Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles:||Religious Faith and Its Desirable and Undesirable Implications for Moral Education|
Department od Education, NTNU
|Abstract:||“God ! Why did you make the evidence for your existence so insufficient?”據說，有一次無神論的羅素(B. Russell, 1872-1970) 在大庭廣眾面前被問起，假使他死後，發覺他自己與他的造物主(his Maker)相見面時，他要問造物主什麼問題。羅素毫不猶疑地說，我會說：「主阿！為什麼你要讓你存在的證據如此不明確？」這個傳說告訴我們，要藉人的理智來分析有關宗教與宗教信仰的問題，實在不是一件容易獲致定論的事。尤其是要討論宗教信仰的道德教育涵義，更是難上加難？為什麼？理由很簡單：因為宗教信仰與道德教育，各牽涉到形而上的價值設定的問題。期內涵與外延較不明確，其方法論教主觀神秘。一，把兩個形而上的思想地帶交集重疊起來，會使本來的問題更複雜，更玄之又玄。|
This paper is aimed at, by virtue of conceptual analysis as well as empirical verification, setting up some common language and criteria between religion and moral education for us educationists and teachers here in Taiwan. There are five chapters in this paper. Firstly, Chapter 1, Introduction, starts to differentiate between a good and a bad faith, or between a cult of life and of death. Chapter 2, The meaning and function of religious faith, is dealt firstly with the metaphysical-cum-physical being of human life; secondly with some demarcations of religious beliefs; lastly with the positive and negative functions of religious belief. We therefore accept the positive ones as desirable and reject the negative ones as desirable and reject the negative ones as undesirable in moral education. Chapter 3, The relation between religious faith and morality, investigates the relation between faith and reason, i.e. faith according to reason, faith contrary to reason, and faith above reason. Here the first one is rationally and morally justifiable; the second one unjustifiable and therefore rejected; and the third one uncertain. Following a theoretical structure as such, the relation between religion and morality is , furthermore, clearly defined. Finally, the difference between theologico-morality and ethicoheology is critically examined for its practical applicability in moral education. Chapter 4, The desirable and undesirable implications of religious beliefs for moral education, probes into two things. The above said favourable and unfavourable implications are clarified. Then supported by some empirical investigations, the childish and primitive belief in the mysterious retributive justice or immanent justice is critically and explicitly analyzed in terms of moral education. Finally, Chapter 5, Conclusion. This paper condemns the vicious cult of death and recommends a harmonious development of universal rationality among gods, things, and men, or among religion, nature
|Appears in Collections:||教育研究所集刊|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.