In religion throughout history, argumenttion has been seen throughout each one for some time. In religion argumentation is key because to have faith in anything you must understand the key values in it and what is it about. So therefore, argumentation is the best way to answer those questions about a religion you want to put your faith in. The major questions you must ask yourself within religuon to get a better understanding is: What is the nature of God? What is the nature of human beings? What is moral behavior, the religious life? What are sin, evil, and the meaning of suffering? What is the human relationship to God? And what is the role of the church? These questions will get you to understand your religion better or seek information about another religion. In overall, argumentation in religion is more of you getting a understanding of the religion to put your faith into it. Argumentation helps that by allowing you to seek out research on the religion and get a better comprehension of what you want to believe in.
In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
I find it interesting that you point out that argumentation within religion is to get a better understanding for yourself about the religion you choose to follow. I think this is a fair argument, but I think it is over idealistic. Rather than using argumentation for self enlightenment in religion, I think people try to use argument to change other people's views about their religion. What, then, is at stake when people argue about religion and the interpretations of it. Historically, we've seen religious argumentation as catalyst for persecution and discrimination. This suggests that religious argument is less about understanding for the self, but rather for control of others. Furthermore, in a world where the majority are presented with a religion not by choice, but by birth, the argumentation tends to try and justify the situation of being religious rather than focusing on why people are of a certain religious affiliation without their choosing and whether that is right.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Charles. When I was reading your blog post you pointed out some interesting ideas but I do think that argumentation in religion is based on trying to get others to convert to whatever religion you study. You hear it all the time when people will say "they just force their religion on others". People do this because they argue why their religion is better and why so and so should join their religion. Personally when I think of argumentation in religion I think the same way Charles does. I believe that when someone argues about religion they are doing it in the sense of telling others why their religion is better than said other religion, they want to "control" the ideas and theoretically lives of others. For example, A christian may not agree with the way a jew prays or does X,Y,Z so when people come to their church they're going to try and convert those people to believe what they believe in hopes for an overall gain as the end outcome. I'm not saying all religous people or churches are like this.. but when I think of argumentation in religion, this is what I picture.
ReplyDeleteI really like your blog post. Since I didn’t read the chapter on argumentation in Religion. It was interesting to see that argumentation in religion is not used to argue believes and convince people of your religion. But rather it is used as a form of better understanding. It is used as a form of source, to provide information so you can put your faith in a religion. It is interesting to see that argumentation, in religion does not work as a persuasive but informative tool. One used to advance one’s understanding of the religion. But do you think that is why often religious arguments are hard to persuade because their intent is not to persuade? I think a lot of people don’t know the role that argumentation plays in religion and therefore it is often critiqued to be weak.
ReplyDelete