When it comes to the age old question of can we prove that God exists, Soren Kierkegaard and Sir Francis Bacon would have different answers. Kierkegaard believes that “Faith, not logic, is the basis of belief”, while Bacon believed that “nature should be interrogated”. Although both philosophers believe in God, through Kierkegaard’s methodology, one could come to the conclusion that God exists, while through Bacon’s methodology one would not be able to come to the conclusion that God exists. Kierkegaard was a practicing Christian, and believed that God’s existence could not be proven logically. Instead, he affirms what he calls a “leap of faith,” which is to be taken by an individual in order to understand and believe in God. Regarding this
…show more content…
This was because there was no logic behind proving the existence of God, so it was easy for a believers argument to be discredited. He stated that “If we use the facts of nature for proof, a tragic disaster or new discovery could change our mind about what we heretofore thought were the acts of God”(Kierkegaard). An example of this could be that a person wins a car in the lottery, and because of this good fortune he believes God exists. If then the car is crashed or stolen, the individual could turn around and say that God does not exist. Thus, relying on fortune to prove God’s existence could not work either. Kierkegaard stated that in order to use fortune to prove God’s existence, ”One would have to take an ideal interpretation of natural occurrences—that only good things in the world are done by God”(Kierkegaard). Although Bacon believes that “Nature should be interrogated”(Sproule 102), he states in his book, Instauratio Magna, “That men confine the sense within the limits of duty in respect to things divine: for the sense is like the sun, which reveals the face of earth, but seals and shuts up the face of heaven"(Bacon). Although his scientific method for acquiring knowledge …show more content…
Kierkegaard would say that “Faith, not logic, is the basis of belief”, while Bacon would say that “nature should be interrogated”. Although both philosophers believe in God, through Kierkegaard’s methodology, one could come to the conclusion that God exists, while through Bacon’s methodology one would not be able to come to the conclusion that God exists. This question is one society is confronted with everyday, and ultimately can not be answered until after we perish. For this reason, Kierkegaard states “Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward”(Kierkegaard). When an individual finally discovers this answer, it is too late to share with the
This was because there was no logic behind proving the existence of God, so it was easy for a believers argument to be discredited. He stated that “If we use the facts of nature for proof, a tragic disaster or new discovery could change our mind about what we heretofore thought were the acts of God”(Kierkegaard). An example of this could be that a person wins a car in the lottery, and because of this good fortune he believes God exists. If then the car is crashed or stolen, the individual could turn around and say that God does not exist. Thus, relying on fortune to prove God’s existence could not work either. Kierkegaard stated that in order to use fortune to prove God’s existence, ”One would have to take an ideal interpretation of natural occurrences—that only good things in the world are done by God”(Kierkegaard). Although Bacon believes that “Nature should be interrogated”(Sproule 102), he states in his book, Instauratio Magna, “That men confine the sense within the limits of duty in respect to things divine: for the sense is like the sun, which reveals the face of earth, but seals and shuts up the face of heaven"(Bacon). Although his scientific method for acquiring knowledge …show more content…
Kierkegaard would say that “Faith, not logic, is the basis of belief”, while Bacon would say that “nature should be interrogated”. Although both philosophers believe in God, through Kierkegaard’s methodology, one could come to the conclusion that God exists, while through Bacon’s methodology one would not be able to come to the conclusion that God exists. This question is one society is confronted with everyday, and ultimately can not be answered until after we perish. For this reason, Kierkegaard states “Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward”(Kierkegaard). When an individual finally discovers this answer, it is too late to share with the