|Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 1,422,220 members, 2,301,784 topics. Date: Monday, 31 August 2015 at 02:14 PM
|Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by therationa(m): 12:00pm On Feb 20, 2008|
I have started this thread as a discussion site for the slightly more philosophical questions of rationalism, reason and faith, as to which is the best reliable epistemological approach for enquiring into the nature of reality.
I define rationalism and reason pure as the systematic analysis, experimentation, verifiability and questioning of the nature of reality. Scientific rationalism is grounded on the scientific method, but generally, it posits that nothing should be accepted as knowledge until it is proven as true and is consistently verified to be so.
Faith, on the other hand, is the acceptance of claims where no evidence exist. In fact, it is premised on the acceptance of proposition in spite of evidence. For if a claim is sustained by evidence, that claim can no longer be accepted as an article of faith, but now falls within the domain of rational knowledge;
Some example to set the scene:
It is an article of knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun because this has be shown to be so using the techniques of scientific rationalism. It is not an article of faith, as it once was believe some centuries ago (for which the cleric persecuted Galileo and Geordano Bruno) that the earth was the centre of the universe; made so by God as his special creation for his special creatures. So within cosmology, scientific rationalism has displaces faith.
It was once taken as an article of faith that humans have existed on the planet for only about 10000 years. Now this has been shown, through scientific rationalism to be untenable.
Faith claims are the following; Virgin birth, immaculate conception, existence of Jesus, origin of sin etc etc.
So on this thread, I would like the various participants to demonstrate which approach provides the better epistemic methodology for revealing the nature of reality and also provide supporting evidence as to why they are making such claims.
Some of my other threads
The Dangers Of Religious Fundamentalism To Intellectualism
Origin Of Christianity And Diabolical Mimicry In Anticipation
Hell Past, Hell Present; Which Do You Prefer?
Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge?
On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2:
On The Historical Reliability Of The Bible
When And From Where Did Jesus Ascend Into Heaven
When Was Jesus Born?
On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus [/b]13012dg
[b] Was Jesus The Prophesied Messiah? Let's Look At The Evidence.
What Are Your Chances Of Being Saved?
Who Wrote The Gospels And When Were They Written?
God Selects The Rulers Of Countries; G W Bush, Sadam, Pol Pot, Abacha, Hitler
Cannibalism In The Bible: Det 28:53-57, Lev 26:29, Jer 19:9, Ezek 5:10, Lam 4:10
What Are The Core Tenets (doctrines, Value And Virtues) Of Christainity?
Faith-healer And Evangelist, Maurice Cerullo, Investigated
What Fate For Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Constantine And Tomás De Torquemada?
Is The Doctrine Of Trinity Biblical? The Johannine Comma
On The Authenticity Of The New Testament, Part 2
How Is Salvation Achieved?
Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles And Some History: Who Was Jesus?
Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles: Old Testament Stories
Human Sacrifice In The Bible: Lev 27: 29 & Judges 11
Please, Please, Please: Christians - Read Read Read Your Bibles
When Was Jesus Crucified?
On Conversion To A Religion (christianity Or I-slam)
Faith-healers And Tele-evangelists
Where Did Sin Originate?
For The Non-beleivers Only, 1
Would Christains Be Criminals And Offenders If They Were Not Christians?
On The Authenticity Of The New Testament, Part 1
Has Atheism Got Principle? No
It Is Biblical To Have Sex (and Lots Of It) Before Marriage
Should The Old Testament Laws Be Observed In The Modern Era?
Founding A State or Nation On Religious Principles
Great Books About Non-belief
Who Are The Self-declared Non-believer? Resources For You
Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation of Jesus's 2nd Coming Passages
What Is The Evidence That The Bible Is The Word Of God?
Archbishop Cause Furore Over Sharia Law In The Uk
Eminent Christian Scientist (francis Collins) Explains The Evolution Of Humans
Please, Help Me Out With Your Knowledge Of The Bible
Why Biology Is So Important To Our Modern World
Genesis Vs Genetics
Please, Help Me Out With Your Knowledge Of The Bible
£300 (three - Hundred Pound Sterling) Essay Competition
Beware Of Religious Fundamentalism In Your University Campuses
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by therationa(m): 1:14pm On Feb 20, 2008|
You wanted to talk about scientific rationalism, so I started this thread for that discussion. But you have not made any input yet. What is happening?
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by imhotep: 1:34pm On Feb 20, 2008|
1) Rationalism is[b] "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".[/b]
2) Faith is the hypostasis of things not seen.
Rationalism and faith are thus on DIFFERENT LEVELS. It is erroneous to place faith in direct opposition to rationalism or vice versa.
Rationalism should go hand-in-hand with faith and vice versa. Otherwise the consequences can be disastrous.
Pope John Paull II explained this in his letter titled 'Faith and Reason' -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio
Let me quote him ->
"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"
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by stimulus(m): 2:23pm On Feb 20, 2008|
Dear therationa and imhotep,
I would like to enter this discussion and make contributions where necessary; but since I'd not like to be seen as barging into this thread, I thought it wise to first seek therationa's invitation to join the discussion. What sayest thou (therationa)?
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by olabowale(m): 2:50pm On Feb 20, 2008|
What sayest thou (therationa)?You really do not have to take permission from them to contribute to the thread. Ithink this response of yours is very shurdy. You should contribute greatly, because I think you at least can defend the belief system, yours for an example, in a very esoterical way, neither leaning this way or that. But trying to define belief as a faith rather that rationality of Science, without its obvious fusion with faith.
Afterall, we see the handwork of a more intelligent being in our processes, without having to disagree with the rationale held by many Science Scholarship.
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by stimulus(m): 3:01pm On Feb 20, 2008|
Well, I did not want to barge in here uninvited, as therationa has opined earlier that "stimulus, 4Him and imhotep" were welcome to NOT post replies to his thread. I really do not have any worries with making contributions on any subject; but I'd agree with the substance in imhotep's initial response.
In anycase, as when necessary, I'd be making inputs for our mutual benefits as the discussion progresses.
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by kolaoloye(m): 3:37pm On Feb 20, 2008|
AT THE SAME TIME DON`T CONFUSE FOOLISHNESS FOR FAITH
BECOS THERE IS FAITH & THERE IS FOOLISHNESS
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by therationa(m): 3:40pm On Feb 20, 2008|
Stimulus - I understand your position. And thanks for asking and you are graciously welcome to the discussion. Indeed, everyone is welcome as long as we try to stick to the topic and we stay respectful and civil to everyone. Am currently at work right now,so my input will be rather few and far between though.
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by bawomolo(m): 4:33pm On Feb 20, 2008|
AT THE SAME TIME DON`T CONFUSE FOOLISHNESS FOR FAITH
BECOS THERE IS FAITH & THERE IS FOOLISHNESS
wouldn't faith inevitably lead to blind fellowship??
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by kolaoloye(m): 5:33pm On Feb 20, 2008|
NO IT WON`T. ALL YOU NEED IS DISCERNMENT.(acuteness of judgment and understanding)
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by imhotep: 5:37pm On Feb 20, 2008|
Faith, when alienated from reason, leads to blind fellowship.
Reason, when alienated from faith, leads to hardness of heart.
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by therationa(m): 5:44pm On Feb 20, 2008|
Imhotep, this topic runs the risk of going off course. First let's come to an agree definition of what faith and reason/rationalism is. Once we are happy with that I shall publish our agree definition on the main body of the post. Then we can discuss as to whether they are opposing and/or complimentary. Shall we.
I like your definition of rationalism, but I did not quite get your definition for faith. Can you present that again in simple layman language?
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by imhotep: 5:53pm On Feb 20, 2008|
I am saying that faith should not be divorced from reason. Divorcing them has led many astray. Reason should be [i]enlightened [/i]by faith.
The scientific progress made in Europe can be attributed to Christianity. Christianity ultimately deleted superstition from the minds of the would-be scientists. This left them free to reason properly. Compare this with Africa where some people still believe that Sango is responsible for thunder and lightening.
The definition of faith is taken from the book of Hebrews 11:1. I chose to leave the Greek word [i]hypostasis [/i]for your further research.
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by therationa(m): 8:30pm On Feb 20, 2008|
OK. Take for instance the Catholic doctrine of immaculate conception OR assumption. Assumption is not in the bible nor is immaculate conception. Now, do you accept these as articles of faith? What level of rationalism and reason have you used to investigate the plausibility of these doctrine?
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by imhotep: 8:56pm On Feb 20, 2008|
Nice. I will give you a Catholic's answer.
Catholics believe that the Church has Authority [/i]from Christ to teach the truth ([i]Matt 28:16-20 -> Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.).
This teaching authority is referred to as the Magisterium (from the Latin Magisterium, "office of superintendent/president/master/chief; instruction; control/governance" of the Church.
Note that the bible as it stands today was first approved at a synod of bishops in Hippo, somewhere in modern day Algeria in 393 AD. See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
So, the bible, to Catholics, stands on the Authority of the Church.
Other teachings (doctrines) grew out of the deepening faith of the Christians through the centuries. Doctrines such as
1) the Trinity
2) Immaculate conception
4) Ban on contraception
5) Ban on homosexuality
6) Ban on euthanasia (mercy killing for very old people)
7) Ban on abortion
Ban on embryonic stem cell research
are also taught by the Church on the basis of the Magisterium.
Yes, I accept them because I accept the teaching authority of the Church. These doctrines are based on[i] theological (note that Theology is ultimately the study of God) reflections[/i] spanning centuries. Some of them are available online (like Aquinas' Summa Theologica). I have read a good number of these reflections, and I agree with them.
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by huxley(m): 4:14pm On May 28, 2008|
For the more philosophically minded amongst you!
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by mnwankwo(m): 5:28pm On May 28, 2008|
I dispute the suggestion that faith is belief or acceptance of something without evidence. This is because what constitute evidence may or may not be physically visible. Thus the underlying assumption behind the statement that "faith is acceptance without evidence" is that only what is sensed by the physical senses is evidence. My view is that it is very possible to experience using the organs of the spirit or soul. Therefore it is possible using these spiritual faculties to see, hear, smell, torch etc things which are completely invisible to the brain and the physical organs under its control. Until the invention of microscope, micoorganisms were not believed to be in existence, and yet today a high school kid is aware of millions of bacteria in an apparently very clean mouth. Faith as opposed to "blind faith" is belief in something which one has personally experienced with his spirit. Thus if you believe in life after death because you were told in your religion or you read it in a book, that does not yet qualify as faith. It becomes faith when you have personally experinced life after death and in that case that knowlege is a part of you, it is hardwired in your soul, it is a living conviction. That is what I call faith.
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by PastorAIO: 6:37pm On May 28, 2008|
QFT!! Quoted for Truth.
I'm so impressed and in agreement with the above post. There is no such things as 'Blind' faith. Faith isn't blind. It is those that cling to doctrines without evidence that are blind, not the faithful.
With Faith we percieve, and with faith we act upon the world. l
The five physical senses do no reveal but a fragment of reality. Those who are awakened percieve further. The dead remain with the dead.
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by huxley(m): 1:31pm On Jan 05, 2009|
Just thought I would resurrect this old one to see if people have any new thoughts about it.
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by PastorAIO: 1:41pm On Jan 05, 2009|
Sure, I wonder what people think might be the difference between the two words Sensible and Reasonable. Is being Sensible being Reasonable, or are they 2 different things altogether.
|Re: Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge? by PastorAIO: 2:09pm On Jan 07, 2009|
according to merriam webster this is the definition of Sensible:
I don't know how the word Sensible came to be equated with Reasonable in the english language, but just over a century ago a Sensible person was someone that was too ruled by their emotions. Their senses ruled them. Sensibility was not considered Rational.
Reason on the other hand is related to the CAUSE of an event, the SOURCE of the event. The ability to reason is the ability to perceive the Origin of an event.
I know I have quoted Plato on this before but got no response from anyone. Huxley wouldn't bite and neither would anyone else, but I'll try again. You never know, third time lucky . . .
We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes (ie. the eternal) from that which is always becoming but never is (the temporal). The one is apprehensible by INTELLIGENCE with the aid of REASONING, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real. . . . . Thus a description of what is changeless, fixed and clearly intelligible will be changeless and fixed - will be, that is, as irrefutable and incontrovertible as a description in words can be; but analogously a description of a likeness of the changeless, being a description of a mere likeness will be merely likely; for being has to becoming the same relation as truth to belief. Don't therefore be surprised, Socrates, if on many matters concerning the gods and the world of change we are unable in every respect and on every occasion to render consistent and accurate account. You must be satisfied if your account is as likely as any, remembering that both I and you who are sitting in judgement on it are merely human, and should not look for anything more than a likely story in such matters.
What is Plato's understanding of what Reasoning is and what it does? And how does he contrast it with OPINION and IRRATIONAL SENSATION in other words SENSIBILITY? I understand him to be saying that Reason is for apprehending the eternal, which opinion and sensation are for apprehending what is temporal. Would anyone else agree with me?
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2015 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 301