/lit/ - Literature

Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche all present the situation of a "godful" or "godless" worldview. Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky both understood that faith in Christ was something that couldn't be predicated on a notion of falsifiability apart from the historicity of Jesus and the crucifixion (which most scholars agree upon as having happened, so it's not really an issue for the Christian).

Both of them understood, in different ways, the ramifications of Dostoevsky's aphorism, "if there is no God, everything is permitted", which means to say that the moral, epistemological, and anthropological framework that Christians presupposes can all be freely discarded if there is no God. Nietzsche understood this too, but where Kierky and Dosto saw this as having horrifying implications and clung to Christ all the more because of it, Nietzsche embraced the "badlands of atheism" to formulate his theories on Will to Power and the Ubermensch. Really, it comes down to which outlook you think is suitable for both yourself as an individual and collectively as a society going forward.

When I read Fear and Trembling, it gave me a more profound understanding of the notion that faith is not something I can wrap up in a few syllogisms or academic papers: it is a lived and constantly reaffirming experience that must remain ever active in order to survive, which is why Kierkegaard was so disillusioned with the institutional Danish church of his time in the first place.

All of this to say, that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky have been the two most influential philosophers in deepening my faith. As Dostoevsky said, to which I assent as well,

> "It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt."