Distinction between “Religiousness A” and “Religiousness B” facilitates



Distinction between “Religiousness A” and “Religiousness B” facilitates

Introduction

While the issue of religious pluralism or Inclusivism seems implicit throughout the Postscript, perhaps even constantly lingering on the fringes, it is not the central question of Kierkegaard's pseudonymous author, Johannes Climacus. This should make us pause in raising the issue. Before asking whether one can insert any other religion in Climacus's account of subjectivity, or pointing to Climacus's existentialist structure as a Meta theory that can be found in any way of being or God-relation, it is critical to consider what Climacus himself writes on the subject (Cross, 2003).Of course, since he suggests that everything he writes “is to be understood in such a way that it is revoked”, we should be wary of concluding we have arrived at an authoritative account. Indeed, anyone who references the text as an “authority,” according to Climacus, “has eo ipso misunderstood it”.

Nevertheless, in reading the text, one is constantly tossed between Climacus's many statements that seem to offer varying views on the issue of pluralism. On the one hand, he bespeaks openness to multiple faith-practices, stating that “whether Christianity is in the right, I do not decide”. He claims to represent a departure from the objective introductions to Christianity which tout the “superiority of Christianity over paganism, Judaism, etc”. And he famously asks: “If someone who lives in the midst of Christianity enters, with knowledge of the true idea of God, the house of God… and prays in untruth, and if someone lives in an idolatrous land but prays with all the passion of infinity, although his eyes are resting upon the image of an idol—where, then, is there more truth?”.

At the same time, in other passages Climacus pushes for the uniqueness of Christianity, stating: “Christianity is the only historical phenomenon that… has wanted to be the single individual's point of departure for his eternal consciousness”. “Christianity wants to lead the subject to the ultimate point of his subjectivity” And finally, “To understand oneself in existence is also the Christian principle”. In light of these seemingly conflicting statements, I suggest that an ear to Climacus's account of Socrates—leading to his account of Religiousness A and Religiousness B—provides a basic hermeneutic for handling the question of religious pluralism in the Postscript. Before arriving at this point, however, I must reemphasize that the question does this understanding of subjective truth open the door for other religions? Is simply not a question Climacus would ask, for it elevates the objective over the subjective or single individual? Climacus is not concerned with the fate of other individuals, but states that he should only focus on himself: “I believe it would be appropriate discourse for a truly religious person if he said: I do not doubt anyone's salvation; the only one I have fears about is I”.

The question of the God-relation is always one's personal “affair”, and “the religious person does not allow himself to be disturbed by comparison with ...