All reason and natural science ought to come after faith, not go before it, nor oppose it.
Thomas a Kempis
"The Imitation of Christ"
2007-04-20 00:21:18 · 19 answers · asked by 17hunter 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ideally they'd be 'married'. One has faith / verified confidence in what one knows.
There can be phases of more one than the other, though, especially spiritually / developmentally.
"If a blind man carries a lame man, both go forward" (Visuddhimagga, a Budhist text).
I personally would go for a patient balance.
'Come & see'. We've got to realise these things for ourselves, over time.
I value the quote, though.
Thank you.
2007-04-20 04:20:02 · answer #1 · answered by goodfella 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a great admirer of Thomas a Kempis but yet I find myself slightly at odds with this particular saying and here`s why, we do not come to faith usually from paganism in one leap although nothing is impossible for God,it is more the norm that by our use of reason that we realize the reality of God,this we do by regarding nature and the wonder`s there off,then we can experience the truth as spoken and or written,namely the Bible and so finally we may come to believe and now we have faith.
But I fully agree that faith should never be opposed by these things, but I do think that reason comes before faith and leads to it.
2007-04-20 00:35:30 · answer #2 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wishful thinking on the part of Thomas a Kempis. Reason and natural science *do* oppose faith, regardless of what anyone things they ought to do or not do.
2007-04-20 00:28:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Makes no sense... but then again don't you think most of the faith based quotes are senseless? It is a good food for thought though, but it doesn't come out right.
Faith comes from understanding, from knowing and experiencing without doubt. It is a first hand experience that makes one wanting to believe in something even more. That is why it does not occur before natural sciences as faith is only revealed after natural sciences by one's conviction to the truth.
Would you agree on this?
2007-04-20 00:29:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think Einstein had the correct appoach. As these two quotes show. There are quite a few others in which he refers to faith before science, and then science with faith. And he stated in one of his quotes: When I judge a theory first I consider if God would have made things in such a way. ( not an exact quote )
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."
Albert Einstein
2007-04-20 01:44:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, it's a beautifully poetic quote. But I can't say I agree with it.
The problem is that, for instance, if your faith insists that the world was created on a Saturday afternoon by a small, blue bush-like being, then you are limiting reason and natural science. Either you are not allowing yourself to ask questions about how the world was created, or you have to lie to yourself when a piece of evidence jumps up at you that contradicts what your faith insists you believe.
2007-04-20 00:31:57 · answer #6 · answered by Spell Check! 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That is a ridiculous idea. The only way you can have true science is to have an objective mind and go into research open to all options. If Galileo had followed this precept we would still believe that the universe is centered around the earth. If taxonimist had we would believe whales were fish.
2007-04-20 00:32:25 · answer #7 · answered by in a handbasket 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, whether or not Kempis thinks it shouldn't oppose it or not.
So basically, I disagree.
2007-04-20 00:49:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
feelings? Faith leads a man down paths away from reason... that is my feeling. But to work in harmony, as Kempis implied, is very desirable as separation of any variables leads to extreme variation on product (when various hypotheses are plotted and calculated). The title of the book is ridiculous though.
2007-04-20 00:26:04 · answer #9 · answered by Invisible_Flags 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well it comes from an age when "natural science" was still at the stage of phlogiston and leeches, so perhaps faith was a better way to go then.
Now, however, you'd have to be pretty simple to pray rather than take antibiotics for that life-threatening infection now wouldn't you?
2007-04-20 00:33:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋