Responses 008 (2011-2012)
The eighth question in the list is one of those questions which elicit a sort of shrug, that odd gesture which some say is peculiarly Gallic. It requests the candidate to do something unusual: "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."
To do that, of course, one needs to begin by defining 'faith' and its relationship to 'ways of knowing'. The best way to do this is to point out that faith is conclusive belief without adequate evidence — if there were adequate evidence, that would be reason, not faith.
In other words, faith as a basis for knowledge allows us to decide what knowledge is without having sufficient evidence for definitive proof. This already sounds spurious. But it isn't. In fact, mathematics and theology are very similar disciplines. That's because they both rely on leaps of faith such as a belief in axioms, which by definition are assertions of truth without proof.
This means that a careful inspection of all areas of knowledge shows that there is always a gap at the base. We can reason all we like from basic principles, but basic principles have nothing supporting them except faith, whether this is by nature emotional, empirical, or anything else.
But how then to evaluate 'strengths and weaknesses'? Simply put, a candidate must put forward a variety of arguments such as those which attempt to show how faith is an asset in convincing people of the validity of knowledge in various disciplines. How much has to be taken on faith? Does it make the knowledge more accessible? More reliable? Easier to swallow? And so on.
It may prove, on analysis, that certain strengths are also weaknesses. In religion, faith allows humans to reconcile principles that seem beyond understanding; it bridges logical gaps or gaps in perception, and enables acceptance of things that seem beyond comprehension. This can be seen as a weakness from outside the religious paradigm; a science-based paradigm would scoff at the lack of replicable evidence and so on. But it should also be noted that a science-based paradigm is itself based on faith that the universe has governing principles, and is not just a scattershot series of data points linked by our need to find patterns.
That difference is what gives religion the tendency to seek firm principles and stick to them even in the face of what appears to be contrary evidence. Science, on the other hand, seeks similar firmness of principle but is sceptical enough to change its principles when the evidence seems to show something different.
Which is strength, and which is weakness? That is what you must decide. And of course, you don't have to use the sciences as your choice of area of knowledge. The other choices are literature, language, individuals and societies, mathematics, and aesthetics.
To do that, of course, one needs to begin by defining 'faith' and its relationship to 'ways of knowing'. The best way to do this is to point out that faith is conclusive belief without adequate evidence — if there were adequate evidence, that would be reason, not faith.
In other words, faith as a basis for knowledge allows us to decide what knowledge is without having sufficient evidence for definitive proof. This already sounds spurious. But it isn't. In fact, mathematics and theology are very similar disciplines. That's because they both rely on leaps of faith such as a belief in axioms, which by definition are assertions of truth without proof.
This means that a careful inspection of all areas of knowledge shows that there is always a gap at the base. We can reason all we like from basic principles, but basic principles have nothing supporting them except faith, whether this is by nature emotional, empirical, or anything else.
But how then to evaluate 'strengths and weaknesses'? Simply put, a candidate must put forward a variety of arguments such as those which attempt to show how faith is an asset in convincing people of the validity of knowledge in various disciplines. How much has to be taken on faith? Does it make the knowledge more accessible? More reliable? Easier to swallow? And so on.
It may prove, on analysis, that certain strengths are also weaknesses. In religion, faith allows humans to reconcile principles that seem beyond understanding; it bridges logical gaps or gaps in perception, and enables acceptance of things that seem beyond comprehension. This can be seen as a weakness from outside the religious paradigm; a science-based paradigm would scoff at the lack of replicable evidence and so on. But it should also be noted that a science-based paradigm is itself based on faith that the universe has governing principles, and is not just a scattershot series of data points linked by our need to find patterns.
That difference is what gives religion the tendency to seek firm principles and stick to them even in the face of what appears to be contrary evidence. Science, on the other hand, seeks similar firmness of principle but is sceptical enough to change its principles when the evidence seems to show something different.
Which is strength, and which is weakness? That is what you must decide. And of course, you don't have to use the sciences as your choice of area of knowledge. The other choices are literature, language, individuals and societies, mathematics, and aesthetics.
Labels: Epistemology, Faith, Odd Questions, Religion
etched with acid at 10:23:00 am
1 Comments:
The main characteristics of religion, I have to remind students, are 1) belief in the supernatural, 2) belief that the supernatural may interact with the natural while remaining beyond analytical reach, 3) belief that this interaction should affect our moral behaviour, 4) belief that this effect can be codified successfully.
Post a Comment
<< Home