Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How knowledge is acquired
Similarities between science and religion
Similarities between science and religion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How knowledge is acquired
Question 4: That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow. Discuss this statement in relation to two areas of knowledge.
Introduction
Knowledge can be defined as the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Knowledge is a combination of facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. However, as the times change, some knowledge gets discarded. Therefore knowledge is evolving. The knowledge that is accepted today could be discarded tomorrow. The discarding of knowledge can be related to the arts, ethics and natural sciences. Loss of languages, Loss of religion and scientific philosophies are examples of knowledge that were accepted but discarded today.
Loss of religion and values
In the 20th century alone, nearly a billion people left the religious faith of their parents and became non-believers. Science and Religion sometimes clash in their “truths”. Believers quite often become atheists because of the lack of evidence from religions. Science can be proven, however religion is dependant on blind faith. The loss of religion for some might be liberating, because religion has a set of rules and boundaries to follow. For others, it might not be a major concern. But for many, especially the believers, it was terrifying because since young age religion was taught, and it became embedded in the brain system that you either believe in something, or you will forever spend eternity suffering. Nevertheless, whether a person believes in religion or not, religion still relates to knowledge. Religion is involved with ethics. Ethics is the branch of knowledge concerned with moral principles. These moral principles govern and influence a person’s conduct. Religion is b...
... middle of paper ...
...rone to making mistakes..
Conclusion
The areas of knowledge are how we divide up and label the knowledge we possess. This knowledge that is once accepted, can sometimes be discarded. The loss of religion, and the disproving of theories are prime examples of knowledge that was once accepted but is discarded today. There is a great deal of overlapping between religion and the natural sciences, because the theories of science cause the doubt in some religion, such as the evolution theory which questions the creation of Adam and Eve and how humanity arose from them. Therefore, the loss of religion, which is sometimes caused by science, discarded the knowledge that was once believed by that certain religion. In the natural sciences, theories that were once proven and accepted can get disproven which discards the knowledge that was once proven by that certain theory.
Religion is an organized collection of beliefs and cultural systems that entail the worship of a supernatural and metaphysical being. “Religion just like other belief systems, when held onto so much, can stop one from making significant progress in life”. Together with religion come traditions that provide the people with ways to tackle life’s complexities. A subscription to the school of thought of great scholars
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
It does not give people hope, it can only give facts which are not always the answer. While discussing Dr. Hoenikker’s opinion on truth, Dr. Breed tells John that, “The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become”, in which John responds with, “Had I been a Bokononist then, that statement would have made me howl” (41). Science believes that the more information that people have, the better society will be. Religion in contrast, sees the truth as painful and tries to stay away from what causes suffering. The more knowledge people have, the more suffering will occur and the weaker society will become.
In today’s modern western society, it has become increasingly popular to not identify with any religion, namely Christianity. The outlook that people have today on the existence of God and the role that He plays in our world has changed drastically since the Enlightenment Period. Many look solely to the concept of reason, or the phenomenon that allows human beings to use their senses to draw conclusions about the world around them, to try and understand the environment that they live in. However, there are some that look to faith, or the concept of believing in a higher power as the reason for our existence. Being that this is a fundamental issue for humanity, there have been many attempts to explain what role each concept plays. It is my belief that faith and reason are both needed to gain knowledge for three reasons: first, both concepts coexist with one another; second, each deals with separate realms of reality, and third, one without the other can lead to cases of extremism.
In Introducing Philosophy of Religion, Chad Meister asserts “there are several components (that) seem to be central to the world religion: a system of beliefs, the breaking in of a transcendent reality, and human attitudes of ultimate concern, meaning and purpose” (Meister 6). Throughout my life, I feel that religion is one of the core social belief systems that people use to maintain what they feel is a good way to live. Giving them a sense of purpose or fulfillment during their earthly life, most hoping whatever beliefs that have will help them after death. Even though there are many different religions or religious value systems, everyone has most likely been exposed to one or more. There is only 15% of the world’s population that do not believe in one type of religion or another (Meister, 7).
While some people may believe that science and religion differ drastically, science and religion both require reason and faith respectively. Religion uses reason as a way of learning and growing in one’s faith. Science, on the other hand, uses reason to provide facts and explain different hypotheses. Both, though, use reason for evidence as a way of gaining more knowledge about the subject. Although science tends to favor more “natural” views of the world, religion and science fundamentally need reason and faith to obtain more knowledge about their various subjects. In looking at science and religion, the similarities and differences in faith and reason can be seen.
For centuries, religion has been a topic of great debate and interest, stemming from the validity of ideals to reasons why people believe in it in the first place. Despite all the efforts over time to thwart religion, it has managed to remain as a prominent structure. One question that seems to always be brought to the table is how religion continues to exist in light of the continual advances of science. The reason religion continues to exist today is not because the furthering of science leads to disproving religion, but rather because religion addresses questions that currently not even the advances of science can answer, giving people a sense of unity and congregation based upon two key emotions: hope and fear. However, as with science, religion too evolves and grows over time, and unbeknownst to the individuals, eventually intertwines itself amongst the foundation of society to the point where it can no longer be separated.
At one side knowledge is the source of all conclusions that we reach and the way we interact with one another. On the other hand, if the knowledge is doubtful, it leaves us at a state of dilemma where we no longer can link up different aspects of life and how they are supposed to function to create something of significance. For instance, when it comes to the idea of knowledge, many scholars rely on the notion that its existence is certain and very much logical as long as the existence of God has been accepted as the universal truth (Loeb). However, when someone fails to establish this to be of such status, means, if someone is doubtful about the existence of God, without any doubt this leads to the questioning of knowledge as well since the very source of that is being questioned. However, this notion is debatable and different scholars hold different perceptions regarding the
...r it becomes to discard. The fact that there is the possibility of knowledge getting discarded suggests that perhaps it should not have been accepted in the first place. This begs the question: is knowledge accepted too easily? More often than not, one requires an adequate amount of evidence and facts to accept something as true. However, sometimes there is no evidence and it is impossible to prove something true, yet it is still accepted as knowledge, as is in the case of many theories. This occurs mostly in the sciences, because many times it is difficult to substantiate scientific knowledge. In order to avoid this never-ending cycle of accepting and discarding knowledge, perhaps the standard of accepting knowledge as true should be raised. But sometimes when something is proven false, it leads to finding the truth, so maybe the standard should remain where it is.
We gain knowledge in through our ways of knowing which are mainly perception, reason and language. We use them to find knowledge because we justify our claims and beliefs by their use, thus, our evidences, because they get us closer to the truth. To accept something as knowledge, it must be considered true, one must believe it and there must be justification why the person knows it, therefore these ways of knowing aid in the process for our quest for knowledge. In conclusion, in order to obtain knowledge all of these three attributes have to be integrated in some type of way, and due to the changing nature of all three of them, knowledge is always changing and it is dynamic, leading to the fact that knowledge can be discarded. The questions b...
When considering the basis for the understanding of both science and religion it is interesting to distinguish that both are based on an overwhelming desire to define a greater knowledge, and comprehension of the universe that surrounds us. Now while, science has based its knowledge of experimental basis, researcher, and scholarly work; religion
What is stated above happens around us all the time. Something might be proven today, but proven wrong tomorrow. Therefore I completely agree to this statement. But how do we accept something to be knowledge, and what makes one thing knowledge and the other thing just a theory? We can look at it from various aspects.
“How do we know whether we are using untrustworthy premises from the past to build and develop new knowledge?” All these questions apply to the quote “That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.” According
...scarded is truly dependent on the area of knowledge, which has been explored through this essay. I have noticed that within the arts for example, knowledge is very difficult to be accepted in the first place due to its subjective nature. This can therefore make discarding knowledge practically impossible. In contrast, within the Natural Sciences I have noticed that, although there may be problems with the validity of the information, knowledge is readily accepted once proved. This knowledge is commonly accepted as laws of science, and once this information is disproved then the knowledge is effectively discarded, as it is no use to people anymore. Therefore I can conclude that we must observe the area in which the knowledge is a part of before we can decide whether or not knowledge can be accepted, let alone discarded, due to the subjective of the world we live in.
4. “Without application in the real world, the value of knowledge is greatly diminished.” Consider this claim with respect to two areas of knowledge.