h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Truth and Tolerance – Integrating Faith and Reason (Part 4) - A15985227
Author: Pilgrim4Truth - U5734655

Here is Part 4 (parts 1, 2 and 3 already in Writing Workshop) - Thanks

Corrected typos - awaiting input

so called dialectic of faith and reason, and looked if >> so-called dialectic of faith and reason, and looked to see if

Whereas the faith-based approach we can describe as a Top-down approach, whereby we seek the key principles and axioms that identify truths, in a system or holistic manner (ie, we try to find a conceptual framework in which all of the pieces of the puzzle neatly fit into a overarching system or worldview).>>> The faith-based approach can be described as a top-down approach. It looks for the key principles and axioms that identify truths in a holistic manner (ie, seeking a conceptual framework in which all of the pieces of the puzzle neatly fit into a overarching system or worldview).

as we discussed in Part 2 of this series. >> as discussed in Part 2 of this series.

Later on in that Entry >> Later on in Part 2,

we also we examined the claims that faith and reason-based worldviews could in some respects be claimed to exist in a symbiotic relationship, whereby each could offer to the other support. >> the claims that faith and reason-based worldviews could exist in a symbiotic relationship were examined. (footnote the meaning of symbiotic)

immanent ... I'd footnote this meaning too. Someone is going to think you mean imminent...

And following the philosophy of Kierkegaard if we are prepared to make some measured and reasoned leaps of faith to set out axioms from which we build on (a bottom-up method of establishing foundations one by one), then we can access that objective truth and build-up a worldview that avoids some of these subjective problems. In this way we in effect cut through the knot by boldly asserting that we have knowledge. >>>>

Following the philosophy of Kierkegaard, if we are prepared to make measured and reasoned leaps of faith to set out axioms to build on (a bottom-up method of establishing foundations one by one), then we can access that objective truth and build up a worldview that avoids some of these subjective problems. In this way we, in effect, cut through the Gordian knot by boldly asserting that we have knowledge.

query: doesn't this rather defeat the purpose of the entry though - in terms of rational and faithful reaching each other's POV? How will you get the rational to make these leaps of faith?

For example in that branch of mathematics we call Set Theory mathematicians have built various different axiomatic principles that allow us to avoid some otherwise embarrassing contradictions that where found in the early days of so called naive set theory.

I am not sure this analogy is particularly helpful, Pilgrim. For it to stand, this paragraph needs an explanatin of Set theory - which in the grand scheme of things, is largely irrelevant to your arguments.

Let me explain. I am pretty well-edjicated I have a Master's degree. I am well read and well travelled. Although I had some modicum of a sense of most of all of this contradiction and tension in terms of faith vs reason, I have never really pursued it. I have heard of Bertrand Russell et al but the only study/book/theory I am in any way versed with that you refer to in any of your four-part entry is Kubler-Ross. Meaning I have read her books. period.

What I am trying to say is this: the knowledge you are trying to impart is beyond important, it is crucial, it is topical, timely and very probably going to change people's perceptions and therefore their lives. You have already sent me on a route of self discovery and thought purely by attempting to review for you. It is of paramount importance to me that these entries are read and understood by people: with no prerequisite. You cannot expect people to have a degree before they can comprehend this. We want people to read them and understand them. You must try to make them as available as possible. If then they need to know details, they can go look for them but these entries have a role to play and the role is to open the door to this information and way of thinking.

OK, so what am I saying? I am saying that there is too much. Here's the challenge... can you write this as if my teenaged son wants to know how to develp his thought? I have had these conversations with him. At 13, he attends a Jesuit school. The Jesuits have this down pat. Some of the greatest scientists through the ages have been Jesuits, and at his school, they *encourage* debates on reason vs faith.

I wish I had the time to write this with you, Pilgrim, I really do. I want this to get into the EG... but I want it to be easy to read and comprehend and that is where we are struggling, you and I. I feel I am letting you down but I cannot give this the time it needs for at least another month or so.

Can you give me your reaction to my comments?

Wilma

Wilma, I agree (of course!) - As you know I am a bit distracted right now, I'll rework the material as you say in part 4 taking out some bits explaining others better

FYI - Actually though the axiomatic set theory is a example (if you are a mathematician). Because Russell was well known as a in math and a champion of atheism, but failed to see the extent of its axiomatic nature, that ruined his goal of Principia Mathematica. Also Godel then came along and nailed his ambition to make a fundamental theory of math basis independent (or neatly so) of human assumptions of truth (axioms). Russell's partner on that book was Alfred North Whitehead, inventor of process theology and even smarter math genius, he refused to work with Russell after world war 1 (Whitehead son died there, Russell went to jail as a pacifist). In any case now we have 'competing' axiom systems that look like different faith-based traditions! There is a real human story behid all of this that justifies being told as a seperate piece perhaps.

Nptwithstanding I get your point though! Thanks for the kind words.

OK, I propose then that we leave the four parts here in the EGWW for the moment. I am moving house in about ten days. In the meantime, i am going to print these out and make some notes. Hopefully, I will be able to make some useful comments that you can get your teeth into when you have a little more time yourself. Is that OK with you?
Wilma

Sure - but let's set ourselves a goal that this needs to be into PR no later than end of Nov.

Agreed.

*crawls back in three months on*

RL knocked the stuffing out of me, I am so sorry for the obscenely long absence. I have only just got a decent internet connection again. Do you want to pursue this, P4T? I feel it is ready to go to PR now. What do you think?

Oh and Happy New Year, btw

W

Glad your back.

I have had a gard time in making time for the entries as well (these as well as CS Lewis entries I have done). I like a couple of weeks work & reflection then put them to PR.

Your call, P4T. Just whistle when you need me, ok?

Be well

W

Thanks

Suggest Flea Market

The author has - this needs to go to the Flea Market.

Alex

Seconded