Kierkegaard's Argument For The Existence Of God

Kierkegaard argued that religious faith and objective reasoning are incompatible. Faith is higher than reason and is the highest human virtue and thus is necessary for fulfillment. He defines faith as “contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual’s inwardness and the objective uncertainty” (206). He claimed that faith should not be based on objective evidence since they are both different processes and that faith requires passion rather than reflection. Also, faith is due to human striving and thus it should be result of subjective experience. God can only be known through subjective and personal experience and never objectively.

I think there is contradiction in claiming that faith should be subjective and one should commit to a belief subjectively. There are many different belief and most individuals only commit to some belief

while rejecting others. How does one choose which faith and belief they should commit to? Surely they are using reason to compare belief against one another and then deciding which one to commit to. Thus, reason is still required for either choosing or rejecting a belief.
Kierkegaard also claimed that faith can only be possible when faced with uncertainty and thus faith involves willingness to take risk. But willingness to take risk does not necessarily mean one must actually take risk. For example, a husband’s faith in his wife require that he continue to trust that the wife love him and is faithful to him. Even if someone were to show evidence of the wife being unfaithful, the husband’s faith in his partner does not require that he ignore the evidence or not ask for reassurance of the wife’s loyalty. In this case it seems reasonable to want evidence of the wife’s loyalty which shows that she is not unfaithful. The husband may show love by continuing to love his wife even when there is a reason to doubt, but willingness to do this does not mean love requires that the husband actually doubt his wife. Thus, even though faith may require willingness to face uncertainty, it does not mean that a person should actually face uncertainly to have faith.
Another argument is the approximate argument which deals with the role of historical evidence.

Kierkegaard claimed that historical evidence always includes some margin of error but faith involves acknowledging possibilities of error and still taking the risk. But what if there are many evidence that go against a belief? Believer shouldn’t ignore these evidence. For example, if there were several evidence that supports that God doesn’t exist and the concept of God had been invented few centuries ago by humans. In this case believers should take into consideration these evidence and not blindly have faith in a belief that is false.

Kierkegaard also went on to say that the greater the risk, greater the passion and faith. But why is greater risk required for greater faith? Why not just little to no risk? Adam presents two scenarios with different level of risk involved:

“(A) You plunge into a raging torrent to rescue from drowning someone you love, who is crying for help. (B) You plunge into a raging torrent in a desperate attempt to rescue someone you love, who appears to be unconscious and may already have drowned.”

(215)
Both cases display your willingness to save someone and risk your life in order to do so, but Kierkegaard would say that case B shows more passion since in that case risk is greater. But case A also shows passion even if less risk is involved. Furthermore, one should not risk their life if the chances of success are small. In case B, if the person has already drowned, then there is no point in risking your life to rescue a person who may not even be alive. Also, there’s no guarantee that you wouldn’t get hurt in the process. If somehow you also were to drown while trying to rescue the person, then there will be two deaths instead of just one. Even though faith might require risk, there’s no reason as to why greater risk is needed for greater faith. Similar to how so much evil isn’t necessary in order to understand good when a little bit of evil also makes one acknowledge the good, greater risk isn’t necessary when a little bit of risk can also show faith. Thus, little bit of risk can also show faith and greater risk shouldn’t be required for greater faith when the chances of success are low, and especially at the expense of your own life.
I think faith that is not objective will only be strong as we feel them at a given time. The strength of our faith depends on our strength and thus will change as situations changes. But objective faith includes evidence that supports the faith and strengthen it. Thus, having evidence of God’s existence in creation will strengthen and support faith. Furthermore, faith should be a belief that includes objective reasoning and evidence. It can exclude evidence in the form of direct observation, since then faith would not be needed. But there exists many things that are not directly observable, such as particles of air. Even though these particles aren’t seen, there is evidence to support its existence. Thus faith should be rooted in evidence. Objective reasoning will only strengthen faith.