Last time, I asked for the suspension of skepticism with regard to self-evident facts, simply to stave off the boredom that such mental exercises frequently are associated with. Now, I want to turn to a different (and more controversial) issue: Should religiou be exempt of skepticism as well? Many people take the view that faith, by definition, is not compatible with reason; or in other words, that reason cannot and should not be applied to faith. Why might this be so?
Personally I do not take this view, for reasons I will address later. However, I will attempt to outline the primary arguments voiced by proponents of this view. (I would be interested to hear any other lines of argument that I might have missed.)
The first, and I think most powerful, of these arguments I will call The Argument from Definition. (I’m not sure if it has an official name, but in the meantime mine will do.) I’ll state it like this. Religion must necessarily be taken on faith. Therefore, to examine religion using reason is invalid. An analogy: like trying to make a hamburger with a waffle iron. It just doesn’t work. \
Really, this is a pretty simple argument. Its refutation, however, deserves a seperate post. Stay tuned!
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.