The person who conforms to their hope of God s existence is just as reasonable as the person who gives in to their fear that there may not be a god at all. Some of James argument has been used recently by pope john paul. In his Reflections on Fides et Ratio, the pope claims that humans are seekers of truth. And during that quest, reason cannot sustain one alone. Whether it is a question of the truths of immediate experience or of scientific truth, of carefully developed philosophical thought or of an existentially lived idea, the search for truth is always accompanied by an act of faith. In fact, as social beings, humans are incapable of verifying and ascertaining everything alone; at every level one must put enlightened trust in the testimony of others and in one s cultural tradition.
Compare and contrast essay on religious faith and
This is done so that the values possessed by these things continue to exist in the world rather than perishing with us when we die. James contention in this regard was that his beliefs on this matter were perfectly legal even though there is currently no scientific evidence for the existence of great a greater Consciousness. He claimed that If we had an infallible intellect with it s objective certitudes then going ahead and believing something without scientific evidence would not be legal. However that is certainly not the case, so it is our intellectual duty to regulate what we believe through science, according to james. Going back to the argument for the existence of God, because the existence of God is not a matter of scientific fact why should we suspend our belief in God? James believed that modern science is a sort of organized nervousness. The tests that we put theories through before accepting them as the truth serve one sort of human interest our fear of being mistaken, or being taken by surprise by the course of events. Another way of avoiding that is through our constant hope of discovering new things. According to james, by reason of these different sets of interests, we are under no obligation to suspend belief in God just because to date, god s existence has not been proven by modern science. It is a matter of which set of interests we choose to take priority of concerning the hypothesis that God exists: (a) out of our fear of being mistaken or out of (b) our hope of being right.
When comparing the two selections. Clifford and William James on the compatibility of faith and reason, i feel that both arguments make very valid points. However I do think, after careful reading and based on my own experience, that William James has the stronger argument. William James The will to believe claims that Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by it s nature be decided on intellectual grounds. James contention is that under certain circumstances, it is perfectly legal for a person to go ahead and believe something for which scientific evidence is lacking. To do so is not unreasonable. This argument makes itself useful in the religious shredder hypothesis for the existence of God. James, himself, believed that there is a greater Consciousness than that of human beings to which we are connected. Among other things, this Greater Consciousness cares about and preserves many of the things that we hold dear to us like love, truth, and justice.
In other words, science can explain what it can see and test, but not what it cannot. For that we need faith, which can inspire us, ennoble us, and fill us with joy in a way that pure rationalism never could. While it may no longer be possible to merge faith and reason, it may be just as well after all. The civilization of shredder the middle Ages. Haldane, john.?Faith, plan reason, and the meaning of Life? The compatibility Of faith And Essay, research Paper. The compatibility of faith and reason.
Now we must stop somewhere, otherwise there will be no first cause of the change, and, as a result, no subsequent causes we arrive then at some first cause of change not itself being changed by anything, and this is what everybody understands by god? (Aquinas, cited in Haldane, xx). Was accepted as being the paramount proof of the existence of God until people stopped trying to prove something that was so clearly an element of faith. Most educated people today accept that faith is something personal and special that is not really subject to the laws of reason; if a person is inspired by his belief in angels, for example, it is insensitive to try to talk him out. They also accept that there are certain gray areas in which faith and science collide, such as a circumstance where a parent refuses medical treatment for a child on the basis of a religious objection, but scientists believe that the rejected treatment would save the. In those instances, the law generally sets aside its? Policy toward religion, and rules in favor of treating the child despite the parents? But in general, we let faith alone. Science is good at giving explanations of events and circumstances within nature, but it is not equipped to explain the preconditions of the possibility of there being a natural order?
Harris reason essay faith vs sam
Books?, the book of betty faith, and the book of science. This idea was articulated by Enlightenment rationalists such as Kant and rousseau, and became thesis firmly entrenched in the furor over Darwin? S theory of evolution in the nineteenth century. As the counterbalance foundation points out? In the wake of Darwin?
S book, some Christian believers and theologians began to see science as a threat to their faith. On the other hand, some scientists also began to see religion as a threat to scientific freedom? On the other hand, reason has often been applied to religion, with somewhat vague results. Thomas Aquinas, for example, sought to prove the existence of God by postulating that? We see things changing. Now anything changing is being changed by something else This something else, if itself changing, is being changed by yet another thing; and this last by another.
Consequently, it would have been absurd (and sacrilegious) to learn about anatomy from a cadaver, because we know all we need to know about man from reflecting on the Ideal Man with our rational sense. Thus it was possible for men to believe for thousands of years that the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, because the hypothesis was never tested. The bible implies that God created the earth as a central focal point for all his activities; Ptolemy agreed that the earth was the center of the cosmos; and that was enough for the medieval scientist. Over the course of time, however, scientists began to make their own experiments, sometimes as offshoots of astrology or alchemy. And often their results surprised and disturbed them.
The counterbalance foundation notes that? Almost all the great pioneers and founders of the new science were religious men who wanted a science that would harmonize with their faith. All three founders of the new heliocentric cosmology, nicholas Copernicus, johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton, saw their new vision of the universe as an offshoot of their theology. Newton, in particular, was a religious fanatic whose whole life work can be seen as a search for God. Even the infamous Galileo was a committed Catholic who wanted nothing more than for the pope to endorse his vision of the heavens? Unfortunately, it simply was not possible. The Church insisted on a certain agenda, and the scientific evidence these men produced contradicted that. From that time on, there were two different?
Essay on, faith, cram
On the the other hand, material objects such as a table, which are commonly assumed to have more? Than mere ideas, actually have less reality to a platonist, because? A table would not have come into existence without the idea of a table; it is the idea that gives it shape and reality. Pure, ultimate reality is pure Idea, and the physical world that we touch and see has a reality only insofar as it participates in or is formed by pure Idea? It is easy to see how a philosophy like this could have been eagerly assimilated into medieval Christianity, which denigrated the body in favor of the spirit, and all material things in favor of God. However, it is important to recognize that Platonism, or, more specifically, neoplatonism, as the form reinterpreted by the medieval Christians came to be called, carries within it enormous implications for the medieval scientist. Truly refined and intellectual minds had no reason to resort plan to the analysis of nature as a way of approaching or appreciating the divine, because reality was not to be found in nature but in ideas.
Of the many classical writers whose works were available to the medieval scholars, the most influential one had to be Plato. S book, he observes that? Christianity was built as much on Plato as on the judaic tradition? S work so influential, it would be illuminating to look at exactly what Plato? S ideas were, as well as how they were reinterpreted by medieval scholars. To plato ideas, or conceptual forms, were not idle fantasies, but essential realities. When we refer to? Love?, we are actually referring to something that has an business independent existence outside our minds?
established these? Of science as Plato, pythagoras and Ptolemy. However, these men were probably not scientists, in fact, they were most likely philosophers. These philosophers sought to explain natural phenomena in a way that made sense to them. Many people, including those of Christian belief then read the works of these classical writers.
Reason is something we learn in school, such as a math formula. A long time ago, prior to the scientific revolution, it was considered anti-semitic that reason supported religion. The counterbalance foundation website observes that before this time, science that contradicted religion was wrong.?When we look at the history of science, we see that in fact it owes an immense debt to the religious world. In the early middle Ages? A time when Christian plan Europe turned away from scientific thinking — the science, mathematics, and astronomy of the ancient Greeks was kept alive in the Islamic world, where it was further developed and enriched by moslem scholars. In the thirteenth century when this scientific heritage began to filter back into western Europe, it was originally taken up by Christian monks and theologians? (Counterbalance, faith and reason).
Hegel: hovering over the corpse
Faith And reason Essay, research Paper. Faith and reason, faith and reason can be viewed as opposites. Faith is an element of belief, something an individual does not necessarily require a reason for accepting without reason. For example, an individual? S reason for believing in God may not seem too rational when they are trying to explain them. They may not even stand up to criticism. On the other hand, reason is constructed as a formula. Faith is basically something we believe in, like something we learn in church.