The Proper Relation Between Religious Faithfulness, Essay Example

The nature of religious belief poses many difficulties in light of rational argumentation.  For many of these mainstream religions, one’s religious beliefs institute a separate starting point in areas of logic, at least in terms of the existence of God and issues that are complicated by the presence of religion.  These differences in religious beliefs place  religious faithfulness in a great deal of relevance, when rational argumentation is viewed.

Perspective

The rational proofs on the existence of God transform many individual’s perspective on life.  Truly, it also places a number of beliefs which cause the individual to place them as objective truths, as separate from others who believe such points are unfounded.  Additionally, it is important to remember that a number of religions do not believe in a living God.

Thus, as these beliefs alter an individual’s perspectives, rational argumentation will be greatly differentiated due to varying perspectives.  There are multitudes of subject that are primarily and furthermore affected by one’s religious faithfulness.  These perspectives, which are altered by the proofs of the existence of God, or role of an alternative religion cause one’s rational argumentation to be based differently.  They are in great contrast to those of other religions, and to those who reject the presence of God or truth of religion, and even to others, such as those who hold agnostic points of view.

Examples

There have been a multitude of examples in the resulting rational argumentation from religious faithfulness.  One example of this is seen in respect to the field of ethics.  Ethics is one subject that can become extremely controversial, and is based in large part on perspective.

On controversial example can be seen in response to the issue of legalized abortion.  This issue has spawned a great deal of debate, with both sides seeing a considerable deal of activism.  This is an example in which one’s religious views, or lack thereof, plays a large role.  For instance, an individual with atheistic or agnostic viewpoints would not naturally be inclined to be pro-life or pro-choice.

However, this is not the case for those in different faiths.  Religious faithfulness plays a large role in stances such as this, where one’s beliefs significantly influence one’s view of right and wrong.  For instance, those involved in the faiths of Islam and Judaism, according to these faiths, would agree that abortion is acceptable if the life of the woman is threatened.  On the other hand, specific denominations within Christianity oppose abortion in every situation, such as the in Catholicism and the Orthodox Church.

In situations such as these, one’s belief system will be a primary component regarding issues and even in the rational argumentation processes.  Whereas an atheist may believe the life of a mother is more important to something which doesn’t have life, this would not be the case for others of faith.  Likewise, systems of faith would not accept the truth, in the opinions of some, that there is no afterlife.  These differences in opinion which are different due to religious faithfulness often begin from a different starting point.

Overview

As such perspectives from any side cannot be demonstrated to be lacking truth, without a doubt, religious faithfulness should be objectively seen as an inherent component of rational argumentation.  An individual who has theistic, atheistic, or in any case, varying belief systems, will not be agreement with someone who does not share the same system of beliefs.  This will ultimately affect a number of topics in rational argumentation.

Ultimately, rational argumentation is grounded in an individual’s religious faithfulness.  And of course those who do not share these belief systems will be grounded in a lack of religious faithfulness.  Thus religious faithfulness produces a number of different starting points for different sets of issues, both directly and indirectly addressed by religious beliefs.