Faith has several strengths and weaknesses when used as a basis for knowledge in religion and the natural sciences. In order to fully analyze these strengths and weaknesses and determine which of the two is more prevalent, faith, religion, and the natural sciences should be distinguished from one another. In The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary faith is defined as the “belief and trust in God” or “allegiance to duty or a person” (270), religion as “an organized system of faith and worship” (617), and science as “knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method” (650). Faith may be considered a strong basis for knowledge in religion as religion is usually built around the concept of faith. However, faith may be a weak basis for knowledge in religion as certain teachings in a religion may not have a direct link to the concept of faith. Similarly, in the natural sciences, faith may also be seen as a strong basis for knowledge as a scientist has faith in the hypothesis he may be testing. Likewise, faith may be perceived as a weak basis for knowledge in the natural sciences as faith and the natural sciences tend to offer incongruous solutions to the same problem.
Faith may be a strong basis for obtaining knowledge in religion. Believers perceive a lot of the teachings and practices in a religion as pieces of knowledge due to the fact that they have faith in that religion. In Islam, it is considered wrong to eat pork. Because a Muslim has faith in Islam, their religion, they might consider it a piece of a knowledge that it is wrong to eat pork. This can be considered a piece of knowledge that originates from the faith in the religion. Hence, one can c...
... middle of paper ...
...lly when heavily relied upon for the obtaining of knowledge.
Works Cited
Exodus. The Holy Bible. Glasgow [Scotland]: Collins, 1989. Print.
"Faith." Def. 1, 2. The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1989. 270. Print.
"Religion." Def. 3. The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1989. 617. Print.
"Science." Def. 2. The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1989. 650. Print.
Cole, K. C., and Sue Giddings. "Is There Such a Thing as Scientific Objectivity?" DISCOVER Sept. 1985: 76-78. Web.
Lackner, Chris. "God Is Listening When We Pray, Study Concludes." CanWest News Service [Ottawa]. Print.
Fleharty, Carrie. "The Differences between Religion and Faith." Helium. 17 July 2007. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. .
Science and faith are generally viewed as two topics that do not intermingle. However, Andy Crouch’s work, Delight in Creation, suggests that there is an approach to both faith and science that allows support of scientists in the church community. There is an approach that can regard science as a career that can reflect the nature of God.
As said by Yale professor of psychology and cognitive science, "Religion and science will always clash." Science and religion are both avenues to explain how life came into existence. However, science uses evidence collected by people to explain the phenomenon while religion is usually based off a belief in a greater power which is responsible for the creation of life. The characters Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth in Nathaniel Hawthorne 's novel, The Scarlet Letter, represent religion and science, respectively, compared to the real world debate between science and religion. Roger Chillingworth is a physician who is associated with science. (ch. 9; page 107) "...made [Roger Chillingworth] extensively acquainted with the medical science of the day... Skillful men, of the medical and chirurgical profession, were of rare occurrence in the colony...They seldom... partook of the religious zeal that brought other emigrants across the Atlantic." The people of the Puritan community traveled across the Atlantic for religious reasons, and because men affiliated with medical science did not tend to practice religion, they rarely inhabited this community. Chillingworth, falling under the category of "skillful men of the medical and chirurgical profession," would not be expected to reside in this community. The narrator through emphasizes this with his rhetorical questioning, "Why, with such a rank in the learned world, had he come hither? What could he, whose sphere was in great cities, be seeking in the wilderness?" These questions demonstrate that it was so strange for Chillingworth to appear in this community because of his association with science. Perhaps, the phrase "with such rank in the learned world" could yield the narra...
Throughout history, conflicts between faith and reason took the forms of religion and free thinking. In the times of the Old Regime, people like Copernicus and Galileo were often punished for having views that contradicted the beliefs of the church. The strict control of the church was severely weakened around the beginning of the nineteenth century when the Old Regime ended. As the church's control decreased, science and intellectual thinking seemed to advance. While the people in the world became more educated, the church worked harder to maintain its influential position in society and keep the Christian faith strong. In the mid-nineteenth century, the church's task to keep people's faith strong became much harder, due to theories published by free thinkers like Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, David Friedrich Strauss, and others. These men published controversial theories that hammered away at the foundation on which the Christian church was built. As the nineteenth century progressed, more doubts began to arise about the basic faiths of the Christian church.
The role of faith has been debated among many theologians, scientists, and philosophers. It has been greatly discussed and depicted throughout history as whether faith is logical when it comes to religion or whether faith is completely absurd. In this essay, I will focus on the role of faith through the lenses of Christian philosophers Sorean Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Faith plays an important role in Kierkegaard and Tillich theology; I will critically examine their depiction of faith and compare and contrast their passages. Kiergarrd view of faith is that it is completely absurd where as Ti
The structure of the book is organized to introduce new concepts to the reader earlier in the book, and the author strengthen these concepts by discussing them in following chapters to engage the reader and reinforce learning. Chapter One the author mainly focuses on providing basic understating of intellectual knowledge, as well as comparing the difference between transmitted knowledge and intellectual knowledge from modern and a premodern point of view. Furthermore, in this chapter the author provided various verses and quotes from the Quran and the Hadith, to show how the idea of acquiring knowledge through intellectual knowledge is aligned with basic Islamic belief, and how God commends every human being to think for themselves and not believe in false gods. Also in this chapter the author discusses the main goals of intellectual knowledge and how it guides us on the right path to understating our innersole. Along with explaining the main human disciplines required for achieving these goals such as rejecting what we know about things that we acquired in the past by transmitted learning to allow us start with a pure mind to avoid pitfalls of believing in false
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were negated by the fact that when investigating theories scientists focused on comparing their hypothesis to observable consequences in an empirical and objective manor (“context of justification). Thus, this allowed the Positivist’s to “acknowledge the play of subjective factors in initial development of hypotheses and theories while guaranteeing that their acceptance [is] determined not by subjective preferences but by observed reality” (Longino 172). However, although this theory was popular for some period of time, a philosopher by the name of Helen Longino approached the problem of scientific objectivity in a different way. She believed that science was a social practice that involved the inevitable input of various subjective factors such as scientist’s values, beliefs, etc… when performing their work. However, she goes on to say that what made science objective was the process in which scientist performed their work. She essentially thought that if the process in which scientist gained knowledge wa...
All throughout history, there have been countless controversies and arguments over a wide array of topics. One of the greatest controversies is the one on faith and reason. Within this argument, people are trying to distinguish if there is a clear-cut difference between both faith and reason. Some believe that both serve the same purpose while others seem to think that there is no relation between the two at all. Those who believe they are completely different, are adamant in that faith purely serves the purpose of an extension of religion, while reason takes on a more logical and pragmatic.
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
Barbour, Ian G. Religion in an Age of Science. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. Print. (BL 240.2 .B368 1990)
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
6. Bohdan R. Bociurkiw and John W. Strong, Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
First off, it is important to realize that religion and science have to be related in some way, even if it is not the way I mentioned before. If religion and science were completely incompatible, as many people argue, then all combinations between them would be logically excluded. That would mean that no one would be able to take a religious approach to a scientific experiment or vice versa. Not only does that occur, but it occurs rather commonly. Scientists often describe their experiments and writings in religious terms, just as religious believers support combinations of belief and doubt that are “far more reminiscent of what we would generally call a scientific approach to hypotheses and uncertainty.” That just proves that even though they are not the same, religion and science have to be related somehow.
Some feel that scientist are atheists. Some scientists say we still believe in God. St. Thomas answers some questions about faith and science and why faith cannot be tested by the rules of science. In obj.4 he says, “ Because the object of science is something seen, whereas the object of faith is the unseen, as stated above”(258). What he is saying is science is something that has to be seen and proven whereas faith is something as unseen and relies solely on an individual 's beliefs. St. Thomas also says, “ In like manner it may happen that what is an object of vision or scientific knowledge for one man even in the state of wayfarer, is , for another man, an object of faith, because he does not know it by demonstration”(258). Meaning that what one person sees as scientific and fact, can appear to another man as just another sign of faith, faith has no bounds whereas science has boundaries and