I had a thought concerning the discussion we had during class today. Referring specifically to religion, Mr. Lazarow mentioned Hayakawa's point that things like religion cannot be extensionally proven, it is something based merely on faith and belief. The thought that I had concerning this, though, begins with the assumption that, when it comes down to it, any peice of "fact", or, rather, information can be argued. As Hayakawa states, the only thing we can be sure of is what we see/experience for ourselves, and all other information that we receive comes from reports, reports of reports, and so on. With that in mind, why can't religion be proven in the same way that all things are proven without the benefit of first hand experience-- with reports and reports of reports? I will use Christianity as an example because that is that religion that I am most familiar with. The Bible is, in essence, a book of reports, reports of reports, etc. Hayakawa says that the existence of angels is an endless argument because we can't see them. But, what about the shepherds the night that Jesus was born? It is reported that they saw angels. There are many other examples. And what about historical evidence? My question is, what is the difference between religious faith and the faith that we have in those that write in the newspaper, those that write nonfiction books about presidents who lived centuries ago, etc.? When it comes down to it, anytime that we believe what another person is saying means that we have faith that that person is not lying to us. We may not have experienced what s/he is telling us about, but why is it so easy for us to trust what a person has to say, but we find it so difficult to commit to a religion, where faith is also required?
I understand that religion has become a very "touchy" topic, and I don't mean to step on anyone's toes-- my question is, can religion truly be proven? I just wanted to share my thoughts, and I would very gladly hear the thoughts of my peers. I would also welcome more examples from classmates that may have backrounds in another religion.
6 comments:
Sorry about that... I forgot a title and I forgot to add my name...
(Emily Thompson)
I think the reason behind why people have a much harder time believing than news stories is because there is no physical evidence. As stated in one of the slides today (which I cannot stand to do again due to my jumpiness), physical evidence is a fact used for argumentative support, and I believe that it is one of the strongest of the types of verifiable facts because of how others value it. For example, take JFK. There are many reports about him in various types of textbooks and reports. Even if some of these reports may have false information, many people still have faith in them because there's evidence of his face, his being. There are pictures and videos and physical proof that someone named JFK was the president of the United States and was assassinated.
However, with religion, you can't really show any physical evidence about angels. People may have the seen something and written it in report after report, but without something concrete to show for it, it is hard to get almost everyone to believe.
I would just like to say that my last hope here is to offend anyone with my arguments.
I am not exactly willing to discuss the actual existence of a God, for it becomes an inevitably perpetual debate. Just as Mr. Lazarow has stated, I keep all of my faith to myself. The only thing which angers me is when one feels it their duty to impose their beliefs over mine.
Ultimately, the definition of faith is something innate. It can not be taught; it is merely acquired in the intensional world. Yes, environments may have an effect on a chosen religious standard, or lack there of, but diverse people co-exist due to their willingness to possess individualism.
This debate will evidently surpass the ages, but as long as you are content with your own beliefs, as long as you know that the doctrines of a higher being are correct or false, then that is what is True (with a capital "T") to you, personally. In fact, this ties in with Life of Pi. The world that you chose to live in is the world that exists to you.
(Sam Maliha)
I had another thought... Mr. Lazarow talked about the importance of definitions today, because, after all, words are only symbols for their meanings. Before an argument can commence, the definition of the word, in this case I will use the word "religion", needs to be agreed upon. So before an argument regarding whether or not a religion is legitimate, what does "religion" actually mean???
To Mary's point on physical evidence-- I bring up the point of historical evidence... but again, as Mr. Lazarow mentioned, evidence is how you interpret it. One person may say that an archeological finding most likely came from such-and-such a society, and another person may say to the contrary, that it must have belonged to so-and-so a society. Depending on what they have learned, the conclusions that these two people draw may be completely different.
I realize I just contradicted myself and I'm talking in circles (figuratively), but I just thought I'd throw some more thoughts out there for discussion. Comments, clarification, etc., are welcome. I don't know if I'm making much sense...
(Emily Thompson)
Hmm...Some good points have already been made.
"Before an argument can commence, the definition of the word, in this case I will use the word "religion", needs to be agreed upon."
First of all, regarding Emily's request to define what "religion" means so that we can start argument, I believe that if we already agree upon the definition of religion, then there will not be an argument. One issue we are discussing right now is our conflicting definitions of religion.
For example, one can argue that religion is a belief system that is based solely of faith and has no extensional basis and facts, or one could define religion as a set of beliefs that does have extensional basis in the Bible, which some people consider as a "report of reports." In fact, we have already been arguing these definitions.
Hayakawa points out on pg. 89 that defining our terms before engaging in argument does not truly resolve anything. We all have our own definitions of religion, and agreeing on one would eliminate the need to debate the issue in the first place.
As Sam said, the debate over our definitions and perceptions of religion will rage on for eternity as the argument has no extensional basis: "When utterances have extensional meanings, discussion can be ended and agreement reached; when utterances have intensional meanings only and no extensional meanings, arguments may, and often do, go on indefinitely." (Hayakawa 38)
That being said, some people would dispute that the Bible is a report of reports of reports. After all, aren't there judgments in the book, where we are told to obey certain commandments and follow certain ethics?
In addition, I feel that Mary has a good point when she points out that JFK has videos, photos, and other physical evidence to prove his existence. Of course, one could argue that physical evidence of the incidents referred to in Bible has survived as well, such as the "true pieces of the cross."
In the end, this argument over intensional worlds cannot be resolved. However, it is interesting to discuss it for greater understanding. Finally, I hope that I did not offend anybody in my musings.
(Eric Wei)
One reason that I came up with regarding all the conflicts over religion is that the problem isn't as much that the reports are unverifiable, but rather there are conflicting reports.
Emily mentioned that we don't argue about presidents that lived centuries ago, but thats because we all basically agree. Nobody's going to argue that Washington wasn't the first president because there aren't conflicting reports. However, people will argue things such as what he was thinking, because there is no way to verify that and there are conflicting reports. As we go further and further back in time, there are more conflicting reports. Questions in history usually arise when there are reports of different things occurring and then its up to people to choose which they thing is correct.
In religion, there are conflicting reports. Some religions say one thing, others say something different. You choose which report you want to believe in, or whatever you want to believe in.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Post a Comment