Kant Vs Kierkegaard Essay

Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard both differ in their views on religion or Christianity, in the light of philosophy, which were vividly illustrated in their works Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (1794) and Fear and Trembling (1843) respectively.

For Immanuel Kant, reason can neither deny nor confirm the existence of God. We can generate the idea of God, but we cannot prove or disprove God's existence. He suggests to abandon the traditions of religion which were rooted in the morality of the past. Religion itself adds to the true faith a set of doctrinal (dogmas and beliefs) and behavioral (ceremonies and rituals) elements that make it less pure, but make the practice of morality easier. We then come to believe that what God commands is to believe in certain dogmas and to conform to certain rituals. He proposes that there should be an absolute and pure state of morality. Morality depends on the individual who can accept absolute morality and can share it to the society so that it may too can become religious. Institutional religion is not necessary for Kant if the society will

To recognize one's existence on the basis of an experience or a demonstration would not be an act of faith. A belief based on experience or reasoning is not a matter of faith, but of knowledge. We have, for example, faith in God only if we believe in his existence even though it is impossible to have any empirical or logical proof whatsoever. He used the story of Abraham who chose to sacrifice his son Isaac in accordance to the command of God even though he don’t understand the reason behind it. He showed that Abraham made a great leap of faith and reason was set aside. Kierkegaard wants to show that faith goes beyond the rules of reason. It is on the individual’s side lies the continuous irrational relationship with