Concluding Unscientific Postscript

Kierkegaard suggests that there is a marked difference between an “objective” approach to investigating the truth of Christianity and the attitude of faith. In the former, the inquiring subject aspires to a state of godlike “disinterestedness”; in the latter, the inquirer is “infinitely and personally and passionately interested on behalf of his own eternal happiness” (23). Kierkegaard signals in this brief introduction to Book 1 that the Postscript as a whole will contrast these two fundamental attitudes toward Christianity. His argument will involve taking satirical jabs at the pretensions of “objective” thought (prevalent in his day) while extolling the more personal approach of faith.

The historical point of view looks at Christianity from the standpoint of its foundational documents—notably, the Scriptures. The disadvantage of this approach is that it’s impossible to attain complete certainty in historical matters, and we cannot stake our “eternal happiness” on a mere “approximation”; faith must have a more solid basis. Having a historical interest in Christianity also implies that the inquirer lacks personal stakes in the matter and that their pursuit is purely academic. Historical research is a shaky basis for faith because it is subject to unending revision and new discoveries that may leave the inquirer disillusioned. Finally, an overemphasis on scientific objectivity in religious matters tends to make one lose the “infinite personal interestedness” that faith requires (30). It’s as if the believer is somehow “embarrassed” about God and the Scriptures and needs them validated by scholarship.

Thus, although research plays an important role in establishing religious texts in their correct form and analyzing them for their trustworthiness and content, it does not yield a decisive “result” for faith. Kierkegaard is careful to affirm that he respects scholarship but argues that scholarship cannot in and of itself create faith. This is because faith is an inherently “subjective” matter, and Christianity itself is based on a “paradox,” not on scientific logic. Kierkegaard will elaborate on this in ensuing chapters.

Kierkegaard draws similar conclusions about other methods commonly used in defending the truth of Christianity. Those who have doubts about using the Bible as proof often look to the church instead, arguing that the fact that the church exists and has persisted through the centuries proves the truth of Christianity. However, in order for this argument to work, one must prove that the church has remained constant and unchanging over time. To prove this, one must again pursue historical research, so the argument turns out to be the same as the biblical argument. Likewise, arguing that Christianity must be true because it has endured for 18 centuries does not compel belief in its specific doctrines. Islam, for example, has lasted nearly as long. An argument based on time does not get at the inherent truth of Christianity for the individual person.

Kierkegaard concludes that “no direct or immediate transition to Christianity exists” (47). One cannot arrive at faith simply through dialectics (logic) or rational proofs. This will be an important presupposition going forward as Kierkegaard expands on the inherently “subjective” nature of faith.