00-2992-009Prescribed TitleEssayAnalyze the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis forknowledge in religion an...
Herrera                                                                        00-2992-009Analyze the strengths and weakne...
Herrera                                                                        00-2992-009Analyze the strengths and weakne...
Herrera                                                                       00-2992-009Analyze the strengths and weaknes...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Prescribed Title Essay

228 views

Published on

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
228
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Prescribed Title Essay

  1. 1. 00-2992-009Prescribed TitleEssayAnalyze the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis forknowledge in religion and in one area of knowledge from the TOKdiagram. Word Count: 1600Francisco Herrera2/16/2012
  2. 2. Herrera 00-2992-009Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis for knowledge in religion and in one area of knowledge from the TOK diagram. The idea of faith is to trust in what one has perceived to be morally or reasonablycorrect. With this idea in mind, one can understand how believers of Catholicism,Judaism, Buddhism, etc., make their decisions in life based on what their religion, orfaith, allows them to claim as right, or morally correct. They go on about their lives byworshiping or putting faith in what they believe in as a guide to having an ideal lifestyle.The problem is not all faith is put into religion. Even theories in natural sciences havereligious aspects within them that many people claim to be knowledge, thus makingmany fall under a fallacious, yet scientific, umbrella. So then I came to ask, whatconstitutes the difference between religion and natural sciences? If religion is puttingfaith into what one has came to perceive as being ‘right’, then how is natural science nota religion? Scientists, or most people that I have came across in my life, seem to willinglybelieve in all of these claims made in science books. As I delve into this idea I began torealize that people make their decisions on what to put their faith in by whatever appealsto them the most, whether by the amount of the evidence and/or the quality of suchevidence. Ultimately, one’s reasons to having faith is dependent on the substantialevidence for the claim that the faith imposes, the emotional ties that enables one to havefaith in such, or a combination of both in order to have a sense of knowing what is ‘right’in life. Consequently, the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis forknowledge depends on what people are appealed to by the most and find to be most validfor themselves which intrinsically depends on their logic and intuition within theirreasoning. Natural sciences have concrete evidence whose concreteness derives from thecontrol that one has over the ability of causing such to reappear in this world in order toprove their claims. For example, whenever I am able to repeat the results of myinvestigations for my Chemistry Internal Assessments, but to rather enhance theconclusions I draw from them, I purposefully attempt to become more and more concreteas I further increase the preciseness and accuracy of my data gathering methods, thus,increasing the concreteness of my evidence – meaning more will probably come tobelieve and trust, have faith, in my results because they see how experienced andtrustworthy I can be. In other words, others place their faith in me for the reason that Ihave been able to perceive what seems to be validly correct in my qualitative andquantitative observations with mathematics as a way to further ensure the beliefs of whatI have been able to form from my perceptions originating from the conduction of myexperiments. Now, even though I’ve been able to carry out some sort of sophisticatedprocess, e.g., scientific method, line regression statistics, or the realization of seeminglydirect correlations, my seemingly concrete evidence could still cause me to be wrongbecause, possibly, my conclusion may be, in the end, not necessarily true due to myignorance in the subject when compared to a more evaluative chemist. An example of afalse conclusion but with convincing evidence would be when the trend lines of two ormore events seem to coincide with one another. Hypothetically, even though one wouldclaim since the quantitative reoccurrence of falling stars is following the same trend lineas that of jailing outlaws in Honolulu, Hawaii, that they consequently directly depend onone another, an other can obviously dictate the falseness of such an observation eventhough sophisticated statistical processes have been used to help prove the idea of how 2
  3. 3. Herrera 00-2992-009Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis for knowledge in religion and in one area of knowledge from the TOK diagram.they correlate. Nonetheless, if one has faith in their work and reasons to this as beingtrue, when others can reassuringly testify against such with performed counterarguments,it is because this observer lacks the ‘knowledge’ or the experience with variousperceptions of the world to say that it is just chance or some error in his data or processesmeaning that his level of logic and depth of intuition are lesser than those thatargumentatively disproved his claim. But, for those who would’ve had faith in my workwould be because they have seen and came to understand my work ethics, have come totrust my ways of concluding and forming logical reasons, and have less experience withinthe subject that I have been experimenting with than I do. Essentially, faith derives fromthe trust in either the more knowledgeable or more experienced. It’s considered to beknowledge once one develops faith in their own data gathering methods after acceptingand realizing their limitations, which allows them to become more logical by creatingcounterarguments within their own work and work to disprove them in order to see theextent of their own conclusion in whatever the case, experiment, etc., especially aftersetting the basis for a particular knowledge on someone else’s work and putting faith intheir results. In the case of reasoning, faith causes one to most likely become lessaccurate in their presumed knowledge when one resorts to forming a basis on someoneelse’s conclusion because one has not perceived the process for himself and does notactually know if the one who he is taking the conclusion from has realized and embeddedhis limitations into his conclusion, or claim. The limitations on one will always be therefor humans, but what humans claim to know will always be advancing and, in turn,evolving the general intellect of the people because humans work to discover andeventually run into aspired scientific revolutions causing there to be more claims for oneto actually experience and form their own knowledge from. The depth of these limitationsare relative to the more intelligent and knowledgeable ones, e.g., professionals,specialists, etc., where one who is very limited would be considered more immature intheir thought processes due to the minimal amounts of exposure to the certain subjectsthat pertain to the situation. In other words, the lesser the experience, the weaker theintuition and the lesser developed logic. One needs to perceive for himself to actuallyunderstand and claim something as knowledge, which is where faith’s weakest factor lies.Faith develops from trust in others’ experiences. That is why natural sciences aretypically explained with ways of experiencing and experimenting their claims to measuretheir validity, which, in the end, it seems wise and generally okay to have faith in naturalsciences as long as limitations are set to whatever the claims may be and one experiencesthe science for himself to more fully understand and comprehend the world by graspingtheir own perceptive knowledge. Evidently, religion contradicts the idea of knowledge; the only knowledge foundin religion is the knowing of its limitations and the manners in which it evokes emotionthrough its moral system. Succinctly, it is an emotionally driven belief system. It spinsoff the experiences of the so-called wise people and their experienced ways of goingthrough the processes that their religion has to offer and having the religion itself deeplyanalyzed and known, which, thus, enables them to be more widely trusted when teachingthese beliefs that built off of beliefs to others. Another problem with religion is theproblem found within its validity. Other than highly probable misinterpretations due to 3
  4. 4. Herrera 00-2992-009Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis for knowledge in religion and in one area of knowledge from the TOK diagram.language’s dependence on perceptive meaning, especially when of different eras –due tolanguage being highly susceptible to changes in its meaning over time–, religionencompasses the emotions of its followers by defining morals for them and providingemotional evidence for its hermeneutics and other religious claims. But, to have faith ina religion is usually a decision that is actually more so instilled into one, typically bythose who have intimate connections to him, and is left to be, usually because of theemotional ties that one has to that religious influencer. Emotion thwarts logical reasoningand lets fear initiate a more emotional one because of its manipulative potency over theconscious, decisive factor of the human mind. The value of what one has perceived as soimportant before, changes with emotions being involved in the equation. So, by havingfaith as a basis for knowledge in a religion, one will be accepting towards the limitationsthat religion imposes on one, find it ‘right’ in their mind, and will denounce, or moreplainly, reject anything that contradicts the believed-in religion’s claims, e.g., myCatholic ways cause my rejection of accepting any scientific theories, that define thecreation of humanity, as true because I believe the Catholic god is the creator, but eventhough I have no concrete evidence for it, I have faith in this religion because I fear theidea of being created from dirt, descended to hell, and have also been influenced byCatholic parents to be as so. So what does constitute the difference between science and religion? Naturalsciences consist of claims that can be proven and seen in the real world with ways to turnbeliefs into perceived knowledge through experience in real time; religion has grandioseexplanations and reasons for whatever is initially perceived in relation to the believed-inreligion. In the end, both subjects affect one another and are both ways of how one istrying to explain the universe’s enigmas. Conclusively, the weaknesses and strengths offaith in these subject matters depend on the efficiency of the validation for both thereligion and natural science. 4

×