Re: Soren Kierkegaard on Faith and Reason

You can either employ all your acumen to show the unreasonableness of a 
miracle and then on that basis (that it is unreasonable) conclude that it 
is no miracle – but would it be a miracle if it were reasonable? – or you 
can employ all your profundity and acumen to understand the miracle, to 
make it understandable, and then conclude that it is a miracle because it 
is understandable – but then it is indeed no miracle. No, let miracle be 
what it is: an object of faith.


> When Christianity entered the world it presupposed want, distress, the 
> suffering of the anguished conscience, the hunger that cries out only
for 
> food – and then Christianity was the food. Nowadays we think that we
have 
> to offer appetizers before we can get people to enter into faith. What 
> appetizers? The preaching of the law? No, no! Christianity must be
served 
> with such appetizer seasonings as proofs, grounds, probability, and the 
> like. This means we betray Christianity, we actually deny that it is 
> unconditionally the food, that the fault lies in men, that they should
be 
> properly starved out.
>