Different religious sociologists and religious philosophers formulate various approaches to religion and the church. In this paper, several authors works on religious topics will be analyzed. To begin with, we will consider the second edition of Reason and faith for philosophy of religion based on the ideas of the nature of faith by Richard Swinburne. The central concept of this work is an extended discussion of the idea of religion and a more profound exposition of the Christian and Buddhist ways of salvation. Swinburne concludes that extra-worldly realities are possible and that there is a reasonable degree of epistemic justification for their appropriate consent on the part of the religious person (2005). From an epistemological perspective, the propositional Christian faith is seen by the author as a mental state in which one piece of information is contrasted with another.
Following, Can it be rational to have faith by Lara Burchak will be analyzed. The central concept of the paper is to argue that faith can be rational in some specific cases. The epistemology of Burchacks work may well be interpreted as an argument as to whether or not epistemology extends to religious belief or whether we should adopt a less rigorous epistemology. Evidentialism is the inherently plausible proposition that faith is only justified if it is commensurate with the evidence (Pritchard, 2017). The author concludes that belief will be rational to the extent that potential counter-evidence is not very persuasive of the position in question, or to the extent that decisions usually have the costs of deferral (Burchak, 2012, 225). Having analyzed this work, one can note an interesting approach to rationalizing belief based on the available evidence for its truth.
Another interesting work is an article by Daniel Howard-Snyder called Propositional faith what it is and what it is not. The main idea of this work is to look at religion in general and faith in particular from the perspective of a propositional attitude. In terms of epistemology, Snyders work reduces it to structuring the hypothesis of a propositional relation to faith and proving this hypothesis. Regarding the conclusions, Snyder arrives at the more or less unambiguous definition of the criteria for a propositional relation to religion (2013). Analyzing this work, one can conclude that propositional theses of this work correlate in many ways with other approaches to interpreting religious views and are pretty comprehensive.
The last paper to consider is Louis Pojmans work on Faith, hope, and doubt. The main idea of this article is to identify the differences between the concepts of faith and hope in the context of religion. Pojman argues that religious faith can be based on hope rather than a firm belief in the existence of the object of faith (2015). The epistemology in this work is not based on avid socialism but a specific definition of concepts and their application to religion. This work implies that one does not have to have an unquestionable belief in God to believe. In the meantime, one can live a devotional and worshipful moral life based on the hope that God exists. Analyzing this work, one can conclude that even if the hopeful believer considers the existence of God to be unlikely, the very fact that he hopes for the truth of that existence gives him faith.
References
Burchak, L. (2012). Can it be rational to have faith? In Chandler, J., & Harrison, V. (Eds.). Probability in the philosophy of religion. Oxford University Press.
Howard-Snyder, D. (2013). Propositional faith: what it is and what it is not. American Philosophical Quarterly, 50(4), 1-46.
Pojman, L. P, & Rea, M. (2015). Philosophy of religion: An anthology. Cengage Learning.
Pritchard, D. (2017). Faith and reason: Religious epistemology. Philosophy, 81(1), 101-118.
Swinburne, R. (2005). Faith and reason. Clarendon Press.
Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher in English and is today known for his political philosophical work. His most popular book which created political philosophy foundation for him in the West was Leviathan published in the year 1651. Hobbes main perspective in the book was social contract theory.
Hobbes lived from1588 to 1679 and during his lifetime created a great impact on people with his political philosophy and views. This paper mainly compares the relationship between Thomas Hobbes as an individual, faith and the society apparent in his two major works from the early 17th century-Human Nature (1650) and Leviathan (1651).
The nature of the individual
Thomas Hobbes was born in a poor family with no riches, supremacy or influence. He was the son of village vicar who was disgraced by the world. Hobbes however was lucky enough to go to school by the help of his wealthy uncle who funded his education. Hobbes intellectual abilities were developed and recognized after going through systematic teaching in Latin and Greek classics.
His intellectual talents managed to see him through to Oxford University and later on through the use of common sense and mature personality, Hobbes got the chance to tutor Cavendishes a young man from a noble family in England. Hobbes managed to come close to power because of his practical and intellectual abilities showing clearly the nature of person he was as an individual.
We can say that he was a persistent man who never gave up easily and that is why he managed to reach far. Later on, his hard work enabled him to become a math tutor to King Charles II. This however did not make Hobbes a dominant person, it destined that he was definitely susceptible and aware of power.
Hobbes managed to overcome all the political and social havocs that affected his life and which were the major things that shaped the way he was thinking. These factors did not hinder his intellectual growth. This shows how ordinary Hobbes was, he did not allow the surrounding affect his growth despite the fact that it affected his thoughts.
Being a tutor shaped his writing and reading scope which finally enabled him to become the best publisher in Europe. While he was a tutor, he managed to get in contact with great and noble English intellectuals of his time like Francis Bacon. He also managed to learn a lot in France while he was in exile something he imposed after political and social havocs became great.
Hobbes rising reputation as a scholar and as a scientist gave him the chance to also meet chief scholarly figures in Europe during his time such as Gassendi, Mersenne and Descartes. Hobbes managed to find himself in a debate with these notable figures in Europe discussing mathematics, science and sometimes arguing on philosophy. His arguments with these people sometimes cost his intellectual reputation in Europe but that did not worry him.
Hobbes had liberal thoughts whereby he believed that everyone has equal rights; he believed in natural equality for all people. His liberal thoughts later on brought a distinction between the state and civil society (Dietz 1990). This means that Hobbes had a political order character with a justifiable political power view of representative based on the peoples consent. His liberal elucidation of the law was living in a free world whereby everyone had the right to do whatever they liked or wished as long as the law did not forbid it.
Hobbes understood humans as beings with motion and matter (Sorrell & Rogers 2000). He believed that humans obeyed similar physical laws as that of motion and matter. This is why he viewed humans in the same direction. However, he believed that humans could be influenced.
Hobbes description of the nature of human was based on self-interest and social contract. These were his major political philosophy topics that he addressed to the people. In his book Leviathan, he stated that humans were not capable of ruling themselves because they were full of themselves and they are naturally self-centered and petulant. Hobbes therefore believed that a leader should be someone strong at heart not self-centered and petulant.
The nature of Hobbes was also depicted in his writings which were undaunted by poor health and old age. This were however the major occurrences throughout his era. The only thing which brought Hobbes down was his health which failed him.
In his eighties, Hobbes was still strong and passionate about life as he continued to express his secretarial thoughts and his philosophical thoughts; many times, he was controversially defending his quarters. This shows how strong and determined Hobbes was, only death managed to silence him but still he died a hero.
The nature of society
Hobbes was born during the year when Spanish Armada had ill-fates of invading England. He lived during the period when there was heavy havoc and upheaval in England something the nation has never seen before since then. This mayhem faced by England had several facets and sources, fiscal and martial and lastly devout and political roots. During this period, England was at odds with itself in different ways.
There was a great division between the rich, poor and powerful people. Each group had different opinions and support for the king specifically regarding taxation that was implemented by the monarch. There was also a division in the parliament regarding its own supremacy and authority in relation to the King.
The people were at odds both religiously and financially. There was huge inequality in possessions and wealth. There was also Civil wars cataclysm in England which led to the development of splendidly drastic political and religious wings in the nation. A good example is the equality that existed between the levelers in terms of political rights and wealth. The diggers were more drastic and battled for wage labor eradication.
The civil wars in England led to a great division in the military for example Cromwell which is the republican challenger army was the residing place for the levelers (Dietz 1990). Nevertheless, Cromwell destroyed the control and power that they had within different ranks in the army.
King Charles Is efforts to enforce uniformity in religious acts were almost annihilated by the brittle condition between England and Scotland merger. These are some of the reasons why Hobbes feared England and went on exile in France: he feared political and social chaos. He had the opportunity to observe the pandemonium and at the same time suffer from its effects before he flew to France and came back to England when the political and economic turmoil had reduced.
How Hobbes relates to the society
Hobbes related to the society in different ways both directly and indirectly. He was the father and the initiator of contemporary political philosophy. He encouraged political science and empiricism in England. He confronted religious power and preferred authoritarian state.
His political ideology was mainly based on secularism, science and empiricism whose influence is still experienced in America today specifically in the state and also in the church. Today, many people are still living in the world that Hobbes created, a world of humanity and human authority. There is justification in human authority today. However there are people who do not accept and believe on human authority a world created by Hobbes. However, Hobbes was against political and social disparity and a religious turmoil.
Hobbes fought for humanity; his thoughts were that all humans should be given equal rights, a moral claim which demanded human basic interest protection. He wanted this human authority to be enforced by the parliament and political powers in England.
Hobbes also related with the society through his literature works. He was a mathematician, a scientist, classic literature translator, law writer and lastly he was notorious of writing and raising religious questions especially disputes that existed in the church. Hobbes also wrote political and moral books such as Leviathan, the Elements of Law, Natural and Politic and Treatise on Human Nature among many others. He was one of those interesting intellectuals that existed in the world during the seventeenth century.
The Role of faith in the relationship between Hobbes and society
In the seventeenths century, a period when Hobbes lived, the people considered themselves equals and that is why they competed against each other for the scarce resources. The main notion for the people in England society was all against all and that is what they believed in (Sorrell & Rogers 2000).
However, Hobbes did not like the faith that the society had and that is why he was determined to change the peoples perspective and belief. His believed that if people have trust and view each other as equals it would promote peace and understanding. He therefore demanded and expected everyone to follow his faith on social relations since that was the only way that they could do away with civil war in England.
The state had the responsibility of promoting fairness among the people by first ensuring that judicial and executive powers together with lawmaking bodies join together to become a single body to form the monarch or parliament. This body will have the authority over religious beliefs and doctrines. The parliament can also breach rebels because the King work was to create peace whereby he has no right to commit evil or act unlawful.
How the structure of the selected literary works shapes themes of Hobbes, society and faith
Hobbes wrote many books and the major one popular ones being Leviathan and Treatise on Human Nature which he used mechanistic and scientific principles to address his political thoughts and views (Sorrell & Rogers 2000).
The major theme associated with Hobbes, the society and faith shape the literary works in different ways: it brings out the uniqueness of Hobbes work, his desire to change the world and his good motives towards the society he lived in. Hobbes choice to write in mechanistic principles enabled people to understand what he was addressing. His works were not plan work since he compared humans to the universe and explained them using mechanical processes something visible for all to see and understand.
References
Dietz, M. (1990). Thomas Hobbes and Political Theory. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Sorrell, T. & Rogers, G. (2000). Hobbes and History. London: Routledge.
Every person has a set of beliefs in life that determines their actions and decisions. These beliefs are either constructive or destructive depending on the effect they have on the believers outlook on life and the world. People develop beliefs from many sources. For instance, many people take up values that are instilled in them by their parents and guardians who act as role models and mentors. However, as they grow and develop their mental faculties, they start doubting and reviewing certain beliefs. Their life experiences, friends, and exposure to reality are some of the factors that contribute to such shifts in belief and attitude towards diverse occurrences in life.
Change in ones belief system affects every aspect of life because the process of developing new viewpoints and turning them into convictions is critical. The conviction that destiny is determined by external factors is a common belief that many people hold. In my childhood, I believed that external forces such as society, the environment, family background, and the economy are the determinants of ones destiny. However, different life experiences disabused me of that viewpoint later in life. Currently, I accept as true that destiny is predominantly determined by internal factors such as personal responsibility, discipline, grit, will, self-control, purpose, and persistence.
Main body
My perspective changed when I joined a high school where students are expected to be more responsible and accountable. Working on assignments, managing finances, finding passions and hobbies, creating relationships, resisting peer pressure, and managing time are critical factors that determine success in high school. I realized that external factors such as rules, school policies, teachers, and peer pressure had little influence on my life.
Factors such as self-control, discipline, focus, and willingness to work hard had a greater effect on my life. The view that destiny is determined by external factors was largely due to a lack of experience and knowledge regarding the recurrent dynamics of life. As a child, I had no means of testing the validity of the belief because my parents provided for all my needs. However, reality dawned on me after joining high school.
I had to start taking care of myself because of the transition from childhood to adulthood. For instance, I had to learn how to manage money and time well. The economy and rate of unemployment had little effect on my financial situation because it was primarily dependent on how well I spent money, the willingness to create a spending plan, and the readiness to prioritize my needs. On the other hand, academic performance was not determined by school policies and regulations but by the willingness and readiness to work hard in order to achieve my goals.
In high school, success is primarily determined by the individual rather than the effect of external influences on the individual. I learned this after several experiences that included failed friendships, poor academic performance, huge debts, poor health outcomes, and bad influence from peers. Initially, I thought that these outcomes resulted from factors such as inflexible school schedules, ineffective regulations and rules, inadequate time, bad friends, and harsh economic times. However, after receiving several warnings from the schools management, I realized that change was inevitable.
The change involved a shift in the belief that external factors were responsible for my predicament. I was the main cause of the numerous failures and therefore changing my beliefs was the most potent route to achieving success. I had the freedom to choose friends and decide how to spend time and money. I started budgeting, scheduling time, and choosing friends wisely. These changes had exceptional outcomes that proved that internal factors were the main determinants of ones destiny in life.
Conclusion
Stopping to think that destiny is determined by external factors has affected how I think about my other beliefs and ideologies. I have developed a habit of reviewing them often in order to determine their implication on my daily life. In addition, the experience has ameliorated my rationality because of the need to form personal opinions and convictions on different matters. Many of the ideas that I hold were picked up in childhood through observation and instruction. However, I have come to realize that most of them are limiting and narrow with regard to their ability to expand my thinking and outlook on life.
Ceasing to embrace that conviction has enabled me to develop new values that include personal responsibility, accountability, patience, determination, and purpose. These values affect the social, financial, psychological, and spiritual aspects of my life. In order to achieve ones dreams, it is important to be deliberate, focused, and persistent. External factors play a role in determining ones destiny. However, the aforementioned internal factors play the greatest role.
Embracing the belief that destiny is determined by external factors absolves individuals from personal responsibility and accountability because human beings have little or no influence on such factors. I have learned to deal with external factors through the sound application of proper principles in order to ensure that such realities do not compromise the attainment of my goals.
The idea of poverty about faith and liberating theology is directly connected to major Biblical concepts. The struggle of the impoverished life is seen through the lens of liberation done by God towards people in need. Johnson (n.d.) constructs the following presumption: Daily struggles for the survival manifest potent, tensible human strength implying that the poorest follow the complex path (p. 74). Moral strength is needed to remain in trust in God while staying in a position of oppression. The regular praxis of unconditional love and trust in Christ, in the long run, is implemented into one of the key principles of the Christian faith. Johnson (n.d.) mentions the genuine love and all the charity done by Jesus to the poor, constructing the validity of liberation theology. The author explains liberation theology as the gift to humanity of all nations and statuses. The concept of justice and equality cannot be separated from Gods reign. Humans are all meant to be equal and the gap between people is what wounds the idea of Gods kingdom. The author constructs that the main goal of human beings is to ensure the establishment of justice for all and to combat structural violence toward the poor.
Latin American Bishops (1968) in their document focus on a multifaceted view of poverty in Latin America and beyond. While they stress the severity of poverty in the region there are also many points applicable to the world. The main point of the document is to spread awareness about the vulnerability of impoverished people and the churchs mission to follow Christs will in ending poverty. One of the key elements in the document is the distinction made between material and spiritual poverty. Moreover, Latin American Bishops (1968) highlight the commitment to poverty, the one Jesus had who being rich became poor (p. 2). There are people open to experiencing the difficulties poor people go through to gain liberty from materialism. There is also an argument for the reformation of the existing system to the one without financial discrimination. Moreover, there is a note on inspiring people to be more modest in their means and more generous to those around them.
While Johnson (n.d.) acknowledges his status of not being poor, I stumbled with the question of whether the insight of the liberating theology has a concrete practical implication other than in charity. I would like to receive more clarity on this concept from a point of view of people who consider themselves to be rather average and what is in their powers to spread liberating theology. In my personal view, the spread of liberating power is important, and it is a human responsibility. However, I struggle to understand to what extent it should be inbuilt into a daily routine of one and what are the consequences. Moreover, it is interesting to see liberating theology in correlation with principles of Christians service and missions abroad.
I found insightful the linkage of Christs journey to the People of God and how as Gods children humans should follow the example of the Messiah. It is a silver lining to the whole text itself. Hence, there is an essentiality in an expansion of this idea towards the future frameworks on poverty and church. The development of Christs example to people in their everyday life may influence their understanding of money and prevent them from stepping on the consumerist side. Poverty could be only combated through the spread of the ideas formulated in the Medellin Document, and therefore there should be particularity around the issue.
References
Johnson, E.A. (n.d.) Liberating god of life context: Wretched poverty [PDF document]. Web.
Latin American Bishops (1968). Medellin document: Poverty of the Church, Columbia [PDF document]. Web.
Religion plays a critical role in the life of millions of people. Individuals all over the world have their rituals and visions. Christianity is one of the most ancient and influential teachings popular in different parts of the globe. It has some fundamental beliefs, such as the necessity to save a soul by leading a good life and following the major ideas of faith, or the figure of Jesus who was sent by God, his father, to redeem peoples sins. In general, it is a peaceful religion focusing on spiritual values and helping each other.
For me, the most attractive aspects of the Christian faith are ideas of love, hope, peace, and salvation. They create a unique framework needed for understanding this religion and building a healthy society. For instance, love is a fundamental concept as people should most teachings state that a person should love God and the people surrounding them. Hatred cannot make you happy while being kind and supportive to others is a way to salvation and becoming a better person. Another important concept is hope, which I believe is essential for all followers. Christian teachings say that all individuals can hope for better and be sure that their suffering will be rewarded. The idea of the afterlife helps people to understand that their good actions will make them happier in another life, as our souls are immortal. It motivates and encourages people to live and be more satisfied with the things around them.
Finally, the Christian faith emphasizes the importance of peace and readiness to forgive, critical for the modern world. All sinners can hope for salvation, meaning that there is a chance for everyone who wants it and is ready to change. For this reason, I believe that this religion helps individuals to become better and shows the right way to build relations and interact with others. Following its basic assumptions, it is possible to create a better world.
Although the Bahai faith is one of the youngest world religions, it involves millions of followers in the exceptional geographically diverse community. Originating in the middle of the 19th century in Persia, now Iran, it spread to different continents, and now it is present in many countries. The unique nature of the Bahai faith implies the acceptance and inclusiveness of all global religions as valid. In essence, the views of the Bahais are founded on the teaching about the oneness of God, who sends the divine messengers like Muhammad, Moses, Zoroaster, or Jesus. The differences between religions are interpreted through the fact that they developed in different cultural and historical environments and fulfilled the societies needs in each period. However, modern reality requires different beliefs that focus on equality of all people, and see the entire human race as one soul and one body ( What Baháís Believe ). While many religions rely on ancient doctrines, Bahais prefer to face contemporary challenges of the global community. Thus, the celebration of other beliefs, social service, and humanistic values, make the Bahai faith unique and unprecedented.
The Brief History of Bahai Faith
In comparison to most of the global religions, the Bahai faith is relatively young, as it emerged only in 1844. The teaching was founded by Bab, who encouraged his small group of followers to seek truth without reliance on rituals and clergy (Momen The Reading of Scripture 137). The Bab announces himself to be the divine messenger of God who then inspired one of his followers Bahaullah to become the spiritual leader of the new faith. The latter is believed to be the founder of the entire global movement as he first put down all the prophecies of the Bab and the essential beliefs in his Writings. Today, these revelations are considered sacred texts of the Bahai faith.
From the inception of the new religion, its followers have experienced persecution from the state. Bahaullah himself was imprisoned and then banished from the country, living many years in the mountains and gathering new followers. This exile to Kurdistan and later to Turkey helped the faith to spread abroad. For more than one and a half centuries, Bahai of Persia has been through severe persecutions and even genocide of the national scale (Momen The Bahai Community of Iran ). According to Momen, The present Islamic government of Iran has been exceptionally hostile to the Bahais, imprisoning and executing the leaders after secret trials ( The Bahai Community of Iran ). Modern Bahai religion is popular in many countries and has an estimated global population of 5 million (Momen The Bahai Community of Iran ). Over the years, the faith was led by Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi its spiritual leaders and the successors of Bahaullah. However, today it is governed by the Universal House of Justice and its regularly elected nine members.
Bahai Teaching and Beliefs
The sacred texts of Bahaullah are considered the essential source among the religions followers. The Scripture reflects the core values of the religion, where Bahaullah has formulated its laws and ordinances, enunciated its principles, and ordained its institutions (UHJ). Momen summarizes these writings in the three fundamental viewpoints the oneness of God, the universalism of religion, and the wholeness of humanity ( The Reading of Scripture 137). One God is believed to be sending prophets who become the founders of different religions and reveal his message to people. Although world religions differ, the Bahais believe that they all are the manifestations of the same faith, which has evolved in different epochs and in different cultures to correspond to the needs of people. The Bahais believe that modern global society needs to become united under the commonly shared values that are based on equality and humanism.
The views of Babs followers were revolutionary in Persia of the 19th century as he proclaimed the equality of all people, including gender equality that was non-conforming to the Muslim beliefs. According to Zabihi-Moghaddam, the equal rights of men and women were seen as a fundamental spiritual, moral, and social principle (137). Today, Bahais see marriage as the spiritual union of a man and a woman who foster love, harmony, and respect for each other. Unlike the Muslims believe, there is no subordination between partners, and parents cannot influence the decisions. The Bahais share humanistic values, such as the worthiness of each human being, social justice, or equal access to education. Their world-embracing vision is reflected in the symbolism they use in their temples. The nine-pointed star is the global symbol of the Bahai faith, emphasizing the meaning of completeness assigned to this number. However, they also use other images of different world religions, such as a cross or the Star of David.
Religious Practices of Bahai Faith
The Bahai practices do not include sermons or rituals, unlike most of the religions, and people mostly gather in the temples to hear the Scripture or sing. Such practices as daily prayer, meditation, reading from Scripture are encouraged but not required from each adult individual. Moreover, they are expected to reflect on the ways of how to implement the teaching in action and service. The Bahais pursue the dual goal that implies the adherence to individual spiritual growth and service to other people ( What Baháís Do ). According to Fozdar, the Bahais demonstrate a solid work ethic, believing that all forms of work are worship (276). The leading religious practice of the Bahais faith is service to others and the transformation of society. That is why they support many global initiatives and engage in different UN projects that aspire to transform and improve the world.
The structure of the Bahais faith differs from other religions because of the absence of priesthood or clergy, making each individual be in charge of their spiritual growth and relationship with God. The governing responsibility lies on the United House of Justice a global institution that is ruled by nine leaders from global religions, re-elected every five years. However, even these representatives do not have the ultimate power, as their influence and obligations are assigned by the constitution of JHU. According to the document, they are responsible for the protection of the Scripture, the promotion of the faith, and the application of laws and principles (JHU). Each follower of the Bab is therefore expected to adhere to these rules and become a valuable representative of the church through the service to society.
Bahai Religion and its Place in the World
Although the Bahais are not so numerous as other religions, they claim to be a worldwide faith that embraces globalization. Currently, they are the second geographically diverse religion after Christianity and intend to become the vanguard of a global community which will ultimately encompass the entire population (Fozdar 275). The Bahais have their temples in many of the worlds large urban areas, where they strive to make an impact in their communities and try to spread their beliefs appealing to different cultures and peoples. Today, the Bahai faith connects people who come from different religious and cultural backgrounds motivating them to unite and serve the global community.
Many religions in world history have tried to become global, and their ambitions led to wars and human tragedies. However, the approach of the Bahais faith is unique as it offers an entirely different way of globalization. Unlike many other religions, they do not aim to impose their rules and conquer the people, but rather accept the diversity of the cultures. The ways the Bahais address contemporary social problems suggest that they aspire to become a modern religion that answers the needs of the people. Modern Bahais cooperate with charity programs and NGOs to fight for universal education, global justice, and the elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty (Fozdar 276). That is why the Bahai faith offers an exceptional perspective of the world that does not hold onto traditionalism but embraces transformation for the better future of all people on Earth.
Conclusion
Although the Bahai religion is relatively new, it grows fast in different countries, becoming a diverse and inclusive spiritual movement. Its followers adhere to the idea of the oneness of God and believe that there is the universal creator of the whole world represented by divine prophets. The Bahais values emphasize practical service in addressing the worlds most pressing problems. Their unique vision of cultural and religious pluralism is unprecedented as it equally embraces all people and their beliefs and aims at achieving global unity.
Works Cited
Fozdar, Farida. The Bahai Faith: A Case Study in Globalization, Mobility band the Routinization of Charisma. Journal for the Academic Study of Religion, vol. 28, no. 3, 2015, pp. 274292. Web.
Momen, Moojan. The Bahai Community of Iran: Cultural Genocide and Resilience. Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations, edited by Jeffrey S. Bachman, Routledge, 2019.
. The Reading of Scripture: A Bahai Approach. Reading the Sacred Scriptures: from Oral Tradition to Written Documents and Their Reception, edited by Fiachra Long and Siobhan Dowling Long, Routledge, 2018, pp. 137-153.
Zabihi-Moghaddam, Siyamak. Spousal Equality in Bahai Law: The Emergence of Provisions on the Dissolution of Marriage in Iran, 18731954. Journal of Womens History, vol. 29, no. 3, 2017, pp. 137-160. Web.
There is a group of people who argue that science is just a myth and, like other religious doctrines, it is based on faith. For example, Paul claims that It [science] is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man and not necessarily the best (315). However, if the most accepted definitions of faith and science are used, and the two fields are critically analyzed, it can be strongly argued that the scientific Worldview is not in any manner influenced by faith. Faith has been defined as the strong belief in something or someone without any proof and is based solely on trust. On the contrary, scientific worldviews are defined as ideas a person or group of persons hold on a particular subject matter and can be tested by empirical observations and consist of falsifiable components. While scientific worldviews cannot be fully empirically tested, they do not rely on traditional religious themes, faith, or taboos. Therefore, for a person to accept a certain worldview, they do not need to have faith but rather have to sum up all they know about the world and evaluate if it matches a particular concept and opinions.
Faith is Not Based on Evidence
Faith in Christianity is not based on verifiable evidence but a belief in what a person has not seen, as mentioned in the bible. In other religious beliefs, such as Islam and Hinduism, faith is also based on blindly believing what you have not seen, such as the afterlife. The scientific revolution in the 17th century conflicted with most religious doctrines that were based on faith, and ever since, science has always conflicted with theology. This argument is supported by the conflict theory proposed by John William Draper, who first proposed the theory. The theory proposes that religious doctrines and scientific worldviews conflict because one is based on faith while the other is based on observable evidence and reason.
The success of science is a result of actions that are based on reason and logic. For a particular field to qualify as a science, it must be based on observations and logic from those observations. A scientific Worldview that comes from this school of thought does not have to be backed by faith to be acceptable. This is because the evidence provided would mean that the observation is true, and therefore no faith would be needed. Faith, on the other hand, assumes that humans are capable of having a deeper understanding that is beyond reason and logic. Faith is most applicable while dealing with non-scientific Worldviews. Some people argue that a person needs to have faith to believe in particular scientific theories, such as evolution. However, if a person takes time to read evolution theories and observes animals and trees, it can be concluded that it is a correct argument.
Scientific Worldviews Do Not Have Virtues
Acceptance of a particular worldview does not require a person to believe in certain religious doctrines, such as the virtue of being morally good. Moral and ethical behaviors can be linked to faith as most people who subscribe to them believe that the world or God has a way of punishing those who do not do what is virtuous. Virtuous behaviors involve people demonstrating high moral standards and are more common in people who believe in a religious doctrine. Moral excellence can also be observed in people who follow unscientific worldviews and believe in a certain superpower that could punish them if they act in a manner that is not good for society. People who subscribe to scientific worldviews do not have to consider if they align with moral principles, although the conditioning of society may still influence them. For instance, a scientist could argue against dressing in a particular manner but still be guided by social conditions while choosing what to wear. Therefore, people who subscribe to true scientific worldviews will subconsciously be influenced by faith, but faith has no relevance when arguing or acting logically.
Scientific Worldviews Do Not Offer Consolations
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and many other religious beliefs offer consolations to people that good things will happen to those who believe when they die. The beliefs also largely involve believing there is a punishment for those who do not believe in the doctrines and those that treat other people unfairly. For these consolations to work, the believer has to have faith in existence in some aspects of life, such as life after death, the existence of God, and Karma, among others. Unscientific worldviews not interlinked to religious doctrines also offer consolations by having a person believe in something without evidence of its existence. It is impossible to offer consolations using scientific worldviews since they are based on testable empirical evidence meaning that a person can only be consoled by what is true and factual.
Scientific Worldviews Lack Moral Relevance
A true scientific worldview does not have to be morally right, but it has to be verifiable by evidence. On the other hand, faith mainly relies on moral principles and is not based on any form of evidence. Rather it is the principle of vice in any religion (Richard 318). This is because scientific worldviews are not exact truths despite a huge push by scientific scholars to prove to people that science is backed by evidence. Studies show that acceptance or rejection of scientific philosophy is largely influenced by the dominant science in the region a person lives in. For example, Paul claims that It [science] is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man and not necessarily the best (315). Morality is closely associated with faith since people need to convince themselves of what is right and wrong without using any tool to measure it.
Scientific Worldviews Are Unforced
Unlike faith which requires believers to follow religious doctrines set by divine creatures world views that are scientifically based encourage individuals to examine and access the truth in a particular belief. Therefore, scholars have agreed that since one is voluntary and the other forced, faith and scientific worldview can not be possessed by one person (Launonen 5). Faith is usually fixed and cannot be changed, unlike the scientific world views which change as a person gains more information on a particular subject matter. Religious people who seek to communicate and convince others to adopt their faith normally require believers to accept the revealed truth without questioning it. Accepting a particular scientific worldview from a person resonates occurs naturally, and nobody persuades others to subscribe to their worldview.
Relationship between Religious Viewpoint and Reason
For centuries reason has been considered to play a pivotal role in justifying religious viewpoints. Since religious doctrines are based on faith, there has been much interest from religious philosophers and scholars on how the two are related. It has been discovered that different religious beliefs cohere with different reasoning patterns and rationales. Most religions are based on faith which is the belief in a certain doctrine and submission to a powerful creature. As such, faith only occurs in circumstances where human knowledge is limited, meaning that religious viewpoints rely on reason until a situation where it gets limited. For people with great reasoning capacity, it has been established that the human brain can establish the existence of a supernatural creature without any supernatural help (Launonen 3). It is also true that people who cannot use strenuous reasoning in religious matters rely on faith, leading to the creation of two different but correct worldviews.
From a Christian point of view, the existence of God can be established through reason and observing natural phenomena. Explanation of religious concepts using religion is observed in the bible, where St. Paul explained that the presence of God could be confirmed by observing nature. The relationship between religious viewpoint and reason can either be evidence-sensitive or evidence-insensitive. Sensitive evidence involves reason that is explained by truths that the entire population can observe. An example of an evidence-sensitive case is the example mentioned above, where St. Paul convinced people of the presence of God using nature. Evidence-insensitive reasons are those that involve a single individual. These include personal victories and revelations that a believer may claim.
The relationship between people who take a religious stand and those who believe in reason and logic is often contradictory. The two parties are known to be continuously conflicting ideologies although they also agree in various aspects. Religious people say that even though science is just a form of religion, it has been given priority over other religions. It is suggested that children or the parents of the children need to be given the autonomy to choose what science their children will take. This reasoning needs to be revised since schools in the American system systematically teach science; hence hard to make it optional for young children. People who support the cognitive science side of the argument say that belief-forming processes that underline the belief in God are unreliable (Launonen 3). For example, Karl Marx, a socialist and a popular non-believer, argued that religion was a limiting factor and obstacle to a scientific revolution. This is because, for a long-time, religion has tried to answer questions that are best left to science (Dawkins 319). However, despite the many differences, there are areas where scientific worldviews align with religious viewpoints.
Conclusion
For a person to accept a certain worldview, they do not need to have faith but rather sum up all they know about the world and evaluate if it matches a particular concept. Therefore, a person relies more on reason, logic, previous experiences, verified sources, and scientific experiments to decide on the worldview to adopt and the ones they disagree with. For instance, a person guided by reality would have never encountered anything spiritual, making it a worldview that can be proved by science. Moreover, all scientific worldviews do not focus on morality, virtues, or offering consolation.
Works Cited
Dawkins, Richard. Is Science a Religion? Humanist in Canada, vol. 31, no. 4, 1998.
Feyerabend, Paul. Science in a Free Society. Verso Books, 2018.
The Book of James and the epistle to the Galatians are two writings that represent the New Testament Law. In the first one, James wrote: Faith Without Works is Dead, claiming that believers need to support their faith with good actions made as a result of changed lives. In the second one, Paul argues that a person can be justified by faith apart from the works of the Law, meaning that it is sufficient for a believer to profess the faith and no actions should be taken. Without diving into details, it seems that two statements contradict each other; however, it is not true. On the contrary, Pauls and James works complement each other.
It is thought that James (or Just) is a brother to Jesus Christ. Initially, he was not a believer, but after the resurrection, he became so. Thus, he describes the faith walk through genuine religion, faith, and genuine in his book. The Book of James is the writing in the New Testament, written approximately in AD 45. In his paper, James critiques rich people who collect their treasures and those who rely only on themselves. At the end of the book, Just encourages believers to be patient while suffering, pray, take care of each other, and make a common faith stronger through communication.
Jamess statement faith without works is dead means that it is not sufficient to just talk the talk and repeat or distribute Jesus Crists Word for believers to salve. Christians also need to walk the walk and act in accordance with Jesuss taught. Just emphasizes that a person can continue living in sin even after he becomes Christian. In other words, lack of actions and walks may be the signal of an unchanged mind and life. In this way, becoming a Christian cannot save a person or result in salvation. Therefore, mere faith cannot lead a believer to righteousness: works are necessary to verify the faith. Moreover, salvation is not the result of works, made following Jesus Christs Word, but is their cause. Thus, changing the mind, transforming life and behavior already means salvation, resulting in good works and actions. The way people live demonstrates what they believe in and whether their faith is a living, true faith.
By defining the true living faith that reveals the believers changed mind and good actions, James contrasts it to the false belief that is dead without actions. Jesus claims: Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven (Matthew 7:16-23). In this citation, the contrast between the two types of faith is also visible. In his book, James contrasts believers actions: either good or bad. Therefore, a person who just talks the talk and recalls the Lord without making good actions will be thrown into the fire. At the same time, a person who tries to do good works or walk the walk will enter heaven. In other words, James emphasizes that Christians should live according to the new Christian faith, trying to follow a righteous way of life in order to support their faith by good works.
In his statement justified by faith apart from the works of the Law, Paul tries to ensure Judaizers stop being tied with the frame of Mosaic Law. Paul is the author of the epistle to the Galatians that was written before the Book of James, approximately in AD 49. This work was composed because the churches in Galatia believed that the actual truth of justification could be achieved by actions taken in accordance with the Mosaic Law. Paul writes: For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law (Galatians 5:17-18). Here he addresses Judaizers that are continuing to insist on circumcision to be eligible to become a Christian. Thus, he rejects the Old Testament Law, emphasizing the essential role of the New Testament. By this, Paul claims that believers should profess the gospel of grace, which does not require any actions made with flesh (for instance, circumcision), as suggested by the Mosaic Law.
From the first glance, in the discussion written above, it can be claimed that Jamess book contests Pauls work; however, it is not true. Paul emphasizes the justification with God apart from the works of Law, whereas James argues that believers actions and good works should support the true living faith. There is no conflict between the books of Galatians and James because they are dealing with two supplementary features of Christianity: the gospel of grace and righteous living. Jamess writing encourages Christians to live according to the new Christian faith; therefore, a righteous way of life supports the faith. Paul emphasizes the gospel of grace or a living belief that causes transformed mind and behavior.
Religious belief and science have always been on opposite sides. This conflict had its roots in the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for his claims that the earth revolved around the sun. The conflict between religion and science is still relevant, two areas of human knowledge answer the questions of the universe in different ways. However, despite the controversy, it is indisputable that science and religion are inseparable along the entire way of human development.
Science and religion are two types of worldviews that interact. For a long time, the understanding of the relationship between science and religion was reduced because they were interpreted as diametrically opposite phenomena. However, scientific knowledge and religion are closely interconnected, penetrate each other.. Religious systems are not only sets of statements calling for faith but also some generalizations based on argumentation and evidence. Religion laid the foundation for research in the study of the universe, gave impetus to the development of different theories for the origin of life on earth. Religious treatises began to form the first national literatures; without them the formation of philology and linguistics as a science would have been impossible. Science and religion are not opposites; they help each other achieve their goals.
Science deals with facts, while religion deals with faith, although today, many argue that there are areas in which the interests of religion and science overlap. These include, for example, the question of who or what caused the universe to exist. Scientists are usually of the opinion that religion is anti-scientific. The main argument is that religion implies the existence of impossible things in a conceivable universe. The adherents of the theory that religion has negatively influenced the development of science do not consider that these two concepts have been closely related for centuries. In fact, science and religion have constantly posed questions that had a beneficial effect on the development of human minds. Scientists are now beginning to agree that the long-standing idea of a war between science and religion is an outdated and incorrect concept, although they do not see science and religion as natural allies.
The complement and dialogue model between science and religion is especially popular among Catholic Christianity and Protestantism representatives. According to this model, religion and science study reality from different angles and look for answers to different questions. However, the combination of answers to these various questions helps us create a holistic view of reality. Moreover, the ratio and the absence of contradictions between these different views of reality can serve good criteria of truth. In this way, dialogue between science and religion can be seen as a way to resolve issues both sides of the problem while maintaining their independence. For the dialogue to be fruitful, it is necessary that each of its parties is open to the other sides issues and recognize the problematic nature of its own tradition. Interaction between science and religion becomes possible because religion, like science, like all humanity, is constantly changing (Schellenberg, 2019). A model of complementarity, or critical constructive interaction, in which both sides retain their own sphere, reject absolutization, and mutually enrich each other, trying to understand reality as a whole in all its dimensions.
The synthesis and integration model emphasizes the kinship and interpenetration of religion and science and, accordingly, on the possibility of merging religious and scientific knowledge into a single picture of the world. First of all, it points to the unity of religion and science subject and their solution to the same problems, for example, the origin of the world and man or the prospects for the development of human civilization. However, the interpenetration of religious and scientific knowledge is not easy and not evident at first glance. The main obstacles to this are terminological differences and the consequent lack of communication between the scientific community and religious denominations. The difference between the languages of science and religion, complicated by the variety of terms used in different religious traditions, greatly complicates communication between believers and scientists and sometimes makes it simply impossible. That is why supporters of the possibility of integrating religion and science talk about the need to participate in this process as a mediator, the role of which philosophy can play. Complete adequate comprehension of reality is possible only with the condition of the integration of religious and scientific knowledge.
After identifying the similarities and differences between science and religion, it becomes impossible to say that they are diametrically opposed. Science and religion place the same problems from different points of view and answer the same questions in differently. Religious belief cannot be anti-scientific; the situation is precisely the opposite: only synthesis and interaction of religion and science can help answer the main questions of humankind.
Reference
Schellenberg, J.L. (2019). Religion after science. Cambridge University Press.
The Five Pillars of Islam are faith, prayer, alms, fasting, and pilgrimage. The selected pillar for exemplifying the selflessness of the given religion is alms or zakat. All Muslims are obliged to allocate some of their wealth to charity to improve the community and support the people in need. It is a direct form of selflessness because Islam insists on putting God or Allah before oneself and ones self-interests. To express it financially, a Muslim commits some of his or her wealth to help the poor and unfortunate. Depending on a particular school of thought or madhab, the mandatory amount of zakat can vary. However, it is in itself a selfless act, where Muslims abandon their selfishness and unity to improve their communities and the livelihood of their surrounding people.
Zakat is also a way to connect with God because the given act is an expression of love and submission to Allah since it shows that a Muslim values his or her faith more than material possessions. It is stated: Zakat is also a spiritual connection to ones maker to purify your wealth for the will of Allah is to acknowledge that everything we own belongs to Him, and it is for Him that we strive to end poverty and help our brothers and sisters ( Zakat, par. 4). Therefore, it is clear that although all pillars of Islam promote some form of selflessness, self-denial is the most evident and direct in the case of mandatory alms, since it does not rely on ones willingness or wants, but rather forces it by making it obligatory and putting it among the Five Pillars.