Truth is ambivalent as Socrates, a renowned philosopher would say as it has several aspects to it depending on who is being asked. This philosopher is renowned for his dialectic dialogues where an individual is called to ask a series of questions to get a clarification on a vague belief. Socrates questioned many beliefs and phenomenon at the time, while a majority of his contemporaries accepted without questioning. Plato, his student continues Socrates’ legacy by compounding on the need to use logic and persistent questioning to arrive at truths. According to Mitchell (2015), it is common for people to adopt phenomena as true without necessarily taking time to test or question its premises. Socrates demonstrated this fact by challenging individuals drawn from all spheres of life to prove that what they claimed to be true was true indeed. To the amazement of many, some of the basic knowledge turned out to be false. This Socratic approach can be used in the debate on the role of faith in God as the basis for morality when one considers atheism.
Explanation of the Socratic Approach to Philosophy
A Socratic Method is a philosophical approach, which helps individuals to question certain phenomena that are believed to be factual or true. The method allows for deep questioning through critical thinking in exposing the underlying presumptions. This philosophical method is associated with Socrates a renowned philosopher who used Socratic arguments to poke holes into individuals’ and communal beliefs. Socrates was considered controversial by stating that one does not need to go through a formal education system to be knowledgeable about complex scientific phenomena such as geometry. Instead, Socrates asserted that one is born with innate knowledge, which only requires one to remember (Mitchell, 2015). A slave boy became proof of this Socratic Method when he learned how to do complex calculations through a series of questions and reflections. At this point, Socrates established that people remain in error as they are confident that they know all there is to know. As a result, people do not seek the truth, which makes them ignorant even more.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Socratic Method uses a three-step approach to dialogues to establish for a fact that a claim is true or not. These steps are useful as they help individuals to ensure consistency by ruling out contradictions. The first step in Socratic dialogues is to examine a claim by provoking a deeper concentration and attention. From here, individuals move to the next step, which is about putting forward questions that arise from the claim definition. These questions are in such a way that the respondent must give either a yes or a no. These questions are crucial as they are aimed at finding inconsistencies and flaws in the presumed truth or beliefs (Mitchell, 2015). The final step in this method is for the questioned person to realize that what he or she thought to be true all along. At this point, Socrates hoped to change the individuals’ way of thinking and have new and different perspectives.
Application of Socratic Method to a Contemporary Belief
The Socratic Method is a critical philosophical tool that has been used over the centuries to explore beliefs and ‘truths’. One of the areas that this method can be applied in is the religious beliefs, which are usually controversial considering how numerous, and elaborate they are. In particular, the Socratic Method can be used to question faith and its moral bankruptcy. In this case, Christians believe atheist scan not considered as moral beings because they lack faith in God. Christian preachers claim that faith in God is important for individuals to be moral as it is their moral code. Socratic Method can be used here to demonstrate that secular knowledge, as opposed to religious faith, is the one that is needed in carrying out moral deeds.
The preacher may start by claiming that an atheist cannot be a moral person as faith in God is considered as the basis of morality. At this point, the person questioning would then assume that being an atheist means an unfortunate state of being. The preacher would be affirmative and reinstate that atheists are quite unfortunate. The interviewer would then claim that he is unfortunate to consider that does not even understand the nature of morality and would want the preacher to explain. The preacher would quickly respond that morality is human behavior based on right or wrong. The interviewer would then ask whether to know what is right or wrong, one must believe in gods. The preacher would answer in the affirmative that the knowledge of God gives individuals the ability to know right from wrong.
The interviewer asserts that the idea sees wonderful but would like to know the areas in which a believer would know right from wrong. The preacher then acknowledges that this knowledge should be evident in all areas of life. The interviewer would then ask if faith in God would help him to know right from wrong while finding solutions to mathematical, medicine, and architecture problems. The preacher answers no to this question, which sets a new direction to this dialogue as the interviewer concludes that the knowledge of God only produces particular moral knowledge. At the end of it, one concludes that this form of belief is insufficient and cannot be held as true or factual. Following this questioning, it is evident that faith in God is not the basis of morality as morality can be instinctual as opposed to being religious. In this case, an individual does not need to have faith in God to serve to the benefit of humans, as Christianity would like to suggest.
References
Mitchell, H. B. (2015). Roots of wisdom: A tapestry of philosophical traditions (7 th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning
