Timeline for How can fideism's pursuit of truth through faith be considered a sound epistemology when mutually exclusive religious beliefs are accepted on faith?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 15 at 2:55 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | So it appears that for both empiricism and faith, "he who endures to the end will be..." correct? The truth comes out eventually, and if you backed the right horse you win? I think it is better to state something, put it to the test and see if you are right or wrong then and there. Find out sooner rather than later. Isn't it said that faith which is not tested is worthless? | |
| Sep 29 at 16:34 | comment | added | Rushi | Also see Brad Gregory for why all this mess starts with the Protestant break from Catholicism. Short version | |
| Sep 29 at 16:29 | comment | added | Rushi | This may be more beside the point than you realize: You assume that the center-piece of religion is the cognitive domain. Some call then ‘truth-claims’. But see this — for the differentiation between (a) cognitive (b) volitive and (c) affective domains. Fideism is really a clunkily philosophical way of saying that philosophy (cognitive/truth aspects) plays second fiddle to affective and volitive aspects of one's life. | |
| Sep 28 at 2:03 | vote | accept | user80226 | ||
| Sep 27 at 14:43 | comment | added | Barmar | Put simply: "My faith is correct, their conflicting faith is mistaken." | |
| Sep 27 at 14:34 | comment | added | mudskipper | How can empiricism be considered a sound epistemology in the pursuit of truth if mutually exclusive beliefs can be equally "justified" through empirical observation? -- Fideism is just as sound as empiricism as general epistemology. In science we also can only hope that "the truth" might prevail (one theory wins out or both are seen as flawed or are completely overhauled), just like the fideist hopes that others may eventually see the light... In ethics - again the same thing. We don't come by our basic values by reasoning and we cannot at will modify them. Paradigm changes are like conversion | |
| Sep 27 at 12:33 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 27 at 10:02 | comment | added | Conifold | The same way moral sentimentalism or intuitionism is defended by moral realists as epistemology of moral facts despite widespread cultural differences in moral standards. Our faith is imperfect and its interpretations partly corrupted and fallible, but with enough faith and piety the truth shines through, etc. Justification through faith is still subject to scrutiny and revision. Indeed, fideists often charge reason with moral deficiency with faith making up for it, "faith is against reason only in the sense that it runs into conflict with a concrete form of reason that is damaged" (Evans). | |
| Sep 27 at 9:00 | comment | added | user80226 | @MauroALLEGRANZA I'm not a Plantinga scholar, so I don't consider myself qualified to properly answer your second comment's questions. Regarding your third comment, none of the answers addresses fideism or faith (actually, the word faith never appears in the entire page). Instead, this question is laser focused on fideism/faith only. | |
| Sep 27 at 8:17 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | This question is similar to: What kind of epistemology would justify accepting religious claims that lie beyond the reach of scientific and historical verification?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem. | |
| Sep 27 at 8:16 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | According to the last passage above "Plantinga's faith is a very strong held belief in the gospel resulting from the work of the Holy Spirit". How this is different from traditional Christian views? And from a "foundational" point of view it is simply circular: we believe in God because we believe in the gospel and we believe in the gospel because the Holy Spirit has done so". ???? | |
| Sep 27 at 7:06 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | "How can faith, or fideism, be considered a sound epistemology in the pursuit of truth if mutually exclusive beliefs can be equally "justified" through faith?" It cannot: faith is not "rational". | |
| Sep 27 at 6:44 | history | edited | user80226 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1583 characters in body
|
| Sep 27 at 6:35 | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 27 at 5:17 | answer | added | Kristian Berry | timeline score: 8 | |
| Sep 27 at 5:17 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 4 at 3:01 | |||||
| Sep 27 at 4:44 | answer | added | Lowri | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 27 at 4:42 | history | edited | user80226 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 27 at 4:33 | history | asked | user80226 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |