So I have to keep a reflective journal of my course so far... may not make complete sense but thought id chuck it up here...
My task...In light of your reading of Newbigin so far, how do you think he would respond to these assertions? Would he agree? If not, why not?What is the relationship between faith and reason according to Newbigin?
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.Richard Dawkins)
"It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail." (Sam Harris)
Upon examining these statements, Newbigin would ask the definition of evidence. What can be certain? It is a different certainty that faith encourages. Instead of there being an excuse in no evidence, there is certainty in the one who made us. He calls us to look at knowing relationally. Polanyi argues against the dichotomy of objective and subjective, as all scientific hypothesis’s are based on hunches, a subjective framework of personal commitments. Seeing a subjective element in all things objective. This dichotomy being false.
Science itself has limits in relation to knowledge. Science defines our limits but does not explain the structures. Newbigin doesn’t say this is a problem but rather embraces science and the argument that comes with it he does suggest its limitations.
Newbigin, I think, would also argue against the polarity of faith and reason. The question to be asked is not around this polarity but instead focus on purpose. Newbigin even goes as far to say that the split is caused by an absence of purpose. Purpose cannot be explained by reason. Purpose cannot be observed, only revealed through Revelation and personal communication. This calls for a need to trust and have faith in the communicator. Instead of asking ‘How?’ Newbigin encourages us to further ask ‘Why?’
No comments:
Post a Comment