Paper Example. Views of Faith and Reason

Strong rationalism is defined as the position that a religious belief-system should only be rationally accepted if it is possible to prove its truthfulness. Rationalism is understood as the reliance on reason and trust in intelligence when settling on actions and beliefs. The premises on which a belief is based must be such that deep interrogation proves their truthfulness. Equally, the methods of reasoning that are adopted should be true. There is strength in these declarations, particularly in the position that belief should be anchored on sufficient evidence. Even more, the idea that belief should not rely on a single instance of inquiry is realistic since the completeness of an inquiry cannot result from a single instance of investigation. Admittedly, there must be high standards for human belief due to the seriousness of the attendant consequences that result from believing in a doctrine. While strong rationalism applies to a philosophical consideration of natural happenings, these views, as the article finds, are not accepted by all.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Fideism or "faithism", the belief that religious beliefs are not subject, is truly another widely held view of the world and human existence. The religious belief in the existence of God, for instance, does not rely on any evidence and that there is no desire to prove the existence of God. From a rationalist perspective, this view may be considered a stubborn rejection of reason. This assertion is right from the perspective of the rationalist because it hinders any chance of examination of what is believed in. That a fideist believes in religious belief as the foundation of existence is a reality. It is indeed true that the fideist considers the questioning of the existence of science as the worship of science. However, beyond fideism, the world may also be viewed from another perspective.

There is a strong argument that provides that, if fideism and strong rationalism were to be considered to be mistaken viewpoints, one would still settle on critical rationalism. Certainly, religious belief-systems can be critiqued even when no conclusive outcomes are possible from such criticism. This approach would require that the positions of a belief-system are compared against other beliefs and that a strong case is advanced for or against the belief system. It is noteworthy that there is an admission that critical rationalism cannot be applied wholly on a belief system, but on different pockets, such as the examination of life after death.

From this reading, faith, and reason mean two contrasting viewpoints that cannot compromise. This contrast is perhaps more clear in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. The Bible provides that belief supersedes worldly wisdom and that even the minutest details under religious belief may remain unexplainable through human understanding. However, it is clear that each view offers a basis for clarity. Strong rationalism, for instance, requires that one examines deeply what they believe in so that they are capable of defending their viewpoint. However, it is deficient in the sense that it is reactive to what religious belief-system provides. It does not provide new knowledge.

Fideism also ensures that one has a single viewpoint on which they can streamline their thoughts. However, it limits them from dissecting their belief-system. Critical rationalism allows one to critique the religious viewpoint while still admitting that they deserve their position. However, this point of view is defeatist in the sense that it does not allow one to stand strongly for their viewpoints. A fourth viewpoint could be derived by marrying the best features of fideism and critical rationalism by requiring that individuals begin by examining the truthfulness of claims made. They should then determine such and how far an examination can extend, then settling on the belief-system.

Rationalism is understood as the reliance on reason and trust in intelligence when settling on actions and beliefs. The premises on which a belief is based must be such that deep interrogation proves their truthfulness. From a rationalist perspective, this view may be considered a stubborn rejection of reason. This assertion is right from the perspective of the rationalist because it hinders any chance of examination of what is believed in. It is noteworthy that there is an admission that critical rationalism cannot be applied wholly on a belief system, but on different pockets, such as the examination of life after death. Strong rationalism, for instance, requires that one examines deeply what they believe in so that they are capable of defending their viewpoint. Critical rationalism allows one to critique the religious viewpoint while still admitting that they deserve their position.

God's Existence Debated

Stephen layman succinctly defines naturalism and the arguments that support it. In his article, he formulates naturalism through three perspectives. Foremost, he focuses on the existence of a physical reality, whose organization is not derived from the existence of a god or any other external agent. Secondly, he considers physical reality as only existing by chance. Lastly, he points to the fact that, save for special cases, all other entities have a physical aspect. Whereas his assertions may be debatable, he sufficiently strengthens his arguments. As regards the assertion that nature is inherently organized and is independent of any external influence, he refers to scientific proof and associated laws. As regards the existence of the physical aspect of nature, he argues that physical reality, even that beyond human acquaintance, has often existed. This point of view in effect challenges the constriction of arguments to what is understandable. As with the third aspect, he holds that physical reality is the ultimate reality.

Layman convincingly employs three arguments in his support of naturalism. His first argument addresses the correlation between simplicity and science. He notes that, while science is not opposed to hypotheses involving unobservable entities, but that such hypotheses must employ explanations that use terms that are fully adequate. Physical features can be visualized, and so provide proper bases for explaining phenomena as does science. The second argument regards the problem of evil. Admittedly, it is common that people present the validity of their worldviews by arguing against their rivals. In accepting this commonality, he rightly argues that, given the evil exhibited in the world, it is less likely that there exists a perfectly morally good and almighty God.

There are existing arguments that Layman employs to strengthen his perspective. The Divine Hiddenness offers sufficient grounding for the argument against theism. It offers three constructs to argue against the existence of an omniscient god. The first aspect posits that there exist, persons, who have the capacity to interact personally to God, but who fail to acknowledge the existence of God. The second is that, if there exists a personal God that loves everyone, then no such persons exist that interact with him but fail to acknowledge his existence. Thus, it is inferred that there exists no such God.

There exist multiple replies that counter the lack of belief in a powerful God. The first such reply argues that the amount of theorizing that exits within the religious construct is sufficient to advance the narrative of the existence of God. The reply provides that, when acknowledging the presence of a human being, one is not limited solely to their physical being, but rather their mental states, desires, intentions and many other aspects. Similarly, they argue that the existence of God should not be restricted to the inexistence of the physical self. Physical features can be visualized, and so provide proper bases for explaining phenomena as does science.

Considered from the perspective of Religious Experience, one draws their testimony of the existence of God from a natural force that mystically influences an occurrence, such as healing. Thus an appeal to religious experience is constructed as an argument based on four aspects. First, apparent experience to something is considered veridical until sufficient reasons are offered that contradicts this view. This approach is summed under the Principle of Credulity. The second aspect provides that subjects experience happenings that predispose them to believe in the existence of God. Thirdly, there exists no sufficient reason to conclude that experiences that seem to confirm the existence of God is non-veridical. Hence, some of the experiences that confirm the existence of God are indeed veridical.

Faith and Reason: Arguments for God's Existence

The article defines "fine-tuning" as the ultimate or most basic structure of the universe. The argument for fine-tuning relies on the laws of nature and the initial conditions. However, the author clarifies that fine-tuning does not imply that there is the influence of an external force. He is cautious in his assertion that fine-tuning does not refer to the basic structures of the universe, and that scientists may never finish their work. He also offers that science is not capable of explaining the basic structure, but can only describe their existence. The argument, therefore, addresses four issues. One, the physical universe is fine-tuned for life and that the slightest alteration to the physical universe would result in a calamity or destruction of life. Two, that theism provides a clearer definition of the existence of a fine-tuned universe as compared to naturalism. Threes, that it is only rational to select a hypothesis that best explains the presence of a phenomenon. Four, since theism best describes the existence of a fine-tuned universe, it is selected over naturalism. Therefore, physical universe is fine-tuned for life and that the slightest alteration to the physical universe would result in a calamity or destruction of life, theism provides a clearer definition of the existence of a fine-tuned universe as compared to naturalism only rational to select a hypothesis that best explains the presence of a phenomenon, and since theism best describes the existence of a fine-tuned universe, it is selected over naturalism

A multiverse hypothesis, Layman finds, posits that the universe is part of many actual universes, whose basic physical structures vary randomly. The fact that each of these universes has distinct space-times allows for their consideration as being distinct. This argument implies that each universe has different initial conditions and that no possibility exists for an object to transit from one universe to another. Thus, the existence of a self-sufficient universe should not be surprising. He notes that it is possible to explain any physical phenomenon by merely pointing out the existence of many universes that differ in random ways. It is possible to explain any physical phenomenon.

Two meanings can be derived from the reading on how to be likely. The first aspect refers to the existence of similarity in at least one aspect of the compared components. At least one element of random similarity is enough to point out the likelihood of the existence of something. The second aspect of the meaning of to be likely is wholesome similarities between two elements that are only betrayed by one or a few deviations. For instance, on the matter of a fine-tuned universe, there is the aspect of harmony that if interfered with becomes catastrophic. At the same time, there is the fact that such harmony is reflected in all physical aspects of nature. There are equally two angles for defining causality.