Kierkegaard and Apologetics

Kierkegaard was right as a Christian, but wrong as a thinker.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Kierkegaard
• apologetics
• christianity
• religion
• theism
• atheism
• philosophy
• darwin
• dawkins

[oreilzac]

Whats with the frickin Hairdryer in the background.

[Pavoreax]

That's a lamp. And it's awesome.

[ZacharyDBrooks]

This is completely wrong. Kierkegaard never made any comment whatsoever about a dichotomy between religion and atheism. Kierkegaard concerned himself solely with whether one can reconcile being a Christian with being a member of society. Empiricism is completely irrelevent for Kierkegaard because it can never tell us what sort of person one should be. Kierkegaard rejected apologetics not because it tried to reconcile science and faith, but because it tried to reconcile respectability and faiith

[Pavoreax]

Empiricism may have been irrelevant to Kierkegaard, but it's not irrelevant to the real world.

Kierkegaard's problem was that he started with the assumption that faith is a virtue and that the fable of Abraham wasn't a story about a paranoid schizophrenic who nearly murdered his son because of the voices in his head.

And I completely disagree with the assertion that empiricism (i.e. evidence-based thinking) can't guide one's morality. But that's too big of a topic for this little window.

[fredbloggs02]

Which of his works have you read m8?

[bhima2001]

why don't some of you critics make your own video so folks round here can get the truth

[TheGadfly1234]

My dear sir, you have made an absolute straw man out of Kierkegaard. 

[darkwaterhermit]

@mysticresistence very nicely put, Pavoreax acts like empiricism and the scientific method are free from presuppositions, which apparently is the fatal flaw of Kierkegaard's method, thats pretty funny.

[wildhias]

its may be old news, but your last claim is not an empircally proveable assumption

[cliffordeberhardt]

If religion is in the same realm as science which I don't think it is then yes it needs to be subject to empirical evidence. Now if it is in the realm of personal choice and personal comments then you can try to apply reason to it but you won't get very far. Say I have to choose between two girls I want to date. Well reason may say that I should date girl 1 cause we have more in common but there is just something about girl 2. So which is the right choice?

[mysticresistence]

Now, why oh why should empiricism be immune to criticism? It shouldn't. Empiricism, Reason, the scientific method, all should be questioned. As for what you said in the end?...SAVE THE WORLD??!! Give me a break! Hitler said the same thing. No, forget the world and give the individual the individual power to save themselves as individuals and do not shove one philosophical school of thought amongst many (Empiricism) down people's throats. Also, Kierkegaard was counter-enlightenment, so what?

[mysticresistence]

I think you are missing the point entirely. Kierkegaard is indeed saying that we should not look at things empirically...AND???!! So, we should all mindlessly follow the scientific method, empiricism and Reason and never question them. That is the great hypocrisy of empiricism: they question everything, except the way in which they do the questioning, i.e., empiricism. Who says empirical evidence is the only valid evidence? Empiricist, that's who.

[cliffordeberhardt]

I think Kierkegaard is saying that personal relationship with God can't not be reached with rational thinking. Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works, but those are objective truths. Kierkegaard is saying a person's subjective truths can't really be based on reason. I wouldn't say this for all situations, but the example Kierkegaard uses is that of falling in love. Love is usually based on passion and not reason.

[HonestObserver]

What about Slavoj Zizek?  Supposedly he's trying to bring objective morals and thought back in a post-postmodernist flourish. Though he's a Marxist!