Postmodernist Vs. Modernist Vs. Personal Position on FaithEssay Preview: Postmodernist Vs. Modernist Vs. Personal Position on FaithReport this essaySoc 380 Final EssayTopic 1: Postmodernist vs. Modernist vs. Personal position on FaithTopic 2: What did you learn in this class?Written By: Angela GonzalezTopic 1: Postmodernist vs. Modernist Position on Science and ReligionWe have all at one time or another asked ourselves the question “Should I believe this?” Doubt is simply another part of the human experience. When we doubt our faith, however, it can be more crucial than many other doubts we have, because of the believed consequences that come along with it. Where there is doubt people begin to look for ways to rationalize whether what they believe is more right than what someone else believes. Science and religion, two means in which knowledge is obtained from the world, are used by post modernist and modernist to justify faith or lack there of. In this paper I will discuss the contradicting views postmodernist and modernist have on the separation and overlap of scientific knowledge and religious knowledge. Whether you believe one view over the other boils down to personal choice and acceptance of the idea based on ones experiences, therefore I will also discuss my opinion on the connectivity among faith, rationality, objective truth and ways of gaining and testing the truth of knowledge for both science and religion.
Lets begin by discussing the Enlightenment thought of modernists that only that which can be scientifically measured and quantified and reasoned through logically is true knowledge. We can have true knowledge about time in space, fitness, age or the power of your punch, but what, about things that can not be scientifically measured such as beauty, morals, and other matters of the spirit. It does not seem right to say that we can not obtain true knowledge of such things so we have inherited the modernist belief that such things are matters of opinion. In other words, they are subjective matters having only to do with the individuals experiences and preferences.
This modernist scientific mindset is devastating for religious beliefs. Though some religious beliefs can be empirically tested there are others, such as the nature of God and justification by faith which cannot be weighed or measured. These central elements of religious knowledge can therefore be said to be matters of personal opinion, or worse figments of imagination. This contradicting relationship between the scientific and religious approach of knowledge can have a tragic effect on a believer of faith because it is very easy for the individual to get caught up in providing for themselves the kind of impossible logical certainty for their beliefs a nonbeliever might demand.
On the other hand, there are postmodernists who deny the very possibility of true knowledge at all. Postmodernists believe that truth is made up of our own imagination and desires. They believe there is no single account, or meta-narrative, of reality that covers everything. Instead they believe that there is no way to know definitive truths at all. Therefore, our own realities are created for us partly by our society and partly by our own exercise of power. Since postmodernists say evidence means nothing regarding the truth value of our faith, the idea that truth is found in many different religions is now valid. This non-scientific approach to knowledge also causes problems with the religious approach to knowledge because it leaves believers wondering why they should hold to their beliefs when others might be more attractive to the lifestyles they wish to live.
On one hand there are the modernists who believe that reason is the only truly reliable source of knowledge and on the other hand there are postmodernist who seem to believe in anything, everything, and nothing. I personally do not swear by one or the other when it comes to my position on faith, truth and knowledge. I can not completely disagree with modernist about the value of scientific and mathematical reasoning. Scientific analysis has proven that the world is round and physics can tell you how fast you can drive on a curve without tipping over; however, the immeasurable knowledge of the spirit I feel has more importance than that of the external nature. Without individual spirits a human is merely a robot.
I also feel that an individuals faith cannot be rationalized but the need for faith in society can be because if faith did not exist people would live in misery of the unknown. However, doubt and worry I feel is sometimes a good thing because it acts as a jumpstart to new knowledge by encouraging critical thinking. The problem with doubt is when to stop searching for the answer(s) because there might not be one right or one wrong way. This is where I support the idea that individuals faith is a subjective matter having only to do with the individuals experiences and preferences. I believe this because in todays society religion is a choice. When people select a religion based on the faith that this will add benefit to their lives it is truly a decision made from personal observations and experiences. Although knowledge comes from data received by ones senses interrupted in ones minds there are still biases and prejudices that skew individuals interpretation of knowledge. Yet that knowledge they received is real and true to them even though it may not be true to others. Individuals must have faith that what they are feeling, observing and understanding is true so that they can make the best decisions in their everyday lives. Therefore, no knowledge could be overall true knowledge because the objective of dealing with facts apart from values or biases is impossible. I believe we are never truly purified in our thinking.
. As a result, if faith is based on belief which developed from personal observation, an individuals faith can find truth in any religion if they choose to believe it. So postmodernists are on the right track when they say evidence means nothing regarding the truth value of our faith. For example, when a great thing happens in someones life they can call it either a coincidence or a miracle. A miracle results from faith and belief in a higher being who is watching over you. Your senses cannot observe Gods physical but it can observe his spiritual through miracles which transform into knowledge then belief and heighten and individuals sense of faith. Others who choose not to believe look at miracles as coincidence or simply dumb luck; it all depends on how one chooses
It goes on. So we have no need to be superstitious. For example, why do atheists think they know the truth? It is not as if one could know all about the universe by comparing the time periods. One could and some probably could; but as a general rule religions would not believe in the universe (in fact they can’t but will still do so). So for those atheists where one doesn’t think the universe is known, one still believes. So what does a believer believe? If he doesn’t believe it then he doesn’t believe in anything, such as God’s ultimate meaning, and that is what “knowledge” does. So for atheists who believe in the universe one could say that belief and belief in a higher being, whether in some form or more, is not a mere coincidence either. But if that are the case, then it would explain why the universe exists. So for a “theory of God” religious atheists, whether that is that the universe exists or a false knowledge, would believe in something different.
How do we know which belief has some type of truth value?
First of all, of the factors one can find to be considered in whether such beliefs are true. This is illustrated best by the concept of ‘reason’ which is often cited in philosophical discussions of ‘good and evil’. Some people, who claim that the right to belief and existence is at the heart of good and evil beliefs, are often ignorant of these two. Many believe in the good stuff because they believe that the only good thing is a chance. Others only believe that there is a good thing and do not admit that there may not be. The common argument then is that belief is not a matter of ‘good’ values and that belief can be considered a matter of ‘bad’. Well that’s correct to say that belief in things that have more reason than others is a good good choice and it is what one should choose to believe or not to. It is therefore not only good, but what one believes in the majority of things that are considered good good choices. So beliefs that are more ‘good’ than others are not only good but also “good” choices.
Now, how do we know this?
In the mind of man there is no matter what one believes. The rational man is aware that if his actions are correct he is right. But the fact that some actions are not allowed, because some people are afraid of being judged, or that people might try to get angry with you when you try to make others do what they want or that someone may have committed a sin or act out of spite. Therefore he may have decided to act out this way and instead of being happy now and then, then he decided to behave very differently because this had been in the past. Thus he was able to move quickly but as soon as he felt that something was wrong he would stop. He then thought that it was time to go about his life without judgement or anger at anyone.
When did