3 Answers

  1. The resurrection of the dead is a miracle, so the problem of its physical impossibility was never seriously faced by Christian philosophers. Christianity implies the belief that such a miracle is possible. There was-and still is-the problem of the identity of the resurrected person and the living.

    Peter van Inwagen gives the example of the destroyed manuscript of St. Augustine. If someone now claimed to possess it, we would think that:

    1) The manuscript was not destroyed.

    or else

    2) This is an exact copy of that manuscript, but not of itself.

    Even if the manuscript was miraculously restored by God, we must admit, from Invagen's point of view, that Augustine had nothing to do with it. The manuscript is created by the will of God, and therefore can only be a duplicate of what was written in the hand of Augustine.

  2. Aleg N., from which particular works of Kierkegaard do you draw such a radical conclusion and what, in fact, do you call the “content of the Christian faith”? Just because Kierkegaard believed in the resurrection of the dead wasn't something that bothered him, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian. Although he himself, out of modesty, would never have dared to call himself by such a high name, and he put a lot of work and effort into showing why it is so difficult to be a Christian (in Nietzsche's terms, it is becoming a superman), well, if only because it requires the fulfillment of the only “royal law” – love for one's neighbor, and who this “neighbor” is, he explains in detail in “Works of Love” – a work on Christian love and its difference from non-Christian (selfishness). And it is also worth reading at least those of his Conversations, which, thank God, were translated into Russian by Alexey Vasilyevich Lyzlov. They are written in his own name, and not on behalf of one of the pseudonyms, which greatly simplifies the reader's task, because there is no need to guess whether Kierkegaard himself thought so or whether he simply let one of the disputing parties speak out. If you don't think these books have anything to do with Christianity, then I don't know what they might have! Kierkegaard is unique in that he spoke about the essentially Christian, and not about the confessional, and it would not have occurred to him to reflect on the idea of the infallibility of the pope, etc. But that is precisely why Christians of all faiths find something valuable for themselves.

    “Leap of faith” is always associated with risk, uncertainty and ignorance in advance. That is why Abraham, the father of faith, is such a good example. There was nothing at all then, not even the Old Testament, Moses, prophets, dogmas, traditions, traditions and church fathers, so that people now “know” who they “believe in”, where to “jump” and what awaits them after such a prepared jump. Abraham had only a voice that he could trust, risking everything, as no one else had ever risked anything after him. That is why Abraham chose God, made this leap of faith, and it is extremely difficult to understand it even with the help of Kierkegaard (“Fear and Trembling”), because understanding itself is possible only if you start your own movement of faith. When Peter went to Christ on the waters of Lake Genissaret, he also did not know in advance who answered him:”go!” Then why would we think that some less risky/absurd movement of faith is required of us than that of Abraham or Peter?

    It is incorrect to talk about the truth of faith based only on its passion. Kierkegaard says that faith is the highest of passions, that without passion it is impossible at all (“Karamazov's power”, if you will). In “Either-or”, he talks about the significance of choice in a person's life, that it is important not so much to always choose correctly , but to attach importance to the choice itself. And in Fear and Trembling, he says that Abraham would in some sense justify a person who is genuinely mistaken in choosing the object of faith: “for he who works cannot perish.”

    And for the sake of completeness, it is worth recalling the connection between subjective truth and passion, which, of course, is there, since we are talking about existence. This is the last sentence of Either-or (ch. Ultimatum): “Ask yourself and keep on asking relentlessly, until you find the answer; because we know something, we recognize that many times to want to try to achieve this, — and yet, only the deep inner motion, only the heart of unspeakable excitement, — only it is able to convince you that recognized thee truly belongs to you, that no power on light is not able you take it; for it is only the truth, which elevates, — this is the truth for yourself”.

  3. Kierkegaard was only technically a Christian. In fact, he rejected the very content of the Christian faith (which actually defines Christianity as Christianity, distinguishing it from other religions and beliefs).

    It does not apply to the opposition of faith and knowledge. According to him, pure faith is a completely irrational, completely rationally unfounded, completely unaware of the subject and content of the “jump to nowhere”.

    The truth of faith is determined not by the correspondence of its content to objective Truth, but only by the degree of devotion and emotional tension of the believer. Hence, the problem of rational justification of the possibility-impossibility of resurrection (rebirth) does not concern Kierkegaard at all. He has adogmatic ideas about the truth of faith:

    “A pagan who prays in spirit and truth, even if the object of his prayer is a false god, actually believes in the True God, whereas, on the other hand, a Christian who does not sincerely pray to the True God actually believes in an idol.”

Leave a Reply