A
CRITICAL EVALUATION ON THE MAJOR EPISTEMOLOGICAL THEORIES
1. INTRODUCTION
There
are so many philosophies which claim to be the ultimate source for knowledge.
Each theory has its own uniqueness in attaining knowledge. but the problem
comes when some particular theories are
assuming that they are the only way to know all the knowledge, including divine
reality. So it is essential to know the origin (existence), history (practice),
and accuracy (truthfulness) of epistemological philosophies which claims to be
the source for all the knowledge. The
intention of this paper is to look at the origin, historical development of three
main philosophies, and to have an evolution on its claim of being the only
source of all knowledge.
2. EMPIRICISM
2.1 Defining Rationalism
Empiricism
is the theory which believes that reason is the source of knowledge.[1] According
to empiricism the knowledge comes only from sensory experience. Empiricism
argues for the role of sensory experience in the formation of ideas, tradition,
and customs. Empiricism has become fundamental part of the scientific method,
in which all the hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of
the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition,
or revelation. As a result, empiricism has been used by natural scientists, who
say that knowledge is based on experience. [2] According
to Encyclopaedia of Britannica, empiricism is theory which believes the entire concept
originate in experience, that all the concept applicable to things that can be
experienced.[3]
The word empiricism drives from the Greek word emperia, which in Latin translated to be experientia, from which in turn we derived the word experience.[4]
2.2 Historical Development
Science
and the scientific method hold a central concept that everything must be
empirically based of the evidence of the senses. As for natural and science are
concerned, they go with hypotheses that are testable by observation and
experiment. In the philosophical realm, the empiricism holds that no knowledge
to be properly assumed unless it is derived from one’s sense based experience. This
view always had been contradicting with rationalism, which believe that
knowledge can be derived from reason alone. [5]
2.2.1
Early Time
Empiricism
is hardly persistent in the history of philosophy. It was widely discussed in ancient times,
often with considerable opposition. Plato had actually looked down on idea of
empiricism. Plato found that observation
can only provide information about a realm of appearances less important and
indeed less real that a more abstract realm that we may be able to grasp
through a form of the thinking that does not depend on experience. [6] In the ancient world, therefore, it was a kind
of rationalism that was developed by Plato became one against which the
empiricists has to stand. There were
some three earlier bodies of thought which laid the ground for rationalism of
Plato: and they are as follow, Lonian
cosmologies of the 6th century BCE, the philosophy of Parmenides in
the 5th century BCE, and the Pythagoreans, which holds that world is
really made of number.
Sophists
were the first empiricist in the western philosophy, and they rejected the
rationalist speculation about the world and took humanity and society to be the
proper objects of philosophical inquiry. Plato’s philosophy emerged as the
result of the challenge which was posed by empiricist in order to undermine the
claims of pure reason. It was believed to be Aristotle as the founder of
empiricism. But the place of Aristotle
in the development of empiricism remains unclear. When Aristotle discussed
about relationship between reason and sense, he was more concerned with philosophy
of mind rather than epistemology. Therefore, it is not certain that whether or
not Aristotle was an empiricist. There
are clear cut evidences to say that Epicurus was first empiricist. Epicurus was
an extreme atomist, who maintained that the sense are only source of knowledge,
and also thought that sense perception comes as the result of contact between
the atoms so the soul and bodies around us. [7] For
epicureans human concepts are memory images, the mental residues of previous
sense experience, and knowledge is as empirical as the ideas of which it is
composed. Stoicism, which is another successor of Aristotle along the side with
Epicureanism, advanced in empiricist’s account of the formation of human
concepts. According to stoics human mind remains as a clean slate at time of
birth, and the concepts about the material world will be stocked later time. Stoics
also believed that there are some concepts that are present to the minds of the
humans, and can be conceived in a non-empirical way.[8]
2.2.2
Medieval Time
In
the medieval period most of the philosophers took an empiricism position,
though not in all the aspects, at least about concept.[9] Though the total philosophy of Aquinas has
been built on Aristotelian philosophy, the theory of knowledge is in many ways
similar to the idea of Epicurus. Aquinas always had a different view concerning
the knowledge of god; he thought that it could be obtained in other ways and
proved by logical argument. as for material knowledge is concerned, Aquinas
held that it must be derived from the sense of experience, and he gave and
account of the mechanism by which this comes about. However, Aquinas empiricism
is limited to concepts, especially in this limited sense that there is nothing
in the intellect which was not previously in the senses.[10] Aquinas had rejected innate ideas altogether and
believed both soul and body participate in perception, and all ideas are
abstracted by the intellect from what is given to the senses. [11] In
the 13th century, scientist roger bacon emphasized on the empirical
knowledge of the natural world. The Franciscan Mominalist William of Ockham was
more systematic in describing his position on knowledge. He holds that all
knowledge of what exists in nature comes from senses, and the abstractive
knowledge of necessary truths are merely hypothetical and does not imply the
existence of anything. But his followers extended his line of reasoning towards
a radical empiricism, in which causation is merely an observed regularity in
their occurrence.[12]
2.2.3
Modern Time
In
the 16th century, the logicians attacked the unsystematic
speculative phases of renaissance philosophy and the claims of Aristotelian
logic to yield substantial knowledge. In the same period of time, the role of
observation was also stressed. In early 16th century a skeptical Christian
thinker, named Pierre Gassendi advanced a deliberate revival of the empirical
doctrines of Epicurus. Francis bacon was one of the most important defender of
empiricism in 16th century. Francis Bacon did not deny the existence
of a priori knowledge, but claimed that, only worth having knowledge is the empirical
based knowledge of the natural world, which should be pursued by systematic
arrangement of the findings of observation. In fact, bacon was the first to
formulate the principles scientific induction. Thomas Hobbes combined an
extreme empiricism about concepts with an extreme rationalism about knowledge.
Thomas
considers all the knowledge to be a priori, but ideas from senses and knowledge
by reckoning. John
Locke (1632–1704), an early Enlightenment philosopher, made most elaborate and
influential presentation of empiricism. John
Locke held that all knowledge comes from sensation or from reflection. Locke often
seemed not to separate clearly the two issues of the nature of concepts and the
justification of beliefs. Later, Locke
admitted that much substantial knowledge, in particular, mathematics and
morality as a priori.
Bishop George Berkeley was a theistic
idealist, who applied Locke’s empiricism about concepts to refute Locke’s
account of human knowledge of the external world. Because Berkeley was
convinced that in sense experience one is never aware of anything but what he
called ideas. Finally he drew inevitable conclusion that
physical objects are simply collections of perceived ideas. David Hume, a
Scottish skeptical philosopher, used the fully elaborated
Locke’s empiricism to argue that there can be no more to the concepts of body,
mind, and causal connection than what occurs in the experiences from which they
arise. Hume thought that only perceptions exist and that it is impossible to
form an idea of anything that is not a perception. For Hume all necessary truth
is formal or conceptual, determined by the various relations that hold between
ideas.
Lockean empiricism prevailed until the rise of Hegelianism. The
Scottish philosophers of that time did not accept the conclusion of Hume that
humans do have substantial a priori knowledge. But the philosophy of John Stuart Mill (1806–73) is thoroughly empiricist. He held
that all knowledge worth having, including mathematics, is empirical. All real
knowledge for Mill is inductive and empirical, and deduction is sterile.
William Kingdon Clifford and Karl Pearson are the two important mathematicians
and pioneers in the philosophy of modern physics, and who
defended radically empiricist philosophies of science, anticipated the logical
empiricism of the 20th century.
2.3 An Evaluation of
Rationalism
2.3.1 Strength
Empiricism is very much helpful to prove a theory. According to
empiricism the real knowledge is empirical, and the empirical knowledge is
gained from experiment and observation. The
same method is followed by the scientist to prove his hypotheses or theory.so,
in this way empiricism is helpful to those who want to know that whether a
theory is right.
Empiricism serves as a channel that which helps to explain the
things in the way it exists. For instance, the perception of the blind man
would be different from the man who can see clearly. So, with the help of empiricism
one would be able to understand the things in the way it is. Another advantage
of empiricism is that it brings the imagination into possibility. Though is
true that we have lot of imagination, but it become impractical if it happens
to remain unreal. Empiricism, therefore, remains the only way which brings the
imagination into realm of experience.[13]
2.3.2 Weakness
Empiricism neglects the innate idea in the human being, and assumes
that human mind are empty slate at the beginning, the information are stocked
later by the experience. This is a false claim, because the language and the
grammar are not experienced by the small kids but rather it is a natural
ability of knowing things independent of experience. Empiricism stops our
access to the abstract and immutable realities, and to a great extent it
describes human as nothing other than what he experience. but in reality humans are not just what they
experience, rather a being which has different nature of knowing the things
more than what one can experience, which is what makes him unique.[14]
Empiricism claims that all knowledge comes from experience. This
extreme claim of rationalism leads to the conclusion that there is no source other
than experience through which we may gain knowledge. This claim connote be true,
because there could be some other reason why all that we know has some
dependents on experience. The proposition of mathematics is usually a priori
knowledge, not a posteriori. j.s. mill
has argued that the proposition of mathematics is merely a generalization from experience, but
this has not been generally accepted.[15]
Empiricism may argue that all knowledge that we have will have
some means of experience, and all our intellect is the result of our
experience. On the other hand, there are some other things which cannot be
gained by our sense experiences. Human sense experiences are only limited to
the particular realm, it is not capable of going beyond the realm in which we
live. This is reason why we need faith in order to understand spiritual things.
Spiritual things are basically not understood by sense experience.
3. RATIONALISM
3.1 Defining Rationalism
Rationalism is the view which regards reason as the chief source
of knowledge. Rationalism, in other way, can be described as a methodology or a
theory which does not depend on sensory but rather on reason for knowing the
truth.[16]
Rationalism gives high regard to reason and to empirical observation. In
rationalism all the truth is deductive and a priori, which deriving logically
from a set of axioms gained by inherent knowledge. [17]
According to rationalism certain truth exists, which can directly be grasped by
intellect. In saying so, rationalist actually claims that the logic,
mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics have certain rational principles that are
fundamentally true, and denying this claim would cause one to fall into
contradiction. Rationalists are extremely confident in the reason that they
don’t consider the physical evidence as a necessary to know the truth. They,
rather, believe that there are some significant ways in which concept and
knowledge are possible independently of sense experience.[18]
Though the term rationalism is not often
used so strictly, but in continental Europe, it is generally known as the
continental rationalism. It is more
commonly used to refer to a synthesis of continental rationalism with former
rival philosophy called empiricism.[19]
In the context of ethics, rationalism relies on a natural light, and in the
theology reason replaces the supernatural revelation.[20]
3.2 History of
Rationalism
It is difficult to identify the major periods and the major
figures of rationalism before the enlightenment. One of the main reasons for
this is that every philosopher has acknowledged that humans have the ability to
know information. And the second main reason was that, in philosophical thought,
knowledge and information are obtained with the use of our rational faculties.
When we see the works of the Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, after
the enlightenment, rationalism was usually associated with the introduction of
mathematical methods into philosophy. Since it was predominant in the continental
school of Europe, this was commonly called as continental rationalism. until
the later period there were no distinction
that have been drawn between rationalist and empiricists, even it would
not have been recognized by the philosophers of that time. [21]
3.2.1 Rationalism in Ancient Time
3.2.1.1 Pythagoras
One of the best known western philosophers for the Pythagorean
Theorem was Pythagoras. He was often revered as a great mathematician, mystic
and scientist for discovering the mathematical relationship between the length
of strings on lute bear and the pitches of the notes. It is believed that Pythagoras
had caught that rationalist’s vision of a world a governed throughout by
mathematically formulable laws.[22]
3.2.1.2 Plato
Another prominent rationalist, after Pythagoras, was Plato. Plato
was so much attached with rigorous reasoning of geometry. He never considered
the senses for acquiring knowledge. [23]
Plato also held rational insight to a very high standard. Plato taught on the
Theory of Forms which asserts that non-material abstract forms and not the
material world of change known to us through sensation possess the highest and
most fundamental kind of reality.
3.2.1.3 Aristotle
Aristotle, successor of Plato, conceived of
the work of reason in much the same way of Plato. Syllogistic logic was the chief
contribution to rationalism by Aristotle, and it was regarded as the chief
instrument of rational explanation. According to Aristotle, syllogism is a
discourse in which certain things having been supposed. Regardless of this very
general definition, Aristotle limits himself to categorical syllogisms which
consist of three categorical propositions, and it is found in his work Prior Analytics.[24]
3.2.1.4 Time after Aristotle
The three great Greek philosophers (discussed above) have disagreed with
one another on specific points, but on other hand they all agreed that only rational
thought could bring to knowledge, which otherwise, impossible for the humans by
all other means. The central thesis of rationalism,
before the time of Aquinas, was based on one thing that humans never entirely
understand a fact or event until they can bring it under a principle that is
self-evident and necessary. On this, the three great Greeks were in accord. The western rationalistic philosophy, after Aristotle,
generally stood to draw an application to theology, and such things are find in
the works of Avicenna (Islamic philosopher),
Maimonides (theologian), and Thomas Aquinas.[25]
3.3.2 Rationalism in
Modern Philosophies
3.3.2 .1 Descartes
Descartes, an original mathematician, was
the first modern rationalist whose ambition was to introduce into philosophy
the accuracy and clearness. He doubted everything in order to arrive at something
indubitable. As a result of this approach he reached in his famous cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am. Ultimately, he
could not doubt himself for to doubt one’s own doubting would be absurd. He
took same self-evidence as a foundation to judge other propositions. In doing
so, actually, he hoped to produce a philosophical system on which people could
agree as completely as they do on the geometry of Euclid. Descartes believes that the main cause of error is the
impulsive desire to believe before the mind is clear.[26]
As for Descartes, reason alone is
the way by which the knowledge of eternal truths- including the truths of
mathematics, epistemological, and metaphysical foundations of the
sciences could be attained.[27]
3.3.2.2 Benedict Spinoza
Benedict Spinoza another rationalist who
agreed with essentially Descartes that the framework of things could be known
by a priori thinking. The most undeniable to Spinoza was not the existence of
his self but that of the universe, which he called as the
substance. He derived his entire system from the idea of substance and with the
aid of a few definitions and axioms. Benedict Spinoza philosophy was one of the
systematic, logic, and rational philosophy that ever developed in in the
seventeenth- century Europe. Spinoza was heavily influenced by the great
thinkers such as Descartes, Euclid, Thomas Hobbes, and Maimonides. Spinoza has
tried to answer life’s major question with his philosophy which was constructed
upon basic building blocks with an internal consistency, and in which he
proposed that god exists only philosophical.[28]
3.3.2.3 Leibniz
Leibniz was the one of the great
rationalist, who contributed more to other such as metaphysics, epistemology,
logic, mathematics, physics, jurisprudence, and the philosophy of religion.
Leibniz totally rejected the Cartesian dualism and the existence of a material
world. Leibniz has developed a view in which he says that there are infinitely
many simple substances, which he called monads. Leibniz had developed his
theory of monads in response to both Descartes and Spinoza. The theory monads
are the fundamental unit of reality, which constitutes both inanimate and
animate objects.[29] Leibniz
distinguished necessary truths from contingent truths. Leibniz also said that
if only humans knew enough, they would see that every true proposition was
necessarily true, and there are no contingent truths.[30]
3.3.2 .4 Kant
It has always been a great question that how
is it possible to have knowledge that goes beyond inexperience. A new answer was
given this question by Kant, a great thinker, in his
Critique of Pure Reason. Kant was one of the great modern philosophers who set the terms by which all subsequent thinkers have had to grapple. Kant philosophy plays a great role in the contemporary thought, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics. Kant’s branch epistemology was called transcendental idealism. The fundamental problems of both rationalism and empiricism were exposed by Kant. To the rationalist Kant argued that pure reason fails when it goes beyond the realm of all the possible experience, such as existence of god, free will, and the immortality of human being soul. To the empiricists he argued that experiences are fundamentally necessary for human knowledge, reason is necessary for processing the experience into coherent thought. Thus he concluded that both reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge.[31]
According to Kant, the reason why the logic and mathematics will remain valid for all experience is simply that their framework lies within the human mind. Humans will always find things arranged in certain patterns because it is they who have accidentally so arranged them. Kant held, therefore, that the certainties cannot be trusted as a reflection of the world outside the mind, because a priori insights are a reflection of the mind.[32]
Critique of Pure Reason. Kant was one of the great modern philosophers who set the terms by which all subsequent thinkers have had to grapple. Kant philosophy plays a great role in the contemporary thought, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics. Kant’s branch epistemology was called transcendental idealism. The fundamental problems of both rationalism and empiricism were exposed by Kant. To the rationalist Kant argued that pure reason fails when it goes beyond the realm of all the possible experience, such as existence of god, free will, and the immortality of human being soul. To the empiricists he argued that experiences are fundamentally necessary for human knowledge, reason is necessary for processing the experience into coherent thought. Thus he concluded that both reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge.[31]
According to Kant, the reason why the logic and mathematics will remain valid for all experience is simply that their framework lies within the human mind. Humans will always find things arranged in certain patterns because it is they who have accidentally so arranged them. Kant held, therefore, that the certainties cannot be trusted as a reflection of the world outside the mind, because a priori insights are a reflection of the mind.[32]
3.3 An Evaluation of
Rationalism
3.3.1 Strength
One of the remarkable contributions of rationalism is an
emphasize on the inescapability of
the basic laws
of thought. Without the law of Noncontradiction
there is not even the
most minimal possibility of meaning
nor any hope
for establishing truth. The principle
of noncontradiction is
absolutely essential for distinguishing truth from
falsity; without law of noncontradiction all is
equally true and
false, which is
to say nothing
can be true.
The second contribution is a concept of a priori dimension to knowledge.
This is not to say that there is an innate idea but rather there must be at
least some natural inclinations of the mind toward truth or toward the first
principles of Knowledge. Without some categories or at least capacities of the
mind to know reality nothing could ever be known, even the very possibility of
truth would be nil. This a priori contribution of rationalism plays an essential
in all realistic epistemology. The third contribution of rationalism is its stress
on the intelligibility and know
ability of reality.
There is a correspondence between the mind and being. It is obvious that
thought relates to reality without applying thought to reality. The rationalism has rightly preserved the
truth that reality is intelligible.
3.3.2 Weakness
First, rationalism is based on and invalid move, which is from
possible to the actual. This concept leads to the conclusion that, anything
that is thinkable must be possible. This cannot possibly be true for several reasons.
The thinkable describes only the realm of possibility and not necessarily the
actual thing. So, what is not contradictory is possibly true not what is
thinkable.
Second, it is the inescapabilty or the logical necessity. Rationalists
hold that all the reality is result of logical necessity and anything that is
inescapable of reason is not true. Geisler argues, it not right to say that
something exist with logical necessity. He says that it is a confusion of
rationalist in identifying actual undeniability from rational inescapabilty. There is no any pure logically compelling
reason or rational proof for the existence of reality. Therefore, it turns to
be a false claim that reality can be proven rationally.
Third, the first principle of rationalism cannot be proved rationally.
Descartes put it in this way that there is a rational intuition in the basic
axioms of thought from which all other deductive demonstrations proceed. Rationalism process commonly begins with ideas
or principles without a logically necessary basis. So now, the rationalism
itself cannot be established rationally.
The result of following rationalism, since the rationalism based on the
intuitivism, could end either in mysticism or to fideism.
Fourth, rationalism presents logical consistency as the test of
truth. One must be omniscient, according to Clark, in order to apply the
logical consistency as the test for truth. Any system of theory can seem consistent
within the own presuppositions. Even the rationalism cannot challenge those
presuppositions with pure rationalism. Therefore logic serves as best negative
test of truth.[33]
4. FIDEISM
4.1 Definition of Fideism
Fideism is a philosophical view which minimizes the power of reason to
know religious truths, and admiring theological faith by making it the ultimate
criterion of truth. Rigorous fideists give no place to reason in discovering or
understanding fundamental doctrines of religion.[34]
In fideism the religious belief depends on faith or revelation, rather than
reason, intellect or natural theology. This position directly stands as an
opposition to deism and Evidentialism. Fideism, in Epistemology, is a theory
which maintains that faith is independents of reason. [35]
4.2 History of
Fideism
Fideism was most commonly
associated with four major philosophers: Blaise Pascal, Søren Kierkegaard,
William James, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.[36] In
2nd-century, fideism was approached by North African theologian Tertullian, the
medieval English scholar William of Ockham, the 17th-century French philosopher
Pierre Bayle, and more recently in the works of the 18th-century German
philosopher Johann Georg Hamann and the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren
Kierkegaard.
4.2.1 Tertullian
Tertullian was a Roman early
Christian, who was frequently credited with early Fideist tendencies by virtue
of his statement "the Son of God died.[37]The
statement Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) was often
attributed to Tertullian, but this appears to be a misquotation from
Tertullian's De Carne Christi,
which means On the Flesh of Christ. When Tertullian says the Son of God died, actually
he meant that it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. This, however, is not a statement of a Fideist
position, because Tertullian was critiquing intellectual arrogance and the
misuse of philosophy, but he remained committed to reason and its usefulness in
defending the faith.[38]
4.2.2 Blaise Pascal
Blaise
Pascal formed a kind of fideism which was commonly known as Pascal’s wager. Blaise
Pascal was basically a catholic mathematician and writer, whose thought, has
found much interest in recent years. Pascal, in his Pensées discusses about the
dynamic of human mind. Pascal has noted that some are intuitive, while others
are more mathematical. Thus, Pascal
concludes that both ways are important, because some people go with precession,
while others go with comprehension. He, therefore, urges that a sensitivity and
respect for the people who thinks differently.[39]
Pascal was
bit different in his approach towards the atheist. Blaise Pascal, in the
conversation with atheists, invites the atheist considering faith to see faith
in God as a cost-free choice that carries a potential reward.
In his approach, Pascal never attempted
to argue that God indeed exists, only that it might be valuable to assume that
it is true. The main problem with Pascal's Wager is that it does not lead one
to a specific God. Leading the people to the Christian was not the indentation
of Pascal in the first place. This idea was very clearly expressed in his Pensées (thoughts) that since Christian
believe in a religion which they cannot explain, at any reason; nobody can
blame Christians for not being able to give reasons for their belief. To Pascal,
the various proposed proofs for the existence of God are irrelevant. Pascal
thinks that even if the proofs are valid, the very purpose unto which it was
presented would be impossible, rather it would led to deism instead of leading
someone to the god of Christian.[40]
4.2.3 Hamann
Johann Georg Hamann is the father
of modern irrationalism, who
argues that everything people do
is ultimately based on faith. Human’s idea solely built of
the work of David Hume. He always had maintained that without faith in the
existence of external, human affairs could not continue; and all reasoning from this faith is fundamental to the human condition.[41] Thus, Hamann reached to a conclusion
that all attempts to base belief in God by using Reason are vain. He, at the
same time, attacks systems of Spinoza which confine the infinite majesty of God
into a finite human creation.[42]
4.2.4 Søren Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard
was an existentialist, who believed that God's existence cannot be certainly known,
and that the decision to accept faith is neither founded on, nor needs,
rational justification[43] Kierkegaard
had looked into the problem of faith differently, particularly by focusing on
the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice
Isaac. When it comes to believe in the incarnation of Jesus, he asks us to take
a leap of faith.
Kierkegaard affirms that,
since incarnation implies that an eternal being would become a simple human, to
believe in God made flesh was to believe in the absolute paradox. Soren
suggest, since reason cannot possibly comprehend
such a phenomenon, one can only believe in it by taking a leap of faith.[44]
4.2.5 James
The concept
of the Will to Believe was introduced by an American Pragmatist and
psychologist William James. In his earlier theories of truth, James argued that
some religious questions can only be answered by believing in the first place:
one cannot know if religious doctrines are true unless one believes them in the
first place.[45]James
argued, under the established set of conditions
called genuine option, it is reasonable to believe in the absence of
proof. As for James, the religious belief may not be more rational than Atheism or
Agnosticism, but it is not irrational.[46]
4.2.6 Wittgenstein
The
philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was generally considered be a Fideist despite
of having no systematic writing about religion. It is believed of Wittgenstein
that he has done so many lectures on the topic religion. The position of
Wittgenstein was taken from some of his students' notes which were collected
and published. It is a thought which describes religion as a form of life attracted
Wittgenstein to a great degree.[47]
According to Wittgensteinian Fideism,
religion is a self-contained,
and primarily expressive,
enterprise, governed by its own internal
logic or grammar. Wittgensteinian
pointed out that religion is logically cut
off from other aspects of life; that religious beliefs can be understood only by religious believers; and that religion
cannot be criticized.[48]
4.2.7 Presuppositional
Apologetics
Presuppositionalism
is a Christian system of apologetics which attempts to distinguish itself from
fideism. Presuppositionalism could be seen as being more closely allied with
foundationalism than fideism, though it has sometimes been critical of both. One
the other hand, it associated mainly with Calvinist Protestantism.[49]
Presuppositional Apologists believe that all thought must begin with the proposition
that the revelation in the Bible is self-evident and not to be
proved or demonstrated.[50]Transcendental
Argument for God's existence was mostly used by the presuppositional apologist
against a non-believer who rejects the notion that the truth about God. On the other hand, Cornelius Van Til takes a
different position that all people actually believe in God whether they admit
or deny it.[51]
4.2.8 Protestantism
Fideism was
most deeply rooted in the time of Lutheran tradition. Even the key aspect of
fideism can be traced back to Martin Luther himself. Though it cannot be said
that Luther as a Fideist, yet the key element of fideism can be found there in
the views of germen reformers.[52]
Martin Luther considered reason as the greatest enemy that faith has. However,
Luther agreed that, faith in Christ, reason can be used in its proper realm. In
his writings, concerning reason, Luther puts it in this way that before faith
and the knowledge of God reason is darkness in divine matters, but through
faith it is turned into a light in the believer and serves piety as an
excellent instrument. Reason receives life from faith; it is killed by it and
brought back to life. However, this perspective of Luther did not last long,
because, Apologetics became the main intellectual activity of orthodox
Lutherans and reformed, and the situation that caused grave crises for those
churches was the Enlightenment.[53]
4.3 An Evaluation of Fideism
4.3.1
Strength
Fideism
holds that it impossible to know the existence of the transcendental God of Christianity
with rationality and logical necessity. This approach holds a real significant
value, because god is more that mathematical and reason. Another significant
thing about fideism is that it disregards the role of evidence and reason for
one’s commitment to god. According to fideism the belief in god must be god
himself.in fideism faith stands more reasonable than intellect and reason. Faith
in God is not an act of acknowledgement; rather it is the commitment of whole
person.[54] Fideism
considers the limitation of human reason and knowledge. Fideism, in one sense,
criticise the construction of systematic view of reality which is presented in
Christian philosophy, apologetics and theology.[55]
4.3.2
Weakness
Fideism
has failed to understand the different between epistemology and ontology. it is
possible for any Fideist to believe that
there is a god, but he is not aware that how he came to that assumption about
god. when we consider faith alone to be the criteria to believe in god, then,
faith in god turns to be relative; each person can be sure about what he
believes is true. Fideists, therefore, are right about what they believe about
god but wrong about reason why they believe. Fideism has a great confusion in
understanding believe in and believe that. Fideism believes that belief in god
must be personal and existential and not based on abstract and intellectual. It
is impossible for any man to have credible believe in god unless one has some
way first to believe that there is a god. Thus, fideism has become incapable of
understanding the important of reason and evidence for someone to believe in
god.[56]
5. CONCLUSION
These
three, in epistemology, were the main philosophies which made great impact in
the history. The proponents of these philosophies were really great people ever
live in human history. These
philosophies played a great role in forming a different frame work in the human
mind with which theologians could explain the ultimate reality. A clear study on
these philosophies let us to the conclusion that there is no theory with which
a man can achieve the knowledge of ultimate reality. All these philosophies
have miserably failed to prove its claim, and remained as unqualified theories
for knowing all the truth or realities. But on the other hand, all these
philosophies are capable of knowing some truth, sometime even closer to the
realties when they all put together as one approach.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abyss.
“Rationalism”. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/rationalism.html.
(accessed on 13-8-14)
Boa,
Kenneth d. and Robert bowman jr. Faith
Has Its Reason: An Integrative Approach To Defending Christianity. Milton Keynes: paternoster, 2006.
Encyclopaedia Britannica.
“Empiricism”.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186146/empiricism.(7-8-14)
Franks,
D D. “History of Empiricism”.
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/people/lipton/history_of_empiricism.pdf. (accessed on
7-8-14)
Geisler,
Norman L. Christian Apologetics.
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988.
Mesacc.
“Empiricism”. http://www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/empm-v-ratm.html.
(accessed on 7-8-14)
Mind.
“Empiricism”.
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/99_00/Empiricism/Readings/Encyc_Phil/Empiricism.html.
(accessed on 7-8-14)
Philosophical
Basics. “Fideism”.
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_fideism.html.(10-8-14)
Rational
Wiki. “Rationalism”. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rationalism(accessed on
13-8-14)
Wikipedia.
“Empiricism”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism. (accessed of 7-8-14)
Wikipedia.
“Fideism”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism.(10-8-14)
Wikipedia.
“Rationalism”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism. (13-8-14)
[1] Mind, “Empiricism”.
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/99_00/Empiricism/Readings/Encyc_Phil/Empiricism.html.
(accessed on 7-8-14)
[2] Wikipedia, “Empiricism”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism. (accessed of 7-8-14)
[3] Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Empiricism”.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186146/empiricism.(7-8-14)
[4] Mind, “Empiricism”.
[5] Wikipedia, “Empiricism”.
[6] D D Franks, “History of
Empiricism”. http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/people/lipton/history_of_empiricism.pdf.
(accessed on 7-8-14)
[7] Mind, “Empiricism”.
[8] Encyclopaedia Britannica,
“Empiricism”.
[9] Encyclopaedia Britannica,
“Empiricism”
[10] Mind, “Empiricism”.
[11] Encyclopaedia Britannica,
“Empiricism”
[12] Encyclopaedia Britannica,
“Empiricism”
[13] Mesacc, “Empiricism”.
http://www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/empm-v-ratm.html.(7-8-14)
[14] Mesacc, “Empiricism”.
[15]
Mind, “Empiricism”.http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/99_00/Empiricism/Readings/Encyc_Phil/Empiricism.html.(12-8-14)
[16]
Wikipedia, “Rationalism”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism.
(13-8-14)
[17] Rational Wiki, “Rationalism”.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rationalism(accessed on 13-8-14)
[18] Wikipedia, “Rationalism”.
[19] Rational Wiki, “Rationalism”
[20] Abyss, “Rationalism”.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/rationalism.html. (accessed on 13-8-14)
[21] Wikipedia, “Rationalism”.
[22] Wikipedia, “Rationalism”.
[23] Encyclopaedia Britannica,
“Empiricism”
[24] Encyclopaedia Britannica,
“Empiricism”
[25] Wikipedia, “Rationalism”.
[26] Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Empiricism”
[27] Wikipedia, “Rationalism”.
[28] Wikipedia, “Rationalism”
[29] Wikipedia, “Rationalism”
[30] Encyclopaedia Britannica,
“Empiricism”
[31] Wikipedia, “Rationalism”
[32] Encyclopaedia Britannica,
“Empiricism”
[33]Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics.( Michigan: Baker
Book House, 1988),42-45.
[34]Encyclopaedia Britannica, “fideism”. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/206100/fideism.(10-8-14)
[35]Fideism, “Wikipedia”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism.(10-8-14)
[36]Philosophical Basics, “Fideism”.
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_fideism.html.(10-8-14)
[37] Philosophical Basics, “Fideism”.
[38] Wikipedia, “Fideism “
[39] Boa, Kenneth d. and Robert
bowman jr, Faith Has Its Reason: An Integrative Approach To
Defending Christianity. (Milton Keynes:paternoster,2006),342.
[40] Wikipedia, “Fideism “
[41] Philosophical Basics, “Fideism”.
[42] Wikipedia, “Fideism “
[43] Wikipedia, “Fideism “
[44] Philosophical Basics, “Fideism”.
[45] Wikipedia, “Fideism
[46] Philosophical Basics, “Fideism”.
[47] Wikipedia, “Fideism
[48] Philosophical Basics, “Fideism”.
[49] Wikipedia, “Fideism
[50] Philosophical Basics, “Fideism”.
[51] Wikipedia, “Fideism
[52] Boa, Kenneth d. and Robert
bowman jr, Faith Has Its Reason, 340.
[53] Wikipedia, “Fideism
[54] Norman L. Geisler, 59-60.
No comments:
Post a Comment