Epistemology

Regarding Knowledge

As I mentioned in class, an important part of the thesis paper will be to assess whether a particular kind of religious practice (the main element of what I’ve called “dynamic religion”) is—or is not—a legitimate form of knowledge.

I want now to set some guidelines, or at least give a fully picture, of what this task involves. I offer this to support what I’ve tried to say in class.

Another way of rephrasing the question is whether the beliefs and specific claims associated with a religious practice are justified or not. This is important because, as you’ll recall, the definition of knowledge is justified true belief. Any belief that lacks a justification—even if it’s true—can’t be considered knowledge. And we’re concerned with knowledge.

Now I offered several theories of knowledge, each of which is distinct because of the kind of justification offered:

Empiricism.

An belief is empirically justified in the case that it is supported by experience. How do we experience things? Well, generally we see or touch or taste or hear the things we experience.

Empiricism is important because it is the foundation of the sciences.

The sciences rely, broadly speaking, on four things:
a) observation
b) prediction
c) experiment
d) confirmation or disconfirmation

And a fifth element might be this:
e) power

That is, scientific knowledge of the world allows us to do things in the world; it allows us to change the world: we can build bridges and bombs; heal illness, etc.

This leads us to the second major theory of knowledge:

Pragmatism

A belief is pragmatically justified in the case that it is useful.

A person might, for example, hold the belief that “Human beings are essentially good”.
This belief would be justified on pragmatic grounds if the person said things like: “assuming that people are good helps me be a better person; it increases my happiness, which increases my effectivity in the world; it helps me sleep better at night”.

Notice that he is not appealing to observations of any kind. Rather he is appealing to his values. Pragmatic justification has traditionally been an important kind of justification for religious thinkers. E.g., “God exists” is justified in the case that a person would be better off believing it than not believing it.

Rationalism

A belief is rationally justified if…well, if it’s more like math than not. Think of geometry: do we ever experience the truth of the claim that two parallel lines never intersect? No. Why? Because we can’t go to infinity to observe their course. Do we ever experience the truth of the claim that there is no final sum in the series of additional integers? No. Why? Same reason: we can’t count to infinity. So how do we know these claims, and claim like them, to be true? Because they are truths of reason.

Now some people have claimed that if we really think hard about what “God” means—i.e., a perfect being—then we would just see that God MUST exist, too.

Go on. Think about it.

. . .

So there are some of the basics of epistemology—how we know what we believe we know.

Now let’s return to the essay question: your task is to how the religious practice of your choice is justified—and whether that justification is convincing. It should be clear by now that you’ll need to choose one of the forms of justification above.

Is there a way that a given practice is empirically justified? Pragmatically justified? Rationally justified? Is it solely a matter of believing higher authorities? Is it a mix of several of these kinds of justifications?

You will argue either for the affirmative or the negative. You will describe the practice of your choice, isolating (1) its form; (2) its goals; (3) the main beliefs to which it adheres.
You will consider it in light of the theories of knowledge. You will then draw a conclusion.

My hope is that the remainder of the course, with your engagement and questions, will prepare you all for this task.

chapter one: questions

Reading Questions

1. Why did Siddhartha remain standing? Why didn’t he just leave? Did Siddhartha’s father allow him to leave, in a sense, because Siddhartha had “already left”? If so, what does that mean?

2. What would Siddhartha have done if his father had said “no”?

3. Why does Siddhartha speak of himself in the third-person?

4. Given that Govinda was Siddhartha’s “lance bearer,”, speculate about the conditions under which Siddhartha would have left home?

Knowledge Questions

1. What does it mean to mean to have as a goal the recognition of Atman?

2. What do you believe this “innermost self” to be? Philosopher and historian, Morris Berman, writes: “ Central to Jungian psychology is the concept of
individuation, the process whereby a person discovers and evolves his or her Self, as opposed to his or her ego. The ego is a persona, a mask created and demanded by everyday social life, and, as such, it constitutes the center of our conscious life, our understanding of ourselves through the eyes of others. The Self, on the other hand, is our truer center, our awareness of ourselves without that outside interference, and it is developed by bringing the conscious and unconscious parts of our minds into harmony”

Are the unconscious part of our mind the “innermost self”? Or are the habits which make up our character or our essence the innermost self?

3. Since Siddhartha seemed to have everything going for him, why would he be so discontent? Is he simply seeking the independence of adulthood? What kind of “freedom” is he seeking?

Siddhartha

hello all.

Term is rapidly rounding second base and third is not far. In other words, we're now getting ready to write the final paper. The last part of the course, I hope, will give you the content and the skills to do this with gusto and style. Be sure to see me, write me--even try to call me--if you have questions, concerns, or deep & abiding fears about this process.

I will be posting the essay on-line--that is, on MyClasses. See that for further documents. If you want anything I've shown in class to be posted, let me know that, too. Finally, be sure to check out your grades on MyClasses. If there is anything that ought to be there, but isn't; or that is there, that shouldn't be (ya right), also be in touch.

I will be posting in the very near future, discussion and reflection questions on the book. You wll be required to discuss and reflect on some of them.

Beginning the remainder of the course

Phew!

The yellow book is behind us. Sell it or give it to your younger brother. Whatever.

But the important thing, the shiny new fact, the new piece of the puzzle...is that you all are critical thinkers. Or at least have started to think in such a way that you don't believe everything you hear or read. Remember: all that labour was offered in the hope that you could begin to gain the ability to comprehend, analyse and--the important bit--criticize text, television, teachers, etc.

So do that!

We now move onto the content part of the course: Religion and Knowledge. What is religion? What is knowledge?

We all have seen churches and probably know a thing or two about this or that. But is religion just a matter of places of worship, funny beliefs in God / Gods / etc? Is scientific ways of knowiing the world the opposite of religious ways of knowing the world? Is one true, the other false?

With these last questions, we're getting into philosophy. Philosophy, you should understand, is a good thing. If nothing else, it gives you something to talk about on first dates.

My hope is that you will all be generous enough to read Siddhartha, the assigned text by Herman Hesse, one of the more influential writers of the 20th century. He even won the Nobel Prize. See this link, if you're interested in Mr. Hesse. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1946/

Finally, the main purpose of this blog will be for me to update you on basic concepts and interesting ideas that you should know or be thinking about. It is also a forum for discussion. So discuss. Do it!