Essay: Knowledge And Faith
Oct. 7th, 2009 09:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmutPrompted by a recent post on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
talk_politics, I recalled that I still keep a folder with my essays from high school. Most of them were written 3-6 years ago, some were newer, most for the Philosophy classes. All of them are written on paper and in handwriting, in Dutch. But the issue made me dig through them and select several essays which IMO are very relevant to the topic of faith and reason. So I took some time to translate the first of them, with a few little touches here and there. I might continue with the rest of them (3-4 I think) if it's interesting to the readers.
So the first one is entitled...
Knowledge And Faith
The present essay is in no way a philosophical research or a historical summary. Here I have tried to systematize the almost intuitive meaning of the above two terms, and to clarify the problem of the clash between them. No matter how boring and chewed an issue that is, I still need a starting point to develop the rest of my thesis.
Let us assume that reality is something objectively existing and we humans are part of it, moreover a part which could contemplate on the objective reality, to explore it and make conclusions about it. We don't need to complicate the picture any further for the time being. Every assertion which could possibly be born in the human brain, and which has the pretention to have anything to do with the objective reality, should go through the test of the critical analysis. After this analysis, a conclusion could be made whether the given assertion is correct or incorrect.
For example, "The speed of light is constant for all inert coordinate systems" is an an assertion which relates to a reality in which light is in existence (in the form of massless particles called photons), as well as coordinate systems (ie systems in which a body on which no outer forces are applied and which thus remains at rest or continues its straightforward motion with a constant speed). This asserion is testable, as it allows experiments and observations which could either deny it or confirm it (such a proof is provided by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment). It turns out that all tests, experiments and observations support the correctness of this assertion, and there isn't one single phenomenon which has contradicted it. Therefore, the sensible position on this question would be that the given assertion can be considered an objective truth (fact).
To summarize: 'Knowledge' is a firm conclusion about the veracity of said assertion, which has been proven through experiment or observation (or both), and which is internally and externally consistent and devoid of contradictions. 'Knowing' something means that by articulating the veracity of a given element of our concept of the surrounding world, we are prepared to continue the sentence with "...because...", and then provide argumentation in support of its veracity. If we fail to do that, our attitude to the given assertion cannot be categorized as 'knowledge' any more, but rather as something different - and that is called 'faith'.
Faith is a confidence in the veracity of a given assertion, which by definition is not subject to any possible proof, or which lacks any existing evidence to support it. For example, the assertion "Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but is meanwhile also one of His forms; he died to pay for people's sins, but three days later was resurrected and ascended to heaven, and he will return one day to judge every one of us after our death" is an irrational assertion which has no link to reality, no direct evidence can be given to support it, therefore accepting it as objective fact is an act of irrational belief in its veracity, but by no means 'knowledge'. Due to the lack of a direct link to reality, we cannot extract any verifiable and reliable information about the surrounding world out of this assertion, ie it is not a source of knowledge.
If anything, all of the above must have achieved at least one of the following two purposes:
1. It has either convinced the reader that it is absurd for a person who believes to claim that what he believes in is also an objective fact;
2. Or it has hopelessly bored the reader, but in my defense, I'd say these clarifications are more than necessary.
Notice that here we are speaking mostly of definitions of popular words. Any objections on this issue (what 'faith' means and does it bring 'knowledge'), one should refer to the authors of the academic dictionaries.
The problems in most arguments on the topic of religion, faith and reason, stem mainly from the fact that the believer would often cross the borders of his or her definition of 'faith', claiming that the subject of their faith reflects reality and is an objective truth. This would inevitably lead to a necessity for proof and evidence of such an alleged relation. When such are presented, faith instantly transforms into rational knowledge. In case of lack thereof, it just remains Faith, and the believer ought to withdraw their claims that the object of their faith reflects reality. Unfortunately, believers often fall into a state of mind, where they start claiming that their faith does not necessitate any further argumentation and evidence, and the object of their faith automatically reflects reality, regardless of whether they could actually prove and test their claim or not. Such individuals could be qualified as incapable of basic logical thinking. If after the convincing counter-argument which has disproven their position, which is presented in the form of a statement like: "OK, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which lives in the Oort cloud and controls the fates of humans from a distance - does this mean that you accept it as truth?", they still continue to insist on the veracity of their assertions - the last resort which could be recommended is hospitalization.
The more sensible and worthy approach of the believer when they would really like to impose their view that the object of their faith reflects the objective truth, would be to try to provide evidence for this claim (ironically, this means to kill their faith, turning it into knowledge; but the believers often omit this moment - for them the element of elevation and nobility is most important, and these are amply provided by the act of faith in something).
The following few essays will to a large extent focus on the enormous amounts of pseudo-evidence and pseudo-arguments which are constantly being delivered by believers in this or that, in many cases people who adhere to various religious doctrines, in their attempt to emphasize their authenticity.
talk_politics, I recalled that I still keep a folder with my essays from high school. Most of them were written 3-6 years ago, some were newer, most for the Philosophy classes. All of them are written on paper and in handwriting, in Dutch. But the issue made me dig through them and select several essays which IMO are very relevant to the topic of faith and reason. So I took some time to translate the first of them, with a few little touches here and there. I might continue with the rest of them (3-4 I think) if it's interesting to the readers.So the first one is entitled...
Knowledge And Faith
The present essay is in no way a philosophical research or a historical summary. Here I have tried to systematize the almost intuitive meaning of the above two terms, and to clarify the problem of the clash between them. No matter how boring and chewed an issue that is, I still need a starting point to develop the rest of my thesis.
Let us assume that reality is something objectively existing and we humans are part of it, moreover a part which could contemplate on the objective reality, to explore it and make conclusions about it. We don't need to complicate the picture any further for the time being. Every assertion which could possibly be born in the human brain, and which has the pretention to have anything to do with the objective reality, should go through the test of the critical analysis. After this analysis, a conclusion could be made whether the given assertion is correct or incorrect.
For example, "The speed of light is constant for all inert coordinate systems" is an an assertion which relates to a reality in which light is in existence (in the form of massless particles called photons), as well as coordinate systems (ie systems in which a body on which no outer forces are applied and which thus remains at rest or continues its straightforward motion with a constant speed). This asserion is testable, as it allows experiments and observations which could either deny it or confirm it (such a proof is provided by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment). It turns out that all tests, experiments and observations support the correctness of this assertion, and there isn't one single phenomenon which has contradicted it. Therefore, the sensible position on this question would be that the given assertion can be considered an objective truth (fact).
To summarize: 'Knowledge' is a firm conclusion about the veracity of said assertion, which has been proven through experiment or observation (or both), and which is internally and externally consistent and devoid of contradictions. 'Knowing' something means that by articulating the veracity of a given element of our concept of the surrounding world, we are prepared to continue the sentence with "...because...", and then provide argumentation in support of its veracity. If we fail to do that, our attitude to the given assertion cannot be categorized as 'knowledge' any more, but rather as something different - and that is called 'faith'.
Faith is a confidence in the veracity of a given assertion, which by definition is not subject to any possible proof, or which lacks any existing evidence to support it. For example, the assertion "Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but is meanwhile also one of His forms; he died to pay for people's sins, but three days later was resurrected and ascended to heaven, and he will return one day to judge every one of us after our death" is an irrational assertion which has no link to reality, no direct evidence can be given to support it, therefore accepting it as objective fact is an act of irrational belief in its veracity, but by no means 'knowledge'. Due to the lack of a direct link to reality, we cannot extract any verifiable and reliable information about the surrounding world out of this assertion, ie it is not a source of knowledge.
If anything, all of the above must have achieved at least one of the following two purposes:
1. It has either convinced the reader that it is absurd for a person who believes to claim that what he believes in is also an objective fact;
2. Or it has hopelessly bored the reader, but in my defense, I'd say these clarifications are more than necessary.
Notice that here we are speaking mostly of definitions of popular words. Any objections on this issue (what 'faith' means and does it bring 'knowledge'), one should refer to the authors of the academic dictionaries.
The problems in most arguments on the topic of religion, faith and reason, stem mainly from the fact that the believer would often cross the borders of his or her definition of 'faith', claiming that the subject of their faith reflects reality and is an objective truth. This would inevitably lead to a necessity for proof and evidence of such an alleged relation. When such are presented, faith instantly transforms into rational knowledge. In case of lack thereof, it just remains Faith, and the believer ought to withdraw their claims that the object of their faith reflects reality. Unfortunately, believers often fall into a state of mind, where they start claiming that their faith does not necessitate any further argumentation and evidence, and the object of their faith automatically reflects reality, regardless of whether they could actually prove and test their claim or not. Such individuals could be qualified as incapable of basic logical thinking. If after the convincing counter-argument which has disproven their position, which is presented in the form of a statement like: "OK, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which lives in the Oort cloud and controls the fates of humans from a distance - does this mean that you accept it as truth?", they still continue to insist on the veracity of their assertions - the last resort which could be recommended is hospitalization.
The more sensible and worthy approach of the believer when they would really like to impose their view that the object of their faith reflects the objective truth, would be to try to provide evidence for this claim (ironically, this means to kill their faith, turning it into knowledge; but the believers often omit this moment - for them the element of elevation and nobility is most important, and these are amply provided by the act of faith in something).
The following few essays will to a large extent focus on the enormous amounts of pseudo-evidence and pseudo-arguments which are constantly being delivered by believers in this or that, in many cases people who adhere to various religious doctrines, in their attempt to emphasize their authenticity.
