minds. Thus, as it turns out, one little misstep from Biblical truth leads inevitably to false doctrines and ultimately heresy.

    

Apologetics

Here is an essay I wrote for a Christian Worldview class I took a while back. Since I had a length limit, I wasn't able to go into as much detail as I would have liked, but this is a good summary of the role of apologetics in faith.

"Be Ready to Give an Apologia"

     Richard Dawkins, a prominent member in the scientific community and bestselling author of "The God Delusion", has this to say about religion, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." He also says, "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Obviously, Christians strongly disagree with Dawkins' assessments of religion, but what should we do about it? Many Christians advocate contending for the faith through knowledgeable discussions with unbelievers - a method traditionally called "apologetics". The original Greek word, apologia, means "speaking in defense" of one's beliefs. However, other Christians believe apologetics has no real value. They have two main objections: 1) Apologetics does not save anyone; therefore it is useless and 2) Loving Christ and a willingness to be used by Him are the only really important things for a Christian to focus on. While both objections have considerable truth in them, when examined closely we find that they are illogical and not founded on Scripture.

     First, let us examine the objection that apologetics does not save anyone, and is therefore useless. It is true that giving a sound apologetic to an unbeliever will not save him. Even if the unbeliever understands and accepts the good reasons for your faith, he is not saved. He must ultimately accept Christ as his Savior in order for salvation to occur. However, this does not make the role of apologetics obsolete. The Holy Spirit can use reasons for the faith as a powerful tool in transforming a person's life. Often, explaining your faith in a logical sense is the first step towards sharing the Gospel. For example, an atheist will not be interested in hearing about the saving grace of Jesus Christ if he doesn't even see Christianity as a viable option. You may first have to demonstrate that Christianity is logical and before he will even hear of Christ. This is one way in which the Holy Spirit uses apologetics as a tool for salvation. Obtaining a basic understanding of the evidence for our faith is not a waste of time, but rather an asset that the Holy Spirit can use to
lead others to salvation.

     Let us next examine the second objection: Loving Christ and a willingness to be used by Him are the only really important things in a Christian's life. This statement is absolutely true in one sense. Certainly, the most important things in a Christian's life are that he loves Christ and eagerly follows His command to "go". However, it does not follow that one must not have a sound understanding of the faith in order to refute the ideas of the world and prove the Biblical account. The verse often used by proponents of this idea, Luke 10:27, says, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind." The question is not whether we should love the Lord, but rather what loving the Lord entails. Christ said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He also said, "For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you." Clearly, as seen throughout Scripture, Christ commands us to follow His example and obey His words. Christ Himself gave an apologetic to those around Him, most noticeably through miracles. He performed miracles in order to prove His divine authority. While Christians today cannot perform miracles, we can give reasons for our faith. Also, Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3:15, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." Peter used the very word "apologia" in this text. In 1 Corinthians 10:5, Paul wrote, "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ."

     While the usefulness of apologetics has been sufficiently established, apologetics can also be used incorrectly. A Christian should not get in a discussion simply to tout their views over their neighbor. In other words, we aren't in it to win an argument, but to win souls. Love and respect for one's neighbor prove the most effective way to do this. Peter said, "Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." Other translations say, "with gentleness and respect." Also, Christ stated that the second greatest commandment was as follows, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Since you would not want someone to ungraciously treat your ideas as bunk, you should not do so to your neighbor.

     Blaise Pascal stated, "There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only be God, the Creator, made known through Jesus." Our responsibility as Christians is to tell the world how to fill this vacuum. With 850 million people claiming atheism or no religion, Christians must be capable and willing to make a case for God. Apologetics is often the first step. In conclusion, John Calvin wrote, "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth was attacked and yet would remain silent." We cannot hold our silence in the face of attack from men such as Richard Dawkins, who, according to 2 Corinthians 4:4, are blind, "In whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

For more information on apologetics, visit these websites:

~ Answers in Genesis
~ Institute for Creation Research
~ Evolution vs. God Film by Ray Comfort
~ Creation Today   

I-Robot: Are we morally programmed?

I know I promised the pictures of our trip this week, but I am simply unable to pull it off until after Thanksgiving. I haven't even loaded them onto our computer yet! Things, as you may have guessed, have been very busy. What with school, continuing to work on our house, everyday homemaking, and the holidays coming up, I have had little time to spare. In addition to this, we are searching for a companion for our dog Samson, so I have had to spend quite a bit of time searching the shelters online. In the meantime, I will be posting some of my writing assignments from the last several years. The topics range from courtship vs. dating to price caps in the economy, so please stay tuned!

Today's paper is one I wrote last year for the worldview class I was taking at the time. It was one of my favorite classes, especially because it challenged me to think critically and logically about our postmodern world. Without further ado, please enjoy reading!

 

I-Robot: Are we morally programmed?

     Headlines on the Fox News website this week included, "New York Mother Reportedly Accused of Encouraging Schoolyard Brawl", "Wheelchair-Bound Vietnam Vet Uncovers Multimillion Dollar Medical Aid Fraud", "Authorities: Teen Beat Parents to Death", and "Pennsylvania Mom Who Lost Job After Donating Kidney Is Put Back On Salary." When people read about a teen killing his own parents or a mother getting involved in a schoolyard brawl, they know inside, "That is just wrong!" When a woman receives her employment back after sacrificing a kidney to her son, they rejoice in the right decision. However, in a purely relative world, when morality is based on subjective standards, claims to objective right and wrong cannot exist. Therefore, an objective Moral Law, common to all of humanity, cannot exist; and, by default, only subjective morality remains. Do we live in a purely relative universe, or does some Law or Code govern our sense of morality? What causes us to view murder as wrong, and heroism as right? A careful study of the evidence shows that Someone must have created that law, and programmed us to know it. Many arguments try to explain the Moral Law, and our knowledge of it apart from God; however, after careful examination, none of these arguments adequately explain how we came to know the Moral Law.

 

     Let us start by defining objective moral laws. To better understand objective moral law, let us contrast it with subjective moral law. Objective moral law consists in rules outside of humanity, which are universally accepted. For instance, "do not murder". Subjective moral law, on the other hand, consists of rules that we created for ourselves. For instance, "do not eat too much food". Nearly everyone presupposes murder as inherently wrong; however, no everyone believes eating too much food is inherently wrong. One was created outside of any particular society (a universal law) and the other by our own devices. From now on we will singularly focus on objective moral law.

 

     There are various arguments regarding the source of the moral law. In other words, the real question lies in how we know the moral law. After all, when it comes down to it, everyone understands certain intrinsic rights and wrongs. The difference in opinion comes with how we know about intrinsic rights and wrongs. Some say that it is simply a law of nature, such as the law of gravity. Others claim we do it for our own convenience. Still others believe that we know we ought to do it because it benefits society. Even still others contend that we know it instinctively, and follow it in the same way an animal follows its herding instinct. Finally, some hold that we learn it through cultural norms - we are taught to do it. We will examine these arguments in succession.

 

     Firstly, a faction of people believe that our knowledge of the Moral Law simply represents a law of nature, such as gravity. They contend that in the same way gravity compels a stone to fall to the ground, we are compelled to follow the Moral Law. It simply exists, just as gravity unquestionably exists. However, two problems arise with this point of view. For one thing, the Law of Gravity is descriptive - we describe what occurs by physically observing it. On the other hand, the Moral Law is prescriptive - it tells us what to do. Just as a doctor prescribes medicine, the Moral Law prescribes us to act in a certain manner. Whether we take the medicine, or obey the Moral Law, depends upon our own choice. This leads to the second objection. Namely, a stone always falls to the ground when dropped, we do not always obey the Moral Law. If the Moral Law were indeed a law of nature, then we would have to obey it. We would have no choice about it, just as a stone does not have a choice whether to fall or float.

 

     Another common argument for the source of the Moral Law is that it is internally developed for our own convenience. The facts themselves contradict this idea, however. Acting according to the way dictated by the Moral Law is often inconvenient. For instance, consider the multitude of emergency responders that went into the burning towers after 9/11 to rescue people. If they had simply consulted their own convenience, they would have run away. In spite of this, they knew their true responsibility, and many gave their lives in sacrifice. Another problem also arises: Intent overrides convenience when determining "right and wrong". Let us say, hypothetically, that a man goes camping, and a bear steals his food. Although he may get angry at the bear, he will not require justice from the bear...he will not cry out, "The bear wronged me!" However, if a man took the same food, then the camper would want justice for the wrong action done him. Both situations are just as inconvenient, but one reflects instinct, and the other intent.

 

     Similar to the previous argument, some believe that we have the prompting to obey the Moral Law because it benefits society. This argument, however, leads to circular reasoning. Suppose I adhere to this viewpoint, and someone asks me why they should care what benefits society. I would then answer, "Because it is good for you to do so." After which, my answer would continue to go on in the same way: the Moral Law benefits society; therefore, you should obey it because it is good to do so. I am still stuck with the questions, "Who says it is good?" or, "Why should I care what benefits society?" and so on. In short, this argument is only based on the Moral Law we all know, particularly that we should practice consideration for others.

 

     Other individuals content that the Moral Law is instinctual, and thus we obey it. However, we are, in a sense, forced to obey an instinct, whereas the Moral Law gives us a choice to obey or disobey. If, for instance, hyenas attack a pack of elephants, the adult elephants make a circle around the juveniles to protect them. They do not make this decision; rather, they do it instinctively, just as a mouse flees a cat instinctively. On the other hand, observe soldiers in battle. When under fire, their strongest instinct is self-preservation. However, they also have a weaker "instinct" yelling out, "Stay with your partners, no matter the cost." Besides these two instincts, they have a third something determining between the two causing one to appear right, and the other to appear wrong. This thing cannot itself be an instinct, because it judges between two other instincts. In addition, while in animals the stronger instinct conquers every time, many times it is opposite with humans. The weaker instinct usually wins as right, because we have compared both to some standard, some Moral Law.

 

     Finally, a large fraction of people believe that our sense of right and wrong comes from society. In other words, we learn it from youth, and it only reflects our cultural beliefs. While we are undoubtedly taught right and wrong from birth, our knowledge does not primarily come from this source. A key piece of evidence that our sense of goodness is not cultural consists in the similarities between completely unrelated societies, and throughout different eras. Consider, for example, the punishment inflicted for theft in most cultures throughout the world. In Iran the common consequence for theft is the amputation of hands or feet. In Nigeria, a similar process is followed, where the hands of the thief  are cut off. In Canada and the United States theft results in imprisonment. Finally, in some cases, China enforces capital punishment for thievery. Despite the many differences in culture and practices, most nations view theft as wrong. This implies some Moral Law that surpasses people groups and cultures, that determines correctness and incorrectness. In addition, another problem exists with this viewpoint. How could we judge between societies if right and wrong simply reflected culture? Clearly, we couldn't. However, we do judge between societies, to tell whether one is right and the other wrong. Most cultures would agree that Muslim men treat their women abominably and wrong, despite the fact that they were taught to do it from birth and it is consequently their culture. We know that on this issue Americans stand on the right side of the battle, and our laws against abuse are moral. If it were merely a matter of culture, we could not judge between the two.

 

     In conclusion, then, we see that no other arguments adequately explain the existence of the Moral Law, the code we all inherently know. The only explanation left is that a great and powerful Programmer purposefully put that code into us. If a scientist programmed a robot to hug every child he saw, and to slap every adult he saw, we would not deny the existence of a programmer. It would be evident, in the way the robot acted, that someone who programmed him loved children and disliked adults. In the same way, when we look inside of ourselves and see the Moral Law, it points to a Someone who programmed us with His ideas of right and wrong. If that Someone has so much control over us as that, then we can rightly call Him God!

 

 

 

Please leave a comment on your thoughts about this essay. I can't wait to hear from you!