On Søren Kierkegaard’s Fideism
By: Siavosh Sahebi
Tags: Religion, Kierkegaard, Existentialism, Knowledge, Truth

Søren Kierkegaard’s fideism argues that religion and the ethical beliefs associated with it are a matter of subjective faith as opposed to objective knowledge.[1] In this essay I will explain why he rejects objective knowledge’s relevance when it comes to religious beliefs and how he presents faith as a subjective truth. I will also investigate the adequacy of his concept of fideism and provide my own thoughts on the matter.

In Kierkegaard’s view, religious belief, such as Christianity, offers the opportunity for eternal happiness for each and every person.[2] This can only be achieved through the relationship one forms with Christianity. Kierkegaard is critical of the fact that when scholars and philosophers analyse and examine religion, they almost always take an objective view when trying to seek the truth. Kierkegaard provides two key reasons for why objective knowledge must be rejected when relating to religious belief.[3] Firstly, when analysing historical information and data, at best an approximation of certain events and experiences can be reached. If we are to achieve eternal happiness through religion, then an approximation can never suffice and can never satisfy this desire. Kierkegaard’s second reason for the rejection of objective knowledge as it pertains to religious belief is related to the holy scriptures. Not only do these scriptures also only provide us with an approximation, but the authenticity of each book and scripture in the bible would have to be questioned and examined objectively. The integrity, honesty and morality of each author must be questioned as well as the guarantee that they were truly and wholeheartedly inspired by the word of God. For Kierkegaard, if we base religious belief in objective knowledge then the slightest doubt regarding these issues would completely diminish the foundation on which we hope to build our beliefs and seek eternal happiness. Furthermore, even if the above concerns regarding historical information and religious scriptures were successfully accounted for, Kierkegaard argues that the faith and relationship required for religious belief and to attain eternal happiness is lost when we delve into an objective investigation of such matters. This is due to the loss of passion that is required for faith and religious belief.[4]

For Kierkegaard, faith in Christianity is a matter of making the decision to form a relationship with Christianity.[5] He argues that every single decision that we make is in fact a subjective one and that every decision requires passion for it to be a genuine one. Subjectivity and passion become even more vital when it comes to faith in Christianity since this decision is integral in our search for eternal happiness. If we are absent of subjectivity and the passion that comes with it then we are unable to make this decision. For Kierkegaard subjectivity and passion are integral for one to form a relationship with Christianity because he sees this relationship as an inward reflection.[6] He argues that any knowledge that we gather relating to religious belief is related to ourselves as individuals and if no inward reflection is involved then the knowledge obtained is purely accidental and not true knowledge. True knowledge involves the subjective reflection of our relationship with Christianity, reflecting on whether the relationship is a true “god-relationship”.[7] Kierkegaard argues that how we live according to this relationship and how we live according to our beliefs is what makes them true and what constitutes them as knowledge. Even if what the beliefs are, the contents of the beliefs, are not necessarily true, how we choose to live by them and by our god-relationship is what makes them true.[8] This is why faith is a subjective matter for Kierkegaard. While objectivity is concerned with the content of religious beliefs, subjectivity is concerned with our inward reflection of religious beliefs and how we choose to integrate them in our lives in order to fulfil the god-relationship required to achieve eternal happiness. An example that can highlight this distinction is a well-known Christian belief from the book of Matthew in the Bible: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. If we look at this objectively, we may interpret it as meaning that we must love those who live next to or near us as we love ourselves. One may take this to mean that we must show them an unrealistic level of love or that only our neighbours are worthy of our love. However, if we interpret this subjectively, we can interpret it as meaning that we should show all people with the same level of love, compassion and respect that we show ourselves and that we would in turn expect to receive back, for example. The subjective interpretation allows us to make the passionate and genuine decision of how we want to live according to this belief. To look within ourselves for knowledge. To live in the way we think would best serve our relationship with God. This subjective faith and commitment is what makes our knowledge true.

According to Kierkegaard, the only thing we can be certain of is the truth of “objective uncertainty”.[9] This means that the only thing that we can be certain about is that we reach uncertainty when we look at things objectively since such an analysis only yields an approximation at best. Kierkegaard argues that this is precisely why we need faith.[10] When we accept objective uncertainty as truth then we need faith in order to reflect inwards with passion. Once we accept objective uncertainty as the truth then we can make the decision to turn inwards with real passion in order to form a true god-relationship. For Kierkegaard, the objective search for god may be impossible and yet we should not spend a single moment without god in our lives as every moment without god is a moment without the possibility of eternal happiness. The utmost importance of our relationship with god in the search for eternal happiness is why faith is so significant. We need faith in order to reflect inwards with passion, in order to find our subjective truth and form the god-relationship that will lead us the eternal happiness that Christianity offers.

Kierkegaard believes that Socrates exemplified the faith-based conception of religion that he is advocating for.[11] For Kierkegaard, the ignorance that Socrates proclaimed corresponds to the idea of objective uncertainty and that Socrates looked inward with total passion in order to discover truth. Socrates lived in a state of ignorance in which the truth was related to the subjective individual and for Kierkegaard this is more profound and a sign of true knowledge than any objective analysis or truth. For Kierkegaard, Socrates’ god-relationship is one derived from a passionate inward reflection in which his ignorance, or objective uncertainty, has led him to accept faith with regard to his beliefs. Furthermore, Socrates lived in such a way that was completely true to his beliefs and the faith that he had in his beliefs was so passionate that it is what ultimately resulted in his execution and is the reason why he was willing to die for his beliefs. This is why Kierkegaard sees Socrates as the ultimate example of why religion and religious beliefs are a matter of subjective faith and that this is the only way to achieve true knowledge, to form a true relationship with God and to ultimately find eternal happiness.

In order to assess the adequacy of Kierkegaard’s argument I would like to draw on an idea that is brought up by other philosophers such as David Hume.[12] That is, the limits to human understanding. When we seek knowledge in matters such as the existence of God, we are unable to go beyond our human experience. For example, we have no way of experiencing the concept of ‘infinity’ either in the external world that we occupy or internally. We can attempt to intellectualise the idea using words and thought, however the limits to human understanding do not allow us to fully understand these ideas as true knowledge. The idea of God is a similar one, it is outside the realm of human understanding. This provides support for Kierkegaard’s argument as it highlights the incapability of humans to understand and prove the existence of God objectively. It therefore becomes the task of the individual to form a subjective relationship with God and that requires passionate faith and inward reflection.

Kierkegaard’s idea of the truth as an inward reflection and about how one chooses to live by their beliefs is a key component to his argument. I find myself in agreement with Kierkegaard in this respect as I believe that in order to form a true connection with a belief and truly integrate it into your life, the belief and knowledge must come from within and an internal connection is vital. Although we may be told that certain beliefs are the right ones, unless we discover the truth of these beliefs by a sort of internal reflection and form a true connection with it internally, the belief will not be strong and will be fleeting. It will lack the passionate faith required for us to live by it. I believe a real-world example from my own life will demonstrate this. In my life I do not consume, eat or use any animal products. This is known as veganism. There are multiple reasons for my decision to follow this lifestyle such as the environmental impact of the meat industry, the animal suffering and the health benefits that come from this lifestyle choice, to name a few. Inward reflection on my connection with nature, and by extension to animals, and my connection to my body allowed me to form this subjective truth for myself and to make this lifestyle choice with passion, having faith that what I am doing is a good and right action. However, there are many people who may have very different reasons for choosing the vegan lifestyle and may have a completely different inward reflection regarding this decision. There is also much of the population who do not hold these beliefs or who have not made these internal reflections and therefore have no connection to the vegan lifestyle. While this is not a religious belief, it is an ethical one in my opinion and I think it highlights the subjectivity that is involved in the beliefs that we do hold. It also highlights how inward reflection is required in discovering what is true for each individual so we can form a passionate relationship with the belief. If I had not reflected within myself with regard to this decision and had not formed the relationship to nature and health, then I do not believe the belief would be a strong one and I do not believe I would have dramatically changed my lifestyle to abide by my belief. This passionate relationship and the faith we put in our belief, that it is good and right, is what results in us living in accordance with this belief and I believe this extends to religious belief just as Kierkegaard argues.

Kierkegaard’s rejection of objective knowledge and promotion of subjective faith regarding religious belief forms the basis for his version of fideism. Kierkegaard’s view of subjective faith as being one of a passionate decision to form a god-relationship which is done by inward reflection is outlined in this essay while also assessing the adequacy of this faith-based conception of religion. While Kierkegaard’s argument is related to religious belief, this essay attempted to show that its adequacy extends beyond religion to non-religious matters as well.

Bibliography

Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, pp. 48–57



Hume, David. ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ William Blackwood, 1907, p.10

Footnotes

[1] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, pp. 48–57

[2] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, p. 49

[3] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, p. 50

[4] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, pp. 50–51

[5] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, p. 52

[6] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, pp. 52–54

[7] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, p. 53

[8] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, p. 53

[9] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, p. 55

[10] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, p. 55

[11] Kierkegaard, Søren. ‘Subjectivity is Truth’, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P Pojman (ed.) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th Edition, 2003, pp. 54–57

[12] Hume, David. ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ William Blackwood, 1907, p.10