It’s Better to Mock God than to Defend Him

Last updated on: January 10, 2015 at 4:21 pm by Kyle Roberts

It’s Better to Mock God than to Defend Him 2015-01-10T16:21:43-05:00 Kyle Roberts

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

So rather let us openly mock God, as has been done before in the world: this is always preferable to the demeaning air of self-importance with which one would prove God’s existence. For to prove the existence of one who is present is the most shameless insult, since it is an attempt to make him ridiculous; but regrettably people haven’t the faintest idea of this and out of sheer seriousness see it as a pious undertaking…One proves [God’s] existence by worship—not proofs.

This quote by Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) couldn’t be more relevant to recent, tragic events. While Kierkegaard is referring here to a certain kind of rational, theological apologetics (defending “God’s existence”), there’s another kind of “God’s defender” that takes up actual arms, rather than merely the weapons of theological argument, against the unbelievers. It is better to “openly mock God” (perhaps using comic satire?) Kierkegaard here urges, than to “defend him.” He further suggests that the act of defending God (or “proving God’s existence”) is tantamount to doing the opposite–because in so doing the defender only reveals the inability of the God to show itself (much less defend itself).

In a recent blog post, James McGrath, re-posted meme (via the Christian Left on Facebook), that I think resonates with Kierkegaard’s quote. There is a complicating dimension to all this, though, in that the eruptions of violence against “the West” are likely not solely motivated by some kind of pathological desire to “defend God.” Reza Aslan provided some helpful commentary on CNN yesterday regarding the cultural and socio-economic underpinnings of these terrorist actions. Underlying this violence are questions about identity, marginalization (or perceptions thereof) and culture-clash than it about religious doctrine per se (although these are intertwined). There are reasons (beyond theological or religious ones) that fundamentalist ideologies attract social castaways and others who have either isolated themselves or have been isolated by the larger culture. The Boston bombers come to mind, too. These reasons are in no way justifications of the violence (as Aslan also made clear, in his commentary). But in defending “God,” they are probably actually defending (or asserting) themselves., albeit in atrocious ways–and in ways that can be defined as idolatry of the most destructive kind. Religious fundamentalism appeals to people who cannot tell the difference between defending God and defending themselves. If this is what it means to defend God, it’s better to mock him instead. But it’s better still to worship God, which as Kierkegaard suggests, is the only “proof” for God worth considering.

Uncategorized

Charlie Hebdo

Kierkegaard

Previous Post

January 7, 2015

Can there be a Postcolonial, Missional Church?

Next Post

January 12, 2015 Exclusivism Distorts God's Mission

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2020 November 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 December 2018 July 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz