Dr. Merold Westphal: Kierkegaard on Faith and Reason

let me say a word and offensive reason in dialog with picture because faith is that proof faith unites us to that substance a reason in order to realize its full potential meets the horizons revealed bribe and truths contained in the faith and not just any sense but the Catholic two or three weeks ago our Lutheran pastor suddenly said faith is not reasonable faith is ridiculous he was commenting on that story in the gospel about the unfaithful servant who had been skimming off the top and whose boss had caught him at it and told him he was going to be fired but he had to bring in an up-to-date account of the books and he went to all the people who owed money and he said how much do you own if they said a hundred he'd say well change that and write down 80 or change that in write down 50 and we read this strange word in Luke 16 his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the children of light there was a certain rationality at work a cost-benefit analysis maximize profit analysis he was hoping that when he was out of a job he would have made friends who would invite him into their home the gospel tells us and then Jesus commends the unfaithful servant I tell you he says make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth Mammon is the greek there so that when it is gone they may welcome you into their eternal homes and that one reference to eternity makes it clear that Jesus commendation is ironic here's this wisdom which from a certain point of view is a real asset you'll you'll you'll survive if you've got this kind of know-how and can practice this kind of wisdom and Jesus says in effect with his eye comment it's utter foolishness when you look at it from the light of eternity now what I suspect is that Jesus has been reading the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians I'm just checking to see if anybody's awake sounded like a few of you haven't quite dozed off yet in the early chapters of 1st Corinthians Paul does the same sort of thing he says there's a wisdom of the world there's the wisdom of the wise and relative to that wisdom the word of the Cross the law goes of the Cross is foolishness what that foolishness is the wisdom of God and that wisdom is a higher wisdom than any wisdom of the world two biblical examples now one from Shakespeare I'm working my way up very early on in Hamlet Claudius the new king who has killed Hamlet's father and married his mother and unseemly haste is upset by Hamlet's melancholy and he refers to it as his absurd melancholy and from his point of view it is absurd it doesn't make any sense at all Hamlet is still the heir to the throne Hamlet still has all the privileges of a Prince of Denmark Hamlet has this beautiful young girl as his girlfriend Ophelia why all this long Dogface melancholy Hamlet has not yet said that something is rotten in the state of Denmark but he's feeling it already he doesn't know what's rotten quite he thinks his mother married an unseemly haste but he doesn't know yet that she and his uncle had conspired to murder his father in order to share the Brown by the time all of that comes to light the absurd melancholy and I picked the word absurd of course advisedly because it's going to be an important word for Keurig or the absurd melancholy turns out to be more in tune with reality than the glib happiness of Claudius and the attempt to carry that out on the part of Gertrude his mother who's not quite as as good at at bluffing she's more uncomfortable about to his situation but we have in these three instances the Jesus situation the pawl situation and the Shakespeare situation is this if you're standing here this looks reasonable and that looks absurd but if you're standing here things can be reversed what from over here looks reasonable looks to be foolishness and what from over here looks to be absurd turns out to be a certain kind of wisdom the relativity of the reasonable and of the absurd and I'll get the Kierkegaard in a moment and I want to mention the fact that just shortly after he wrote fear and trembling just a matter of months he preached a sermon in Trinity Church in Copenhagen on this text from the opening chapters of first Corinthians yet among the matter we speak wisdom though it is not the wisdom of this age who are doomed to perish the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age who are doomed to perish but we speak God's wisdom secret and hidden which God decreed before the ages of glory there again you get that Pauline take on the relativity of what's wisdom the relativity of what counts as reasonable so it isn't immediately obvious what reason should signify and what some people see is reasonable from another point of view will be entirely unreasonable not here her goal was a Lutheran couldn't help but I mean he was born in Denmark he wasn't a Jew he satirizes this way of becoming a Lutheran in some of his writings but Luther has this same sense that reason or what's called reason can be very very different things and how one looks at it depends on on which of the things it is and where you stand sometimes not very often sometimes Luther speaks positively about reason for example after citing a number of passages from Luther Paul Althouse one of the best German Luther scholars writes as follows for Luther reason is the source and bearer of all culture it deserves all it discovered all the Arts and Sciences all medicine and law and it administers them reason makes itself felt wherever wisdom power industry are found among men in this life none of this is to be despised rather is to be regarded and praised as a noble gift of God now you may have noticed that all of that had to do with what we might call secular domains of human life but on occasion Luther speaks affirmative Lee about reason in the religious domain for example when he's speaking about those who are under the sway of the devil he says they do not permit themselves to be instructed they do not listen to reason they do not admit scripture and their reason in scripture are in a partner and in a more famous statement before the diet of worms where he's alleged to have said he rice and I can do no other but probably didn't say that he almost certainly did say unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or clear reason I am bound by the scripture which scriptures which I have quoted in my conscience is captive to the Word of God and there once again the Luther who appeals to Scripture designates reason as the ally of Scripture most of the time when Luther talks about reason he says nasty things about it in fact the only other subject about which he speaks as nastily is the Pope but here's some of the things he says about reason it's the ally of the flesh and the devil it's mere human and opinion and traditions it's the presumption that it can invent moral and religious practices which he calls self chosen works and worship is both in ethics and religion Reason invents its own way and says this is how we should go he says that without the Ministry of the Holy Spirit and a faith reason is bound to lead to error it needs illumination by faith it's both too feeble and too fallen to be trusted all by itself it's unable to grasp sin and mercy and grace themes that are at the very heart of the gospel as he understands it it doesn't grasp the difference between active and passive righteousness which again is so fundamental to him he says that the root of the problem of reason that he's been castigating in this way is its pride is his reason isn't to be abolished but it's prideful use is to be abolished the claim that reason can be sufficient unto itself apart from revelation apart from faith apart from the ministry of the holy spirit and so forth and so he he uses three terms say he's been reading Kierkegaard just as Jesus has been reading Paul and he uses three terms that are absolutely fundamental to Kierkegaard's comments about reason when he's speaking in a negative tone of voice as he most often is the three terms are paradox absurd and offense relative to self sufficient reason relative to what he sometimes calls human understanding or worldly understanding the gospel is a paradox it doesn't make sense it's absurd he also uses the term madness as if he's been reading Shakespeare and it's offensive 1/5 from the standpoint of what all too often passes as reason the word of the Cross is offensive and so Jesus says blessed are those who are not offended in me now I want to turn attention specifically to Kierkegaard and to his reflections on the relationship of reason to faith particularly in fear and trembling and to preliminary comments Kierkegaard that we not attribute to him the writings of the pseudonyms under which he often wrote and in my scholarly work I try to follow that advice and refer to the pseudonyms but today I'm going to say Kierkegaard tells us this care who are tells us that and I want you to understand that by that I I'm not making any claim to be reporting what the historical Kierkegaard I think what we're talking about will be very close to what he believed but that's not the point the point is he created characters pseudonyms to present some ideas to us that he wants us to think about and he doesn't want to get his reputation as an author whether it's favorable or unfavorable to stand in the way and so he puts these pseudonyms between himself and us but he's the one who presents these ideas to us and says what do you make of this he challenges us to come to grips with these ideas in much the same way as a novelist presents to us different modes of thinking in different modes of being in the world by creating characters and presenting them to us what do you make of this guy what do you make of this gal is this how we ought to be living our life and that indirectness challenging us to respond to the character rather than then a didactic approach in which the novelist would say here's the good guys in here are the bad guys you know in the westerns western movies the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black hats they're they're not quite as subtle as sometime let that's the first thing so my apologies for simply saying Kerr Gagarin it's really the pseudonyms who are the authors secondly as I've already indicated reason can signify several different things for example when Aristotle defines human beings as rational animals reason signifies what it is that distinguishes us from the other animals but there's a long history in the West in which reason has a different meaning from that it's the context in which the relationship between reason and faith is discussed and in almost perfect parallel with that philosophy and theology and reason and philosophy refers in that context and that's the context we'll be working with to the use of the human intellect unaided by and uninformed by divine revelation Scripture and the traditions that come out of Scripture and the ministry of the holy spirit and the testimony of the church all of those very particular historical sources of potential knowledge are cancelled out and reason the human intellect unaided by those is what counts as reason and philosophy presumably is supposed to work in that way on the other hand there are those ways of thinking in which precisely those modes of assistance are drawn upon and trusted and used and faith is the name for that and theology is the discipline so when when one is talking about faith and reason in the first instance reason signifies the unaided use of the human intellect without dependence upon divine revelation now in the Enlightenment period which comes just before caregiver comes on the scene the Appeal to Reason had as one of its strongest arguments that faith was too pluralistic faith was too particular there was Judaism and Christianity and Islam there were Protestants and Catholics and as the history of that period showed all too clearly there were religious wars and intolerance and persecution and Inquisition a whole lot of religious violence and prejudice and reason was supposed to be universal reason is a faculty that all people in all times in all places have available to them reason was supposed to be a historical and in that sense a religion which was made to conform to reason would be a universal religion and would eliminate the sources of religious violence and intolerance and persecution well it didn't turn out quite the way the Enlightenment had hoped the project that bears the name of one of Conn's bucks religion within the limits of reason alone had as its best seventeenth century in my judgment is best 17th century example Spinoza and it's best 18th century example in Conte and its best 19th century example in Hegel each of them purported to be the voice of universal reason and the problem is that each of those three views and each of the interpretations of religion that they offer on the basis of either their metaphysics or their moral philosophy each is incompatible with the other two they begin to look like Jew and Christian and Muslim and the differences among them seem to be at least as great as those or Protestant Catholic and Jew as we'll Herbert described the religious scene in the United States back in when the 50s or 60s so the promise of reason to be universal is a promise that shows itself to be unkept by Enlightenment thinkers now when we when we turn our attention to fear and trembling Kierkegaard thinking about reason in this pluralistic way that is to say he's already a Hague alien and unlike his a historical predecessors in the 17th and 18th century Hegel understands that human reason is historically embedded and comes in a variety of different forms he thinks he can give us a totality of all these forms that would be the universal reason but it's going to have a historical character to it and Kierkegaard and other thinkers after Hegel weren't so sure that that all-inclusive totality was available to us that would presuppose that history had come to an end and that there are no further developments to happen and so forth so in fear and trembling Kierkegaard's faith with two particular versions of reason and I emphasize that their particular because just to the degree that they do not show themselves to be universal the question can be posed to them just as it can be composed to the particularity of religious tradition why should we buy into this rather than something else now that's a very difficult question to answer in a context of religious pluralism my point and course point is that it's just as difficult a question to answer when it occurs in a context of philosophical pluralism insofar as all of our thinking is historically conditioned and particular and in conflict with other interpretations whether they are flying the flag of reason or flying the flag of faith it doesn't look as if there's some neutral standpoint from which one can adjudicate the differences and one is in a difficult situation well the first the first contrast that Kierkegaard makes in fear and trembling is between Abraham as the knight of faith and the knight of infinite resignation he takes the story from Genesis 22 of Abraham's almost sacrifice of Isaac God comes to Abraham and says I want you to go to Mount Moriah and sacrifice Isaac and what we have is what in American law would be a full-fledged conspiracy conspiracy involves an agreement between at least two parties and an action on the part of at least one of them towards that end so if you and I agree to rob a bank and you go in and case the joint we're guilty of a conspiracy to rob the bank now Abraham and God had this agreement that he's supposed to go and sacrifice Isaac and then Abraham packs up his mule and takes Isaac along and they travel for three days to get to Mount Moriah and he builds an altar and he starts the puts the wood on for the fire he's committed himself to doing this and you know the story at the last minute God says no don't go through with it but that doesn't take Abraham off the hook it doesn't take God off the hook God commanded Abraham to do that though he revoked it eventually and Abraham was willing to do so and willing to take some very concrete steps in that direction so with that story in the background Corps says one can imagine that Abraham was just a knight of infinite resignate the night of infinite resignation is somebody who's willing to sacrifice what's dearest to them for something that's higher take a an example that isn't particularly religiously significant some young person who is musically gifted and has opening before him or her a stunning career as a concert pianist or a concert violinist or as an operatic singer has already broken into the world-class level of performance and then decides that the higher calling is to stay at home and take care of an invalid parent or perhaps an autistic child the night of infinite resignation does this gives up the dearest for the sake of something higher and does so without resentment does so without hostility is that who Abraham is no he's that but he's something else the story at least Esguerra understands it has Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac and he's doing so without resentment and without hostility toward God we don't find from Abraham the kind of diatribes you get from Jobe a god I'm issuing some subpoenas you'd better show up and explain yourself don't get any of that from Abraham what is that the distinguishes Abraham is the night of faith from the night of infinite resignation Abraham believes that he will get Isaac back in this life even if necessary by means of resurrection now this is gear gloss on the story obviously he's using the story to make his philosophical points it's not just that he believes he will get Abraham back in the life to come it's not at all clear that Abraham had a belief in the life to come and it's not just that Abraham thinks that well God is testing me but in the final analysis he'll back off that's what actually happened in the story but on character Gore's telling Abraham believed that he would get Isaac back even if that required a resurrection so here's the difference between faith and reason for faith for God all things are possible for reason that is to say for the night of infinite resignation that's not the case and so the night of infinite resignation gives up the dearest for something higher but without any hope in in total despair because there is no God on the scene who could bring Isaac back even if that required a resurrection in other words the night of infinite resignation operates in a metaphysical framework of what today we would call scientific naturalism a world in which there is no God who is an agent a world in which there is no God who performs what are commonly called miracles from the from the point of view of scientific naturalism Abraham's faith is foolishness it's absurd and Kira Gore says it's by virtue of the absurd that Abraham believes that he'll get Isaac back even if that requires a miracle from the standpoint of faith the reason that ends up in despair is is to narrow a view of reality it leaves out what's most important about the real namely God as a loving agent and so you get this relativity of reason depending on the standpoint from which you look at it now Kierkegaard designates this distinction as preliminary fear and trembling is a strange book it has for introductions and and this comes in the fourth of the four introductions and is explicitly labeled preliminary in other words the contrast that I've just tried to describe is not what is at the heart of the book what's at the heart of the book comes in the three problems that come after the four introductions and the first of those is famously or infamously labeled is there a theological suspension of the ethical so what on earth is that all about here the contrast is between Abraham and the tragic hero rather than the knight of infinite resignation and the tragic hero is Agamemnon or Jeptha or Brutus three stories from three different literary contexts and in each of those cases Agamemnon and Jephthah and Brutus did kill their child a daughter in the case of Agamemnon so daughter or son in case of Jeptha I think it's a daughter yeah and a son in the case of Brutus and what they have in common is that they live in a culture in which family values are very important but the values of the larger community Trump family values and so in each of those three stories in different ways the needs of the community and the values of the community appoint to a higher duty than the duty as a father to a son or a daughter and from course point of view that means they operate within the framework of the ethical I'll spell that out more in just a moment whereas Abraham doesn't have anything of that sort Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac is based on no social ethos no society's need it comes to him and his culture and his society from outside from a transcendent God and so it involves a suspension of the ethical he's very explicit about the fact that this is not an abolition of the ethical but the relativizing of the ethical my ethical duties are real they have a claim on me but they aren't the highest claim God has a higher claim and so the second problem poses the same issue in a slightly different way is there an absolute duty toward God in which case I have only a relative duty toward my society my culture now in the context of developing this Kara Gore says that the ethical is the universal and people are remarkably stubborn in assuming that that means some a historical principle of right and wrong something like the way plato's forms are supposed to function something like a principle of natural law is supposed to function something like Kant's categorical imperative the categorical imperative or something like the utilitarian principle that one should always act so that either one's act or the rule by which one acts maximizes happiness or pleasure or the good or whatever version of utilitarianism you're working with that's what is meant by the universal that's not what careful Gore means by the universal and he's very explicit about it he means by it what Hegel means by the universal and when Hegel talks about the universal he has in mind not some abstract principle but some concrete community so Kierkegaard signif signifies to us the Hegelian context in which he's thinking in the following three ways first of all each of the three problems that make up the main context of the book start out by saying well if the universal is the highest if the ethical as the universal is the highest then Hegel is right but Abraham is lost a clear signal that the ethical as the universal is a hick alien concept secondly Kierkegaard is the Danish equivalent of the term that Hegel uses to talk about the ethical zip mesh kite which is usually translated just ethical life but in context clearly means the laws and customs of my people the tragic heroes act in accordance with the laws and customs of their people those laws and customs say family responsibilities are important but they can be trumped by your duty to the larger community and so mothers send their sons off to war that's not a family value but the family value has been trumped by the the ethical commitment of the larger community that the needs of the nation in times of war trumped the desires of the family and for each of the tragic heroes something along that line is the case the third indication that the ethical as the universal is to be meant in the Hegelian sense is the most explicit of all the universal is the nation the state society the church or the sect five different terms that Kierkegaard uses to designate the ethical Universal and that's why it seems to me that the best translation of Zilla kite is the laws and customs of my community that can be a political community that can be a cultural community that can be a religious community but it's a concrete human community a particular human community and then the question is are the norms of my particular community even if that is a religious community the highest criterion for my behavior or is a God who is not reducible to my nation my state my society my church or my sect all of whom can come under the judgment of God all of whom can be discovered to be unreliable guides to the highest human life and when I try to enact for myself character Gore's point here I do it in the following way I'm not usually in a situation of pledging allegiance to the flag but when I am I cross my fingers and I put my hand on my heart and I pledge allegiance to the flag with crossed fingers to remind myself that I have a higher allegiance than the nation and the the flag and the nation for which it stands that's the point that carefu gore is trying to make Eleanor stump is one of my heroes but not when it comes to reading gear Gordon she acknowledges that she's not a Keurig or scholar but she claims that her reading of the Abraham's story is Keurig or like she says God's commandment does not put Abraham in a dilemma where ordinary morality conflicts with obedience to God rather it constitutes a test of Abraham's character that he passes precisely by committing himself to the belief that morality and obedience to God are on the same side now that strikes me as a very uncaring reading of the story it may be in some sense a good reading of those thought for the whole of Abraham a story in Genesis but careful Gore's point is just the opposite it seems to me careful Gore's point is that ordinary morality while it often purports to be the voice of universal reason is in fact the laws and the customs of a particular human community and the particularly 'men communities which are the base of what she here calls without sufficient analysis ordinary morality are finite and fallen just like human individuals are and so even when they are very good in Abraham's case Kierkegaard's that the laws of his community for bad child sacrifice so that god was going against the ethos whether that's historically accurate of course who I don't know I'm not sure that any of us do child sacrifice was practiced in the ancient Near East whether it was just among the kind of nomads that Abraham was I just don't purport to know but but the point here is that every human community is just that a human all too human community and therefore always liable to be trumped by the revealed Word of God in spite of its self image as a very religious community as Gehrig or Denmark did indeed and see itself and so in a later book practicing Christianity Kierkegaard says every individual ought to live in fear and trembling he's referring back to his earlier book every human individual ought to live in fear and trembling before God but every established order also ought to live in fear and trembling before God because fear and trembling signifies that there is a God if there is in principle no possible gap between what I think is right and wrong or what we think is right and wrong then either I am God or we are God and Kierkegaard is suggesting that just to the degree that any community thinks of itself that way it is an idolatrous community having deified its collective self and wandered away from true faith and having done so precisely in the name of reason I don't know that Nazi Germany deified itself in the name of reason it had had - too much of blood and guts sense of what its roots were and so forth but many human communities that do succumb to the tendency to absolute eyes themselves that's that prideful use of reason that Luther was talking about do so precisely in the name of Reason the culture the the academic intellectual culture of scientific naturalism is an example of that it says here we are the community that does science and as my teacher John Smith used to say anything that my net doesn't catch isn't a fish that's self absolute izing of the scientific project from Kierkegaard's point of view and i should think from any authentically biblical point of view is is idolatry which is not to say that there's not a legitimate place for science but that the scientific worldview isn't the sole truth about reality and it has a relative significance and value not an absolute significance and value one of the most wonderful passages in all of Carroll's writing also comes from that later book practice in Christianity in which care who Gore stages a jury trial he imagines Jesus coming on the scene and making claims that are equivalent to claiming to be the Messiah the son of God and in that sense probably not a a Trinitarian sense but somebody utterly unique and in the purposes of God for the people of God and so he stages his jury trial with with ten members drawn from his contemporary Danish society and has them he imagines Jesus having sort of wandered into their world and they give their verdicts on whether Jesus could be the expected one and when I summarized this I capitalized expected one with an E and an O to highlight a certain relationship to between that and the established order with an E and an old capitalized so to me the most interesting of the ten jurors is the sixth one who happens to be a clergyman is the only clergy person on the jury he says it is it is true that we all look forward to an expected one but that it is God in person who is to come and not is not the expectation of any rational person and every religious person shudders at the blasphemy of which this person is guilty that's almost a quotation from the gospel stories of the rulers before whom Jesus was tried claiming that he was blaspheming but in the claims he made about himself but it gets more interesting as this clergyman goes on he gives it a flavor and a verb that the the gospel narratives lack therefore he says the authentic expected one will look entirely different will come as the most glorious flowering and the highest unfolding of the established order he will recognize the established order as the authority he will summon all the clergy to a convention present to it it's his achievements together with his credentials and then if in the balloting he has a majority he will be accepted and hailed as the extraordinary that he is the expected one one of the things that Kierkegaard never lacked was a sense of satire and he had a very sharp knife that he drew out from time to time and poked people with it that's one of the one of my favorites but that that's the point of fear and trembling whenever reason whenever in the name of Reason some established order absolute eise's itself and says in effect we are the people in wisdom will die with us our norms are the final norms are the absolute norms we are immune to critique Lord we thank thee that we are not like those terrorists Lord we thank thee that we are not like those Communists and there are many ways one can play that that game whenever that happens something like what this satire is talking about is going on now I conclude with what what may seem a strange comment I've talked about the sense in which category is a gig alien in recognizing the historical particularity of various worldviews that call themselves reason and challenging their claims to be the absolute authority Kira Gore wrote fear and trembling in 1843 and he had written a dissertation in 1841 do you know anybody else who wrote a dissertation in 1841 and then broke on the literary scene in 1843 no reason why you should Marx Karl Marx was in those senses an exact contemporary and I want to suggest that Kierkegaard's a Marxist in a peculiar sense Marx introduced the notion of ideology and by that he didn't mean what today we mean by ideology it's we have a much looser sense of the term whereby any semi coherent theory about society and how it does work and how it ought to work is called an ideology but Marx had a more precise view expressed first in the manuscript that wasn't published until after he died and then in the Communist Manifesto the ruling ideas of every epoch are the ideas of the ruling class ideas function ideologically for Marx when they mirror the established order and in turn our funk used to legitimize or justify the established order so the notion of ideology doesn't have anything to do with the content of ideas but with their function they become ideology when they function as the mirror of and the legitimize er of some established order and Marx thought that the task of philosophy as critique was to expose ideology for what it was the self absolute izing of some social group some power elite he thought that that was especially the case with economic classes Kierkegaard doesn't have that economic bias but he has the same view that established orders that that power elites established themselves by adopting ideas which mirror the status quo and in that way serve to justify or to legitimize the status quo or at least the status their status quo maybe they're just clinging to it desperately in fear that it might be losing power but Kierkegaard I Clark it seems to me is an ideology critique or an ideology critic and his work is ideology critique in a book like fear and trembling he calls attention with help from Hegel but anticipating Marx without knowing it to the ways in which human established orders deify themselves absolute high as themselves and in that way make themselves incompatible with biblical faith and so in philosophical fragments a work that comes in between fear and trembling and practicing Christianity he says I hear those voices out there that say Christian faith isn't reasonable it's ridiculous it doesn't conform to reason and he says it's exactly as you say the surprising thing is that you think that's an objection Christianity has been saying this since at least the time of fall and maybe even the time of Jesus what calls itself reason is the prideful self absolute type is all too often the prideful self absolute izing of some human order and when it calls attention to the fact that it's incompatible with Christian faith it's only echoing what Christian faith has said about itself that it is the wisdom of God but not the wisdom of the world that it's not reducible to and and in important ways incompatible with the wisdom of the world and so your talks about the acoustic illusion that comes when enlightenment rationality talks as if it has made a great discovery that Christianity is not reasonable Kierkegaard is one who says and and what precisely is this reason that you are talking about just how Universal is it what is the neutral standpoint by which it justifies its claims to be the highest criterion of how we should think and how we should live those are the kinds of questions that Carol wants to leave us with those aren't answers they're there pinpricks in the self-confidence of certain kinds of rationalism that takes itself to be more self evident than it's capable of being so that's what I think is going on in fear and trembling and I hope you'll find it useful to think about it you you

Channel: Franciscan University of Steubenville

Views: 18,355

Rating: 4.9452057 out of 5

Keywords: Franciscan University, Steubenville, Ohio, Catholic, college, FaithAndReason.com, Faith And Reason, Dr. Merold Westphal, philosophy, Fordham University, Kierkegaard, Søren Kierkegaard, faith, reason, Philosophical Legacy of Søren Kierkegaard Lecture Series

Id: f3pOCBR5oxY

Length: 54min 21sec (3261 seconds)

Published: Tue May 06 2014

Reddit Comments

[u/flyinghamsta]

40:20 til the end is pretty interesting