Method Of Choice For Religious Belief example essay topic

The Four Methods of Charles S. Peirce In "The Fixation of Belief", Charles S. Peirce attempts to explain his four methods of establishing belief, in which he says all people have. These methods can be put to the test with any subject matter, and one shall always fit. For instance, let us look at the broad but always hot topic of religious matters, or affairs. First, take into account Peirce's first method, which is the method of tenacity. Its definition is, "taking as answer to a question any we may fancy, and constantly reiterating it to ourselves, dwelling on all which may conduce to that belief, and learning to turn with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it". There is a very strong argument that this could be the method of choice for religious belief.

Take apart the definition, for a moment and you might begin to see this. As it talks about constantly reiterating the belief to ourselves, it may very well be said that this could be construed as going to church each week... What happens in church? Well, we pray, sing, give thanks and offerings, all that we may be reminded that our purpose in life is to serve our Lord with gladness and with all of our hearts at all times. The part that I do not see fit in the first method is the part about turning with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it. From past experience, I have always found religious people to be some of the most open minded people, willing to listen and be attentive to anything you have to say.

They do not turn with contempt and hatred if you do not believe exactly what they believe. The only case where I see a religious group shutting out anything and everything, would be the monks. page 2 They go to great lengths to get as far from civilization as they possibly can, for fear of their own sanctity. The second method of Peirce's is the method of authority. This states, "Let the will of the state or the general public act, then, instead of that of the individual".

Of the four, this is the one that really matches up well in fixing belief in religious matters. This method stresses the importance of unifying the individual with the group. This is so true of all religion in that, a group of people is attempting to find a "lost soul", show them their belief system, and their religion, in the hope that that individual will see the light and become part of their group. For if they are able to make the individual a strong believer, then they are one body stronger in upholding their ideas, doctrines, and beliefs. This method also allows a small amount of thinking within that certain belief system. For example, in the Christian faith, there are many denominations and interpretations of the bible.

But the core belief structure is still there, thus allowing people to interpret these beliefs in their own way, and know that a Presbyterian is going to go to the same heaven as his Baptist friend. It is when these boundaries are crossed that people have stepped outside of using this method. Even though the Jews are worshipping the same God, the Christians still believe those people shall go to hell, for they don't believe in the New Testament, or the coming of Jesus. The third method of Peirce's, the a priori method, is very tough to associate with religious matters, in that the method involves the fickle people of the world. In this method, a person will change his opinion of something immediately, should you alert him page 3 to something that would make his opinion seem wrong.

They also believe that what is right for one man, is not necessarily right for the next, and that the dispute over their beliefs will never end. For this, they become content in their own beliefs, not worrying either way whether they are right or wrong. This method is just too far out there for religious purposes, in that in religion, there is a stated set of beliefs, and though there is more than one interpretation of this belief, there are not millions of opinions as there are likely to be in the a priori method. Lastly, is the method of science. First of all, whenever science and religion are used in the same sentence, there is usually a dispute about something, so they obviously do not go together. Second, this method involves very much investigation and experience, which leads to another problem.

Investigating most always brings up contradictions of former theories, and for the most part people just do not want to hear that their religious beliefs are wrong. They basically just want to be content in their belief of their God, and do not want to hear that they believed in a false prophet. It is obvious by simple explanations that in religious matters, one would need to use the method of authority in the establishment of their beliefs. Now, in the same manner, let us take a look at another area in which doubt can arise as to what method to choose. In the area of politics, the a priori method seems to fit in nicely when trying to fix beliefs. Many people will not agree with that, but I think it might just prove the point a little.

In the world of politics, there has been and always will be numerous different page 4 opinions. People are aware of this, but still many constituents feel that all of their answers are the right ones. For example, the issue of abortion could be brought to the forefront. In a political science discussion session a few days ago, abortion was the topic of choice for the afternoon.

The discussion was a forum for everyone in the class to express their opinions freely and peacefully, without interruption. That lasted for about 30 seconds, as everyone in the class had a differing opinion, and wanted to voice it at the same time. They were not necessarily attempting to change someone else's belief, but merely attempting to make their point. Then maybe a fickle person, one who would be on the proverbial fence in the issue, would see their way and join them. The political commercials that we see around election time also make a strong case in that they are trying to sway any and all people that they can to come believe their way of thinking.

Abortion is not the only topic that causes a raucous like this in politics. Mostly anything political seems to stir a rise from the crowd. Other topics of this nature would be welfare, social security, the income tax system, and many others. Another method that politics might be listed under, but just did not seem as strong as a priori, is the method of authority.

Even the author, Charles Peirce, believes that politics belongs in the method of authority, but my opinion is this. Politics is just not clear-cut enough so that you may unify individuals into a large group. Even if you were into the same group, there will always be an issue or two, or more, that will interfere with the harmony of the group. Admittedly, politics does fit extremely well in the method of authority in the fact that political doctrines are "reiterated perpetually, taught to the page 5 young, and given power to prevent other doctrines from being introduced". But on the smaller scale, the personal level, people interpret these doctrines in their own way, causing thousands, even millions of differing opinions on the same subject.

The main reason that politics does not belong in the method of tenacity, is the fact that, even though there are many different beliefs, people are always open to new suggestions, which is not what the method of tenacity champions. It wants you to believe in something, and put earplugs on, so as to not hear any blasphemy from other parties about their beliefs. In closing, each of these four methods is used daily by each and every one of us in different subject-matters. They are all very valid, and show the intelligent and logical thinking that Charles S. Peirce obviously possessed. It is absolutely astonishing that an article originally published in November 1877 is still extremely useful in modern-day society..