The class today was primarily a review of the youtube lecture on the difference between the worldview of classical Greek and early Christian thought. Like the lecture, the class focused on three areas where classical Greek and early Christian thought diverge: what is the concept of the good person, what is the right thing to do and why to people do the wrong thing. In each case, the answer is some version of the dichotomy between reason and faith.
One interesting area of this conflict not discussed today but hopefully at a future time is whether in a pluralistic society one is justified in bringing religious discussion into political debates. At one end are those who think religious belief has no place in debate on public issues. That is, religious belief can inform but not dictate the rationale on has for holding an opinion. So, according to this view, I may think that homosexuality is wrong. But if I am going to enter the public sphere, I cannot claim simply that it is wrong because it says so in the Bible. I must present some justification that can be put into an argumentative form and rationally debated. The value here is that if I say I am opposed to homosexuality and decide to provide a reason, such as, homosexuality leads to the breakdown of the family, I have offered up a proposition that can then be either refuted or supported by evidence. But if I put forward a proposition like, I think homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible, there is no argument that can ever be employed against me, because my claim is a matter of faith.
Some (probably most, actually) see this as an unjustified burden on religious belief and claim that "it says so in the Bible" is as much of a reasoned justification as anything. Look, they will say, if it is legitimate to ground my moral beliefs in faith, then it is legitimate to bring that faith into public debate
What do you think?
One interesting area of this conflict not discussed today but hopefully at a future time is whether in a pluralistic society one is justified in bringing religious discussion into political debates. At one end are those who think religious belief has no place in debate on public issues. That is, religious belief can inform but not dictate the rationale on has for holding an opinion. So, according to this view, I may think that homosexuality is wrong. But if I am going to enter the public sphere, I cannot claim simply that it is wrong because it says so in the Bible. I must present some justification that can be put into an argumentative form and rationally debated. The value here is that if I say I am opposed to homosexuality and decide to provide a reason, such as, homosexuality leads to the breakdown of the family, I have offered up a proposition that can then be either refuted or supported by evidence. But if I put forward a proposition like, I think homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible, there is no argument that can ever be employed against me, because my claim is a matter of faith.
Some (probably most, actually) see this as an unjustified burden on religious belief and claim that "it says so in the Bible" is as much of a reasoned justification as anything. Look, they will say, if it is legitimate to ground my moral beliefs in faith, then it is legitimate to bring that faith into public debate
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment