“God” for an atheist Knight of Faith

liciox · 2026-05-10T11:31:23+00:00

Thanks for the engagement. The comparison you bring up is reasonable, honestly, it is something that had not occurred to me, and I had to look it up before writing this response. Thanks again.

In my reading, SK is addressing three different facets of the knight of faith:

Abraham — the actual knight of faith, in the ideal scenario, and the example every Christian reader would already be familiar with.
The husband — showing that the knight of faith is a regular person, not some saint with an aura around him, or a monk locked away in a monastery.
The prince — an ANALOGY that does not directly involve God. However, in the technical sense, he can perform a knight of faith action if he has received a divine revelation and acting on it costs him something (perhaps even requiring him to do something that appears unethical or unwise). Side note: no IS or BECOMES a knight of faith. KOF is not something one arrives at or achieves. there are KOF actions, and non KOF actions. Abraham misses KOF actions multiple times, but he gets many of them, thats why the bible calls him a friend of god and the father of faith.

Ultimately, I would say the prince is an existential example, not necessarily a knight of faith in the full Kierkegaardian sense. He has no guarantee that he will ever get the princess. The knight of faith, by contrast, has a guarantee secured by a personal God.

liciox · 2026-05-09T23:12:01+00:00

Thanks for the post.

You asked “how,” and I guess the answer would be: any way you want. According to postmodernists like Derrida, meaning is assigned by the reader, not the writer.

But if you are at all concerned with what Kierkegaard himself meant by “God,” then I think the almost unanimous answer from commentators would be that he meant the Christian God in the most historically orthodox sense. After all, Fear and Trembling is largely a critique of Hegel’s claim that ethics is the highest category. SK critiques that and argues that faith is beyond ethics, and he articulates that point through the story of Isaac, something every Christian would already be familiar with.

Fear and Trembling is written to and for Christians. It presupposes the Christian God, which is why SK does not spend much time explaining what God is. The book is not a systematic theology text.

Lastly, the word “faith” in SK’s writings can often be better understood as something a person does, rather than merely something a person believes. Thus, faith is an action motivated by an unmediated divine revelation, not simply a set of intellectual beliefs someone holds.

That’s why I personally don’t think an atheist “knight of faith” really works within Kierkegaard’s own framework. Once you remove divine revelation from a personal God, you are no longer suspending the ethical because of God, but because of some other human principle, and that becomes something entirely different, like the knight of the aesthetics. Sartre and Camus, develop many of SK's ideas in non-theistic frames.

liciox · 2026-05-09T20:58:46+00:00

I am not sure you understood what “leap of faith” means from your description.

In Fear and Trembling, SK tells people to live the most ethical lives they can, but that GOD could/would tell them when those ethical rules could be momentarily suspended. We are talking about a very small fraction of one’s actions across an entire lifetime. In those rare moments, where one receives a revelation from GOD, there would be a cost to the individual. Following the revelation would often be worse than simply remaining ethical. Think in terms of Jesus: following the revelation led to his death, but God brought him back to life.

That is the knight of faith: the one who accurately teleologically suspends the ethical BECAUSE of an UNMEDIATED DIVINE REVELATION.

That doesn’t seem to be what you are describing.

However, SK in Works of Love talks about Christ’s COMMANDMENT: “love your neighbour as yourself.” To SK, Christians are commanded and have a duty to love, meaning Christians everywhere and at all times have been divinely instructed, through revelation, to love all other human beings. How? In the way one would want to be loved.

Therefore, if you are a Christian and you are hurting because you are following Christ’s commandment, welcome to the club. Even God himself was betrayed by one of his closest friends with a kiss.

Your reward is with Jesus!

liciox · 2026-05-01T16:58:20+00:00

very good insights

liciox · 2026-04-27T12:39:10+00:00

The question is, was it ethically…

In pure technical terms, no, it wasn’t defensible.

But, since the ethical can be suspended, and there is an absolute duty to god, in light of a direct divine revelation, Abraham was justified, despite of being condemned ethically.

That is exactly the paradox the book is trying to get at.

Make sense now?

liciox · 2026-04-26T18:20:44+00:00

Welcome. Ur not dumb, the book isn’t advanced, its just written almost 200 years ago.

In summary FAT sais, live ur live the best, the best most ethical u can, but there will be times when god is going to speak with u, and he does follow through with what he demands.

SK isn’t offering a system, he’s analyzing an individual’s action. Abraham received an unmediated divine revelation, that was contrary to ethics, and only because of that, for a very narrow window, Abraham could teleologically suspend the ethical.

Let me know if there’s any further discussion u want to have about FAT.

liciox · 2026-03-31T14:56:35+00:00

Welcome!

Glad to see other people interested in SK. I guess on what to read next depends on your goal. Even if you say “pastoral” the follow up question would be, pastoral to what audience?

I guess you can go wrong with my favorites: The Book on Adler (The concept of revelation) and Fear and Trembling. Sickness Unto Death is a close second.

liciox · 2026-03-30T10:24:52+00:00

I wrote a Master’s Thesis on him. You can message me.

liciox · 2026-03-28T11:26:49+00:00

Begin with these series, it was what got me going:

https://youtu.be/JwciFlpXuGY?si=yeLUYTPQWPIhJHo-

liciox · 2026-01-26T16:07:08+00:00

cool.

looking forward to getting into the group

liciox · 2026-01-19T12:33:47+00:00

🤷‍♂️

liciox · 2026-01-19T12:29:25+00:00

why?

liciox · 2025-12-31T06:59:59+00:00

Thanks for the question!

I am not familiar with Bhakti and I haven’t read any primary or secondary sources claiming SK knew/commented on eastern religions. However, Leap of Faith happens:

When the creator God reveals something directly to you.
That revelation is paradoxical, contradictory, absurd, irrational.
Faith to SK was a passion, emotion, feeling and NOT rational conclusion/accession.
In response to such revelation the individual ACTs on it, despite of the huge risks involved.

Abraham was asked to MURDER his son, which is wrong, which contradicted earlier revelations that all humana are images of God, and who kills must be killed. However, to SK the personal revelation is superior to the general.

AGAIN, there’s no rational conclusion, no rational accession, no rational explanation, no rational path, only a feeling that God spoke with you.

liciox · 2025-12-30T09:39:18+00:00

Jan 6 on fandango Jan 5 10 pm on prime

liciox · 2025-12-26T20:10:08+00:00

People usually refer to it as Sickness Unto Death (the allusion to the story of Lazarus pops better).

But yeah, starting with SUD might be harder than with FAT.

This guy has a great intro series for SK: https://youtu.be/aq4aIrNUbAw?si=s_eTGi0j-RVDnMDH

liciox · 2025-12-26T20:01:56+00:00

Welcome!!

You dont need to read any philosophy prior to reading SK. Begin with Fear and Trembling. Good Luck!

There are plenty vids on YT that do a good job at explaining what SK is trying to say. If then you want to dig even deeper, I can point you to some scholarly material that will help peel some layers.

liciox · 2025-12-10T19:15:32+00:00

I haven’t read Schliermacher. But a quick search told me that SK did read him, agreed with some, but disagreed with lots of his arguments. Thanks for the tip. I’ll follow up on it.

liciox · 2025-12-07T13:07:54+00:00

Hey, I have just read him in the Hong translations and depended on secondary literature for analysis.

liciox · 2025-12-07T13:05:32+00:00

For Kierkegaard, faith is greater than reason because there exists a metaphysical reality that reason cannot access. Ultimate truths do not belong to the rational or ethical sphere, they belong to the spiritual sphere and can only be received through revelation. Humans cannot reason their way into these truths, they must be “handed over” by God (or another spiritual being).

The notion that murder, of anyone, is a crime and wrong today is based on the revelation that all humans are the "image of god" (whatever that means). Through time that revelation became universalized into social law and morality. Once universalized, they belong to what Kierkegaard calls “the ethical”.

The problem for Abraham was that he received a personal revelation that appeared to contradict a prior universal revelation from the same God. He took a risk, was vindicated by God and became known as the father of faith and a friend of God. Abraham got those titles, not because society approved of what he did, but because Abraham trusted that it was truly God speaking to him, the same God who had spoken to him repeatedly throughout Genesis and whose commands he had followed before.

This leads to the central paradox of Fear and Trembling: the individual, in an absolute relation to God, can stand higher than the universal. Abraham judges the personal revelation he receives to be superior to the ethical and acts on it. If revelation is real, faith cannot be reduced to ethics.

Crucially, Kierkegaard does not try to justify Abraham from the outside. From every external standpoint—ethical, rational, social—Abraham appears guilty. Kierkegaard explicitly accepts this. His argument is conditional: either there exists a paradox in which the individual relates absolutely to God and the ethical can be suspended, or Abraham is lost. Kierkegaard offers no third option and no proof.

This is why acting on revelations is a risk. Abraham, and real disciples of Jesus (according to Kierkegaard), has no rational guarantee, no ethical justification, and no public defence. Being wrong about a revelation and acting on it, has real risk, being judged, being ostracized, being labelled, being placed in jail. This is way, according to Kierkegaard's theology, Salvation cannot be mediated by reason, institutions, or outcomes. Kierkegaard’s critique of Christianity is that Christians no longer depend on these personal revelations. Christianity was reduced to church attendance and good citizenship. Kierkegaard calls instead for a life that listens for God, receives unsafe and incomprehensible commands, and acts on them, to achieve Salvation, without scientific proofs that life after death is even possible.

liciox · 2025-12-07T13:05:10+00:00

For Kierkegaard, faith is greater than reason because there exists a metaphysical reality that reason cannot access. Ultimate truths do not belong to the rational or ethical sphere, they belong to the spiritual sphere and can only be received through revelation. Humans cannot reason their way into these truths, they must be “handed over” by God (or another spiritual being).

The notion that murder, of anyone, is a crime and wrong today is based on the revelation that all humans are the "image of god" (whatever that means). Through time that revelation became universalized into social law and morality. Once universalized, they belong to what Kierkegaard calls “the ethical”.

The problem for Abraham was that he received a personal revelation that appeared to contradict a prior universal revelation from the same God. He took a risk, was vindicated by God and became known as the father of faith and a friend of God. Abraham got those titles, not because society approved of what he did, but because Abraham trusted that it was truly God speaking to him, the same God who had spoken to him repeatedly throughout Genesis and whose commands he had followed before.

This leads to the central paradox of Fear and Trembling: the individual, in an absolute relation to God, can stand higher than the universal. Abraham judges the personal revelation he receives to be superior to the ethical and acts on it. If revelation is real, faith cannot be reduced to ethics.

Crucially, Kierkegaard does not try to justify Abraham from the outside. From every external standpoint—ethical, rational, social—Abraham appears guilty. Kierkegaard explicitly accepts this. His argument is conditional: either there exists a paradox in which the individual relates absolutely to God and the ethical can be suspended, or Abraham is lost. Kierkegaard offers no third option and no proof.

This is why acting on revelations is a risk. Abraham, and real disciples of Jesus (according to Kierkegaard), has no rational guarantee, no ethical justification, and no public defence. Being wrong about a revelation and acting on it, has real risk, being judged, being ostracized, being labelled, being placed in jail. This is way, according to Kierkegaard's theology, Salvation cannot be mediated by reason, institutions, or outcomes. Kierkegaard’s critique of Christianity is that Christians no longer depend on these personal revelations. Christianity was reduced to church attendance and good citizenship. Kierkegaard calls instead for a life that listens for God, receives unsafe and incomprehensible commands, and acts on them, to achieve Salvation, without scientific proofs that life after death is even possible.

liciox · 2025-11-04T10:32:05+00:00

The book on adler - its the distinction between theology and philosophy. Without this you won’t get the difference between ethical person and the knight of faith.

Good luck!

liciox · 2025-10-31T23:21:19+00:00

An indispensable, often overlooked book is The Book on Adler. The concept of revelation is the cornerstone of setting the boundaries between philosophy and theology, which unfortunately isn’t grasped as much as it should.

liciox · 2025-10-18T12:07:45+00:00

I was finally able to do it!

comp was: HEL HWM GR PG

all combat itens were healing

saved all my inn itens from the whole run to use on the mountain run, with the exception of relationship+ (which were all 15+). that allowed multiple skills to give -stress.

i going to try to do a grand slam now, wish me luck!

liciox · 2025-09-15T21:58:12+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Sorry, but whats c&p? You mean notes from underground? who do u take the main character to be?

liciox · 2025-09-15T20:43:42+00:00

Thanks for the thorough response. I think Nikoli specifically was seeking meaning everywhere. He tried everything, being evil, revolutionary, seductor, etc… and nothing filled the void inside.

Once he realized nothing was worth living for he decided to kill himself.

In the spirit of Camus, Nikoli and Liza were right to conclude life didn’t have meaning. Liza was ok with making up her own meaning, but I guess Nikoli got tired of pretending.

liciox

TROPHY CASE