Hello,
It is fitting that the topic of my research is Logic and Faith. I submitted a research proposal to a teaching conference in November 2010 - purely based on half-considered concepts, wine-drenched discussions with unreasonably supportive friends, and the belief that I would have FREE TIME of the Christmas holiday to research my ideas. Ha. Well, here it is January 4, 2011. Logic tells me that I cannot possibly complete the poster presentation that I have committed to in time for the colloquium on Feb. 21st. Still, if my students have taught me anything it's that a surprising amount of learning can happen in a very short time if one is determined. To that end...
I teach academic writing to adult ESL students, many of whom are practicing Muslims (in varying degrees). In my attempt to teach the skills of logical argument for the purpose of essay writing I often encounter students' reliance on faith-based reasoning (if such a term is acceptable) to argue their positions. In other words, my students will sometimes argue that a thing is good/bad, correct/incorrect, or advisable/inadvisable based on what it says in the Qu'ran.
My questions include the following:
1. Do models of academic writing exist that allow for faith-based knowledge as legitimate forms of asrgument?
2. Does rejection of the appeal to faith (considered a common fallacy in logical argument) constitute a degradation of an individual's culture?
3. Is it possible and or desirable to integrate faith and logic, as different but equally relevant styles of argument, for academic purposes?
I plan to post a list of reading material here in the near future, and I welcome and look forward to your comments and suggestions.
1 comment:
1. Do models exist--maybe Thomas Aquinas? Are they legitimate forms of argument--I don't think so...faith comes from beyond reason and has no source in the mind and rationality, which are the premises for academic argument. Nevertheless, faith may still point to truth--just because there is no evidence, measurement and documentation does not mean it is not real and true--history has shown many times that science has not yet developed the instruments to measure, but once we do the evidence is apparent. Evidence may be there, but we with our crude tools do not see it--for example, germ theory and Van Loewenhoeks' lenses that led to microscopes and seeing organisms in water that previously were invisible. For another example, the believed existence of "energy body" or "human life field," which seemed magical and a "leap of faith" until the development of Kirlian photography.
Put Galileo Galilei on the reading list? He argued reason and evidence against faith, and got beaten in the short run but that did not change the truth of his ideas.
Look at the current conflict between creationism (faith) and evolution (logic) that is playing out in the Kamloops school and in others (Kamloops This Week. Dec 31, 2010) and on Facebook (http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2ZNzRO/scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/the_science_vs_creationism_deb.php)
2. So no, rejection of appeal to faith does not degrade a culture--we agree to set aside ad hominem attacks in academic argument, listen to each other with an open mind, and learn. At the same time, the academic discipline involves scrutinizing evidence, questioning received beliefs, and thinking things through for ourselves.
3. I don't know--let's challenge students to show us. How can we create a task that will do this?
Post a Comment