Summary Of Not In Kansas Anymore By Jeff Jordan

941 Words4 Pages

Are faith and reason compatible? This is the main question that Jeff Jordan attempts to answer in his writing, "Not in Kansas Anymore". Jeff believes that faith or religion is compatible with reason or philosophy, but he argues both sides. Some people believe that they are not compatible because philosophy tends to weaken the dogmatic mindset, attacks conventional wisdom, and takes down widespread beliefs. Jordan takes all of these arguments analyzes them and shows us why he believes they are compatible. His arguments includes religious experiences, existential / affective reasons, and Pascal's wager argument. Jordan shuts down the arguments given by others, and gives his own arguments to prove why faith and reason are in fact compatible. …show more content…

Southern Baptists interpret the bible literally, are outspoken about their faith, distrust reason, and place heavy stress on emotion and feeling. At a young age, Jordan quickly began to question these beliefs. One problem he had was that the bible contradicted itself. He believed that one biblical author said one thing, and the other said another thing. He found that modern science attacked the traditional religious world view. It became quickly evident that Jordan was looking to abandon his Southern Baptist beliefs. He began to get into reason. He saw that philosophical attitudes seemed to be incompatible with religious attitudes of believers. Philosophy as we know takes into question things believe are true. Philosophy does not blindly accept things for how they are, but it rather rejects anything that cannot be proven. Some people believe that it is hard for dogmatic to philosophize and that no religious belief can be a firm conviction. Jordan on the other hand, does not believe these statements to be true. He believes that philosophy and religion are compatible, and he shows us

Open Document