Posted in Reader's Responses

“Philosophy & Faith” and “Mystery & Evidence”

These two pieces both had a central focus of religion, which is a topic I often find myself fascinated by. The idea that faith is a sound piece of evidence, which Gutting discusses, obviously cannot hold up in an academic argument, because the claim that there is a higher force controlling us has little to no evidence to back it up. However, it is a belief held by the majority of the world’s population, so it must be given some sort of weight in argument, right? By allowing faith(s) to hold weight in important discussions, are we, as humans, simply adopting the tendency of innate sociocentrism? On the other hand, if it is true that there is a God and they are conscious of all that we do, does that mean that disregarding faith in a discussion makes someone a bad member of their religion? For centuries we have been struggling to find the balance between faith and logic, a struggle that, it seems, will continue long into the future.


One thought on ““Philosophy & Faith” and “Mystery & Evidence”

  1. Emily, I think there’s just more for you to explore here. In particular, what about Crane’s assertion that religious faith simply doesn’t need/want the standard of proof that science, etc. does. As he argues, we simply accept ignorance and disprove as not incompatible with religious belief, but we wouldn’t accept that when it comes to scientific “facts.” I just think there’s more for you to consider sharing of your thinking. I hope you can bring it to class at least.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s