The first paper asks you to explain and defend your own stance on the relation between reason and faith. Several people wrote in asking me for more information on exactly what I mean by reason. This is good question. Actually, I spend a lot of time last semester explaining these terms, so that is unsurprising the question was not asked by anyone who was in my previous class. But for everyone else I want to say that we will be discussing these terms a good deal before we get started.
One example that I think nicely illustrates this distinction that I was going to cover in class but did not get around to was the case of Kim Davis, the clerk of the Kentucky court who refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples, even though she had been ordered by the state to do so. We can understand something of the distinction between reason and faith by comparing her rationale for refusing to issue marriage licenses with what the Supreme Court did in requiring her to issue a marriage license.
The Supreme Court issued a 70 page decision that offered extensive argument for why the U.S. Constitution requires that states recognize the weddings of same sex couples. They used logical argument form and presented evidence for their claims and defended these claims against objections. By contrast, Kim Davis invoked passages of the Bible that condemned homosexuality and used that as her rationale.
Now, in one sense, they both had reasons. But I want to distinguish reason with a small r from reason with a capital R. Kim Davis had reasons in the sense that, unless we are insane, we all have reasons for what we do. I had an aunt who was a compulsive hand washer, and when you asked her why she was doing it, she had no answer. But most of us are not like this. We can provide a reason for why we are doing something. And in this sense, Kim Davis had reasons. Her reason was her faith.
But this sort of rationale is DIFFERENT IN KIND from using logic, providing evidence, and feeling compelled to reply to criticisms. I am not arguing that one is superior to the other. I am simply claiming that they are opposed ways of approaching an issue
One example that I think nicely illustrates this distinction that I was going to cover in class but did not get around to was the case of Kim Davis, the clerk of the Kentucky court who refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples, even though she had been ordered by the state to do so. We can understand something of the distinction between reason and faith by comparing her rationale for refusing to issue marriage licenses with what the Supreme Court did in requiring her to issue a marriage license.
The Supreme Court issued a 70 page decision that offered extensive argument for why the U.S. Constitution requires that states recognize the weddings of same sex couples. They used logical argument form and presented evidence for their claims and defended these claims against objections. By contrast, Kim Davis invoked passages of the Bible that condemned homosexuality and used that as her rationale.
Now, in one sense, they both had reasons. But I want to distinguish reason with a small r from reason with a capital R. Kim Davis had reasons in the sense that, unless we are insane, we all have reasons for what we do. I had an aunt who was a compulsive hand washer, and when you asked her why she was doing it, she had no answer. But most of us are not like this. We can provide a reason for why we are doing something. And in this sense, Kim Davis had reasons. Her reason was her faith.
But this sort of rationale is DIFFERENT IN KIND from using logic, providing evidence, and feeling compelled to reply to criticisms. I am not arguing that one is superior to the other. I am simply claiming that they are opposed ways of approaching an issue
No comments:
Post a Comment