Strengths and Weaknesses of Faith in Religion - Essay Example

Topic: Analyse The Strengths And Weaknesses Of Using Faith As A Basis For Knowledge In Religion And In One Area Of Knowledge From The TOK Diagram. Student’s Name: Professor’s Name: Institution Affiliation: Course Title: Date: Faith and religion are two closely linked with each other. The relationship between the two is diverse and dynamic due to differences in interpretation and use in various religions. Religion is strongly defined by faith. Diversity of faith in its contextual use gives rise to several religions. The understanding of faith in religion varies across individuals, such that the assessment of contribution of faith in knowledge about religion can be argued both for and against. Faith is characterized by beliefs, which in turn determine the validity of faith in defining a religion and in constituting knowledge in that context. Such beliefs have been challenged by logical positivism and upheld by fideism (Moser, 2002, p.128). The truth and validity of such beliefs therefore depends on the strength of the argument whether for or against and evidence presented therein. Individual motives, attitudes and preferences have had significant impacts on both faith and religion. It is important to note that there exist different religions in the world that are based on the different understanding of faith across these religions. Faith in world religions is therefore a critical issue to consider in assessing and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis for knowledge in religion (Steup, 2001, p.47). Strengths of using faith as a basis for knowledge in religion Faith is defined as a conclusive belief that is not necessarily backed up by adequate evidence (Conee, 2004, p. 133). Provision of efficient evidence to a given scenario or phenomenon constitutes an explaining reason, and therefore faith is ruled out at that instance. Inadequate reason is the principle defining factor of faith. The strengths of faith in constituting knowledge in religion are discussed below: Definition of knowledge without prior evidencing factors Faith is defined by individual preferences and attitudes, thereby building a specific religion in that process. Faith as aforementioned is not backed up by evidence but it is fundamentally a determinant of the many religions in the world. In the view of using faith as a basis for knowledge, decisions can be made on what constitutes knowledge in the context of faith. Since faith is already a conclusive belief, proof of faith is not a requirement in defining the resultant knowledge. Faith makes truth assertions without prior proof. In fact there are closely related sources of knowledge like mathematics and theology that makes similar assertions backed up by no proof. Reliance on leaps of faith therefore provides a strong basis for knowledge especially in religion, because religion is directly linked to faith (Philosophical Studies, 103 (2001), 61-85). Faith fills base gaps in almost all areas of knowledge There are numerous identifiable sources and areas of knowledge not only in religion, but also in other distinct fields. Assessments, evaluations and inspections are always taking place to determine how well each area of knowledge is suited to its concepts and baseline. Inspected areas of knowledge are found to be lacking or to have a base gap. These gaps have by evident been filled by faith. Assumptions and abstract scenarios are presented in religion and in other TOKs, and only faith has supplemented the completeness of such scenarios. For instance, the bible defines faith as “the assured expectation of things hoped for” (Audi, 2008, p.62). This helps in filling the void introduced by challenging theories and concepts in areas of knowledge. The reasoning behind areas of knowledge is aided by basic principles. Almost every basic principle that explains knowledge in religion lacks crucial support that ascertains the underlying aspects of knowledge. In this regard, faith becomes a crucial factor in supporting the basic principles. The support of faith for knowledge in religion is diverse, taking the forms: emotional, theoretical or empirical among others (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2002, p.209-329). Comprehension of things beyond human understanding TOK principles present aspects of complex issues that human beings fail to contextualize and understand. Using faith, such complexity is reconciled. The reconciling process entails bridging perception and logical gaps. In this regard, even those things, scenarios and phenomena that are beyond human understanding are understood and accepted. Absence of replicable evidence for knowledge on religion is accounted for by faith. Weaknesses Controversy and subjectivity of faith An all-round definition of faith, inside and outside religion context has always elicited enormous debates on the validity of faith as a basis of knowledge. Presented arguments cite lack of evidence or proof to theories, models and concepts that make faith a concrete basis of knowledge. The dependence of faith on attitude and perception in making a source of knowledge is therefore regarded a fallible reference (Greco, 2000, p.295). Passing of knowledge over time The fact that faith is strongly based on beliefs makes it hard to be passed to other people through perception. In religious grounds, faith does not have concrete evidence back up as already identified. As a result, there are provisions that faith may present things, scenarios or phenomena that do not actually exist. This therefore makes areas of knowledge that are backed up by proof and evidence supress faith as a basis of knowledge not only in religion, but also in other identifiable areas of knowledge. Irrationality of faith Spiritual experiences are characterized by significant practices of faith. Observation and reasoning analysis presented in many other areas of knowledge excluding religion are considered valid and therefore strong basis of knowledge (Kvanvig, 2003, p.94). Spiritual experiences that highly depict aspects of faith lack these two factors. Understanding the existence of knowledge on religious basis is incapacitated and may therefore be rejected altogether. Moreover, if faith is an effective basis of knowledge, the non-religious groups should be considered to lack knowledge in religious contexts. However, this is not the case. Faith and science battles For years now, faith and science have always battled in relation to which of the two makes valid arguments and therefore constitutes a legitimate and valid basis of knowledge. Faith, a cornerstone for religion is consistently challenged by science. However, it is argued that science makes so many assumptions and explanations of concepts that require more than a human to understand. In this regard, the two are closely linked to each other, but a bid to make one superior to the other has elicited that make faith appear as though it constitutes knowledge for religion only. It is important to note that in some instances, it has taken faith to believe in scientific interventions, but faith has lacked strong grounds to support its purpose in knowledge. Strengths of using faith as a basis for knowledge in natural sciences Natural sciences base their arguments on tested theories, empirical studies and experimental results. Faith integration into natural sciences requires critical examination of faith variables that present presence of natural sciences knowledge that is based on faith. Such an examination process is realized through the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of faith as a basis of knowledge in natural sciences. This evaluation is considered below: Strengths Faith and scepticism Natural sciences make assertions that form the basis of study order to establish whether they are true or not. In most cases, such studies are based on sceptical arguments against faith and religion. The studies therefore borrow a given principle from faith and proceed to challenge that principle. Faith therefore forms a base for natural sciences studies and experiments and further constitutes the knowledge that natural science is perceived to pass. Try and error Natural sciences do not guarantee that their results are the best. This is evidenced by the fact that one intervention in scientific studies only leads to a series of studies, where the current study claims to yield better results than the previous (Lemos, 2004, p. 173). Based on the definitions of faith, natural science is not different from the claims of faith and its integration in knowledge. What the scholars do is try to make science more practical in order to supress practice, contribution and role of faith in the knowledge of natural sciences. However, the extent to which faith aids knowledge of natural science cannot be disputed. This is in line with the assumptions and limitations made in claiming knowledge that is based on natural science. The contributory factor of faith in offering knowledge of natural sciences is a stronghold of faith as a basis of knowledge in natural sciences. Dominance of ideas and values of knowledge Areas of knowledge are primarily tailored towards presenting ideas and value systems that provide knowledge to the society (Pojman, 2001, p.113). The ability of a given idea or value system to stand as a powerful tool of knowledge determines how powerful that tool becomes in that pursuit and the extent to which it supresses other ideas and systems used as basis of knowledge. Specifically, faith is not regarded as an integral factor in natural sciences interventions. This does not rule out its role. Rather, it only shows dominance of faith by theoretical and empirical studies and experiments, although it still serves its purpose. Weaknesses Testing theories Natural sciences are mainly based on testing hypotheses and carrying out experimental activities in a bid to assert the knowledge therein. Faith as aforementioned is a conclusive belief that lacks evidence (Casullo, 2003, p.159). Therefore it cannot be hypothetically tested. Lack of this factor in the pursuit of knowledge in natural science makes faith an inadequate basis of knowledge. Faith is simply a belief without a prior study into the subject matter. This makes it weak in natural science arguments of knowledge. Faith also lacks basis of carrying out experimental procedures that result in experimental data that confirm theories and studies in natural sciences. Faith is unreliable in the knowledge pursuit Faith is considered to be an unreasonable source of knowledge (BonJour, 2003, p. 231). The magnitude of faith is hard to measure; if anything impossible to measure. Faith can actually justify anything. This is the position of scientists on faith. The cumulative beliefs that amount to enough faith cannot be established since a single act of belief has got faith in its context. The overall conclusion therefore is that faith justifies nothing; not natural sciences and not anything else and a science-based paradigm would scoff at the lack of replicable evidence characteristic of faith (Bergmann, 2006, p.82). References Audi, R. B. (2008). Justification, and Knowledge. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Moser, M. (2002). The Structure of Justification. The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, ed. Paul Moser, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bergmann, M. (2006). Justification without Awareness: A Defence of Epistemic Externalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Epistemology. (2002). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Internalism and Externalism, The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. (2002). Ed. Paul Moser, Oxford: Oxford University Press. BonJour, L. & Sosa, E. (2003). Epistemic Justification. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Casullo, A. (2003). A Priori Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moser, P. (2002). A Priori Justification. The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Basic Knowledge and the Problem of Easy Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65 (2002), 209-329. Conee, E. & Feldman, R. (2004). Evidentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DePaul, M. (2001). Rethinking Intuition, Resurrecting Old-Fashioned Foundationalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. DePaul, M. & Zagzebski, L. (2003). Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skeptical Problems, Contextualist Solutions. Philosophical Studies, 103 (2001), 61-85. Moser, P. (2002). Theories of Justification, The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greco, J. (2000). Putting Skeptics in Their Place: The Nature of Skeptical Arguments and their Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kvanvig, J. (2003). The Intellectual Virtues and the Life of the Mind; The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lemos, N. (2004). Common Sense: A Contemporary Defence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moser, P. & Vander, N. (2002). Human Knowledge: Classical and Contemporary Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pojman, L. (2001). What Can We Know? 2nd ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Steup, M. (2001). An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology: Knowledge, Truth, and Duty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More