this is a test publication.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
RATIONALLY SPEAKING: 1
I AM SUDIP MOITRA
Today is 28 th January, 2009.
I am writing this blog with a rational viewpoint.
Today's subject is: rationality, faith and reason
I have started this thread as a discussion site for the slightly more philosophical questions of rationalism, reason and faith, as to which is the best reliable epistemological approach for enquiring into the nature of reality.I define rationalism and reason pure as the systematic analysis, experimentation, verifiability and questioning of the nature of reality. Scientific rationalism is grounded on the scientific method, but generally, it posits that nothing should be accepted as knowledge until it is proven as true and is consistently verified to be so.Faith, on the other hand, is the acceptance of claims where no evidence exist. In fact, it is premised on the acceptance of proposition in spite of evidence. For if a claim is sustained by evidence, that claim can no longer be accepted as an article of faith, but now falls within the domain of rational knowledge; Some example to set the scene:It is an article of knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun because this has be shown to be so using the techniques of scientific rationalism. It is not an article of faith, as it once was believe some centuries ago (for which the cleric persecuted Galileo and Geordano Bruno) that the earth was the centre of the universe; made so by God as his special creation for his special creatures. So within cosmology, scientific rationalism has displaces faith.It was once taken as an article of faith that humans have existed on the planet for only about 10000 years. Now this has been shown, through scientific rationalism to be untenable.Faith claims are the following; Virgin birth, immaculate conception, existence of Jesus, origin of sin etc etc.So on this thread, I would like the various participants to demonstrate which approach provides the better epistemic methodology for revealing the nature of reality and also provide supporting evidence as to why they are making such claims.
Today is 28 th January, 2009.
I am writing this blog with a rational viewpoint.
Today's subject is: rationality, faith and reason
I have started this thread as a discussion site for the slightly more philosophical questions of rationalism, reason and faith, as to which is the best reliable epistemological approach for enquiring into the nature of reality.I define rationalism and reason pure as the systematic analysis, experimentation, verifiability and questioning of the nature of reality. Scientific rationalism is grounded on the scientific method, but generally, it posits that nothing should be accepted as knowledge until it is proven as true and is consistently verified to be so.Faith, on the other hand, is the acceptance of claims where no evidence exist. In fact, it is premised on the acceptance of proposition in spite of evidence. For if a claim is sustained by evidence, that claim can no longer be accepted as an article of faith, but now falls within the domain of rational knowledge; Some example to set the scene:It is an article of knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun because this has be shown to be so using the techniques of scientific rationalism. It is not an article of faith, as it once was believe some centuries ago (for which the cleric persecuted Galileo and Geordano Bruno) that the earth was the centre of the universe; made so by God as his special creation for his special creatures. So within cosmology, scientific rationalism has displaces faith.It was once taken as an article of faith that humans have existed on the planet for only about 10000 years. Now this has been shown, through scientific rationalism to be untenable.Faith claims are the following; Virgin birth, immaculate conception, existence of Jesus, origin of sin etc etc.So on this thread, I would like the various participants to demonstrate which approach provides the better epistemic methodology for revealing the nature of reality and also provide supporting evidence as to why they are making such claims.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
