Karen Armstrong's Argumentative Analysis

1026 Words5 Pages
Faith and reason are thought to be foundations of defense for religious beliefs, having the same purpose many theologians and philosophers argue their relationship. Many believing that reason relies on faith while others think that just because you do not believe in one you are going to believe in the other, Karen Armstrong would agree since she suggests that they are not like political parties. Many theorists believe that reason is more on the logical side of the spectrum while faith is directed towards your beliefs and understandings of religious and theological claims. While scientists have argued they are not compatible because reason by itself gives us the answers to human life and faith is not a reliable source to provide us with those answers. Terry Eagleton suggests that they are one in the same and rely on each other.
Terry Eagleton starts of his argument with saying, “without reason we are sunk. Yet reason is not in the end what is most fundamental about us” (Eagleton 109). He is saying that it is important for
…show more content…
Faith is the substance of all things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen, and reason is the explanation for these events. What many people did not understand is how these two could possibly be so compatible, but Eagleton solves that by showing how similar the two are. Scientists give us a reason to believe the truth about something, but they also give us faith as well. Having a reason to commit to a belief means that you have faith in everything that comes along with it. Karen Armstrong was correct when she said that they are not like political parties, if you don’t believe in one, you are not automatically going to believe in the other. The relationship between faith and reason is a tight bond, and it only makes sense to have one along with the
Open Document