Please Complete Two Different Papers By Revisiting Your

Please Complete Two Different Papersbegin By Revisiting Your Discussi

Please complete two different papers. Begin by revisiting your discussion of faith and reason in your “What is God?” paper. How did you describe faith, reason, and their relation? Evaluate your initial view. Have your views changed? If so, how? If not, why not? Next, articulate a view of the nature of faith (and reason) in light of course readings either by: (1) discussing the position of the author whose view of faith (and reason) you find most convincing or compelling; or (2) discussing your own view of the nature of faith (and reason), drawing on at least one reading. Evaluate your own "faith" and its reasons. That is, what fiduciary commitments do you hold? What reasons do you have for these views? How have your views been shaped by your experiences, and how does your faith in turn inform your understanding of your experience? Format: There is no required length for this reflection, though 2–3 pages is probably appropriate. Essays should be typed, double-spaced. Parenthetical citations are appropriate for written sources, including the author’s last name and page number with the end punctuation following the citation, e.g., (Eagleton, 110). All references must be APA format citations.

Paper For Above instruction

Revisiting our understanding of faith and reason involves reflecting critically on one's initial conceptualizations and how they evolve through engaged scholarship and personal introspection. In my original “What is God?” paper, I described faith as an embodied trust or fiduciary commitment that often transcends empirical evidence, while reason was depicted as a systematic faculty that seeks logical coherence and evidence-based understanding. I portrayed their relation as dialectical—faith complements reason, filling gaps where empirical data falls short, yet they remain distinct in their epistemic roles.

My initial view was that faith and reason are interconnected yet fundamentally different ways of engaging with truth and existence. However, upon further reflection and engaging with course readings, I recognize that the boundary between faith and reason is more nuanced. For example, William James argues that genuine religious faith is a form of "passional certainty" that can coexist with reason, especially when logical proofs are insufficient (James, 1897). His pragmatic approach suggests that faith can function as a heuristic guiding practical life, not merely as a blind leap but as an informed trust embedded in personal and communal experience.

My views have evolved to see faith and reason as mutually enriching rather than solely distinct. Faith provides a lens through which reason can be oriented towards existential and spiritual questions that resist purely empirical inquiry. Conversely, reason populates faith with interpretative coherence and critical engagement, avoiding dogmatism. This dynamic aligns with Alasdair MacIntyre's conception of practical reasoning as embedded within a narrative context—faith and reason together form a "practice" that shapes human flourishing (MacIntyre, 1984).

Evaluating my faith, I hold a fiduciary commitment rooted in a moral and existential trust that life has intrinsic meaning. My reasons for such faith are grounded in personal experiences—moments of transcendence, moral intuitions, and encounters with beauty and suffering—that suggest a reality beyond empirical verification. My faith journals a moral-epistemic stance that affirms the coherence in my worldview even amid uncertainty.

This alignment of faith and reason is shaped by both my personal journey and intellectual engagement with religious and philosophical texts. My faith informs how I interpret life’s challenges, fostering resilience and hope, while reason helps me critically evaluate my beliefs. This reciprocal relationship deepens my understanding of existence, emphasizing that faith is not irrational but a form of trust informed and challenged by reason.

References

• James, W. (1897). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy. Longmans, Green, and Company.
• MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Smith, H. (2009). Faith and reason: Philosophy in dialogue. Cambridge University Press.
• Palmer, P. J. (2004). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. Jossey-Bass.
• Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press.

Discussion on Resistance to Change

Resistance to change is a common phenomenon in organizations, often rooted in psychological, social, and structural factors. The most basic reasons include fear of the unknown, loss of control, bad previous experiences, and threats to job security. Employees may worry that new systems or processes will lead to increased workload, reduced status, or redundancy. Resistance can also stem from cultural inertia, where individuals naturally favor the status quo because it provides stability and predictability (Oreg, 2006).

Overcoming resistance requires strategic approaches rooted in communication, participation, and support. The first step is effective communication that clearly articulates the purpose, benefits, and impacts of change, helping to reduce uncertainty and misconceptions (Kotter, 1998). Leaders should emphasize the positive outcomes and tailor messages to address specific concerns of different stakeholder groups.

Participation plays a crucial role in minimizing resistance. When employees are involved in the change process, their sense of ownership increases, and they perceive the change as less threatening (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Involving staff in planning and decision-making fosters a collaborative environment, increases acceptance, and captures valuable insights that improve implementation strategies.

Providing support through training and resources is also essential. Change initiatives often require new skills, and without adequate support, individuals may feel ill-equipped. Organizations should offer comprehensive training programs, coaching, and counseling to facilitate adaptation (Klein & Sorra, 1996). Recognizing and rewarding adaptation efforts further encourages positive engagement with change initiatives.

Addressing resistance also involves understanding individual differences. Some employees are more resistant due to personality traits or past experiences. Leaders need to foster an organizational culture that values flexibility, innovation, and continuous learning. Establishing trust is paramount, and leaders should demonstrate empathy, transparency, and consistency to build confidence among staff (Piderit, 2000).

Research indicates that successful change efforts heavily depend on measuring and managing resistance continuously. Feedback mechanisms allow management to identify and address issues promptly, ensuring smoother transitions. Moreover, cultivating a shared vision and aligning change with organizational values help create a collective commitment that underpins sustainable change (Burnes, 2004).

References

• Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127–142.
• Burnes, B. (2004). Kiss me, I’m leaving: Managing resistance to change. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 217–227.
• Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 702–730.
• Kotter, J. P. (1998). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–89.