[
Replying to nobspeople in post #191]
I haven’t read the entire thread, so forgive me if my response is a bit out of sync
.
With that said, I have a few thoughts on this, but keep in mind that my definition of faith and knowledge is quite different from the Christian one. For me, faith means two things:
1. A spiritual or religious belief or practice.
2. A trust in some non-propositional expression, based not in logic or observation, but a leap to a deep conviction based on sentiment, made within the bounds of practical reason. This definition is very similar to Søren Kierkegaard’s treatment of faith.
It is definition (2) with which this thread is concerned, so I will discuss (2) in this post.
Under this definition, faith is both apart from and in tandem with knowledge. My definition of knowledge also differs from the Aristotelian / popular Western definition (“justified true belief”), so I should briefly define it.
For me,
knowledge is
coherent belief rooted in “what works,” that is, pragmatic utility. Note that this definition is coherentist, not foundationalist like the common Western one. Coherentism vs. Foundationalism is beyond the scope of this debate, but if you want to learn more, see here:
http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/ ... rfound.htm
So is faith against knowledge, that is, “coherent belief rooted in what works?” Certainly not. By many definitions of
pragmatic utility, mental health and aesthetic wholeness are included, and since spiritual practice (and the leap to trust that facilitates it) is linked to higher levels of mental health and aesthetic wholeness, it can be said to have pragmatic utility, which is the better part of knowledge.
Still, many spiritual beliefs
are out of step with perhaps the most prominent exercise in pragmatic utility: modern science. Knowledge, in this case, would tell us that the cosmos is material, and that anything numinous, spiritual, or animistic, or transcendent is at best unknown and at worst nonexistent. So, with that said, is faith inherently against knowledge?
No, and remembering my definition of faith will show exactly why. Faith is not concerned with propositional claims, while knowledge and science clearly are. It is not against knowledge, rather, it is unrelated to knowledge, as two different fictional universes are unrelated to each other. They are, as Stephen Jay Gould said, “non-overlapping magisteria.”
With that said, I do think there is still a role for knowledge in faith. Remember that faith, untethered to and divorced from reality, can lead to fundamentalism and very irrational, harmful actions. Viewing one’s faith-based convictions in light of reality, knowledge, and science will help someone avoid being carried away, and make sure that—even though one has taken a leap of faith—one never fully leaves the sure ground of known reality. Because ultimately, I think that both are needed for a healthy, moral life.
Faith gives us the essence, the aesthetic spark to appreciate what and who is beyond ourselves, as well as ourselves. Knowledge tells us which practical actions, functions, and systems will best help us actualize our aesthetic hopes and transcendences. Even though they do not overlap, they work in tandem, both striving for the same balance, beauty, and yes, truth.
