Well, Kierkegaard was before Darwin and the discovery of common descent. So, in his day, it was somewhat unreasonable to attempt to be an intellectually fulfilled skeptic or atheist.

But now that we've moved beyond iron age mythology, we don't need to rely on such an unreliable tool as faith to navigate the world and our place within it.

You got this the wrong way; Kierkegaard sees modern society as causing inauthenticity - this is not about anti-social language, normies or anything at all like that, this is an existential 'analysis' of the human condition after/during the start of the industrial era.Suddenly we all use labels for everything, your identity is an item you take off the shelfs of some supermarket. It didn't use to be like that, actually we haven't had a way of living like that likely ever in human history.

So did the 'authentic' medieval peasant just browse instagram all day and consider himself a special singular authentic individual because it pleased his ego? Likely not. His identity was just formed under very different circumstances than how our identities are formed today. And the way today forces an 'inauthentic' formation of said identity. That is what Kierkegaards beef is with modern mass society.

**EDIT
A quote by Kierkegaard in relation to the inauthenticity of identity caused by the press. I feel we all can relate to what he means, especially cause of the times we live in.

"More and more people renounce the quiet and modest tasks of life, that are so important and pleasing to God, in order to achieve something greater; in order to think over the relationships of life in a higher relationship till in the end the whole generation has become a representation, who represent…it is difficult to say who; and who think about these relationships…for whose sake it is not easy to discover. The real moment in time and the real situation being simultaneous with real people, each of whom is something; that is what helps to sustain the individual. But the existence of a public produces neither a situation nor simultaneity. The individual reader of the Press is not the public, and even though little by little a number of individuals or even all of them should read it, the simultaneity is lacking. Years might be spent gathering the public together, and still it would not be there. This abstraction, which the individuals so illogically form, quite rightly repulses the individual instead of coming to his help. The man who has no opinion of an event at the actual moment accepts the opinion of the majority, or, if he is quarrelsome, of the minority. But it must be remembered that both majority and minority are real people, and that is why the individual is assisted by adhering to them. A public, on the contrary, is an abstraction"

Kierkegaard has a charitable view of people, as is the basic position of humanism and existentialism. Jesus said "I bring the sword". Ie he gives people the choice to either love the other or get out of the way. You can't have the cake and eat it too, you can't help your friends and family while still retaining a confirmation-starved ego and putting yourself up as No.1.

I remember reading some of him in uni, but nothing too serious. I'm at least glad he didn't try to pretend faith in God is somehow rational, I just don't respect an anti-rational approach because it's somehow "the best path" (which I don't even think is demonstrable on the evidence).

Have you actually read anything he wrote?

[removed]

[removed]

Whilst cherry picking quotations can misrepresent the wider body of a person's oeuvre, I constantly come back to "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use" time and time again.

Simply to know is probably the highest goal we can achieve. :)

I just find it hard getting behind a "philosopher" who's answer is essentially "don't think about it and just believe for no reason". To me, you can dress that up in however passionate and flowery language you like, but it's still anti-philosophical.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It's rational to be skeptical.

Well, God and aliens are very different. I certainly think aliens could exist mostly because I believe God the grand creator.

Let's get to this idea of evidence, it's really opinion isn't it? Empirical philosophy would say so.

Highly recommend Fear and Trembling for anyone wanting to get into Kierkegaard. I’m no philosophy expert so it took me a long time to digest it even though it is quite short but, really profound if you can past some of the old-timey, overly religious perspectives. Also, phrases like a “Knight of infinite resignation” are just so flavorful

[removed]

Sounds like radicalization in a pretty ribbon.

> It was so bad that God sent his Son down to essentially spread the Gospel of He/God being the ultimate judge, so you can avoid the Hypocrisy of the Self-Rightous man and woman. You can only interpret what God’s Will is for you, not what it is for the entire state, country, or mankind!

When Jesus criticizes the self-righteous He means that you should not believe so much in your own goodness or be filled with pride, that you should instead be a humble servant of God. To interpret that as saying you shouldn't help keep others away from sin is very strange considering Jesus Himself gave quite a lot of unwanted advice to the sinners around Him.

[removed]

[removed]

>You say this as though Special K didn't assume

Whups... We're not talking about Soren K. - never read him, wouldn't be able to offer any informed insight.

We were talking about faith not being a matter of speculative reasoning, rather of observed realities, in response to a comment.

The person we responded to was less interested in discussion & more impressed with their own absolute vision of reality. Since we found that incompatible with intelligent conversation, we disengaged.

Discussing faith & observable reality, that we're quite happy to kick around - cooperatively, not competitively.

There are many unseen opportunities I reckon.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]