Moral Knowledge has
disappeared from western
academia and culture (Dallas
Willard, Knowing Christ Today)
P 23. In the western world, a great
historical struggle between what
might be called “traditional”
knowledge, represented by the
church, and modern knowledge,
represented by science, has
brought us to where many can only
think of religion as mere belief or
commitment.”
In late medieval and early modern
Europe, much of what the church
taught as knowledge was shown
not to be knowledge.
“A pervasive mood of rejection then
arose.” Became an academic and
intellectual lifestyle that became an
authority.
“[This authority] branded all
traditional and religious
‘knowledge’ as mere illusion or
superstition and all of the sources
of such knowledge as unreliable
or even delusory.”
“This idea now governs the world of
western thought: religion and
knowledge are separate.
“Religion … lost in the public mind
its standing as a body of knowledge
about what is real and what is right.”
Archie Bunker: faith is believing
what you know is not true
Religion and intolerance are seen as a
reason to separate religion and
knowledge (pp 26-29):
1. It is thought if you think you know
something, you will be certain about
it—have no doubt.
2. This will automatically make you a
bigot—close-minded, dogmatic,
arrogant.
3. You will automatically treat those
who differ from you badly—oppress,
etc.
4. Therefore, should make knowledge
tentative –can’t really know is the only
way to stay tolerant.—this is the
dominant view in the west now
5. Openness and humility about
knowledge is seen only in the scientific
realm.
6. Knowledge claims in religion and
morality are viewed as having no test in
reality and therefore no check on the
certainty with which they are held.
7. Therefore restrict knowledge claims
to science
But those who are taking this
stand for tolerance and
humility are not doing so on
the basis of scientific
knowledge; but on what they
think they know is true
morally and ethically.
Many who have taken stands in
history against intolerance have
done so on the basis of what they
understand is moral and religious
knowledge.
AND many who think there is no
real knowledge in religion and
morality have acted in arrogant and
intolerant ways.
Tolerance – generous regard for
those with whom we differ –
requires care for people.
29
It must be based upon
“knowledge of what is good and
right.”
An important question in today’s
world; and a question we want to
raise at Payap University:
Can religious teachings be
knowledge?
If not, then religion is irrelevant
practically and cannot contribute to
understanding or directing life.
When you listen to Dr Mark
Tamthai’s lecture – ask yourself,
do you think he thinks we can
have religious knowledge?
What is knowledge? “We have knowledge of
something when we are representing it (thinking
about it, speaking of it, treating it) as it actually
is, on an appropriate basis of thought and
experience.” (Willard, p.15)
Involves truth or accuracy of representation
Also must have evidence or insight (through
ways that depend on the subject matter)
“Knowledge in this sense is what we require in
service people, professionals, and leaders. We
expect them to know what they are doing, to
be right, but not just by guessing or luck.” (p.
15) E.g. don’t want a surgeon to count on luck
in doing surgeries
“Knowledge brings truth and correctness under
reliable control.” (pp 15-16)
Belief: not necessarily tied to truth or evidence;
beliefs are “tendencies to act” (Willard, p. 16)
What we believe will affect our actions:
eg believe out of gas, will look for gas station;
We can believe what is false
Belief: not necessarily tied to truth or evidence; beliefs
are “tendencies to act” (Willard, p. 16)
What we believe will affect our actions:
eg believe out of gas, will look for gas station;
We can believe what is false
If we believe religious things, we will act on them.
(Test belief through action)
We sometimes do not believe what we know: e.g.
know the odds of winning the lottery are next to
zero (know we will not win, but refuse to keep this
in mind), but act as if might win (gamble). This is
irrational and irresponsible.
This is why gambling is morally wrong. Being
rational is a virtue; and gambling is irrational.
(Gambling is presented as “entertainment” for
this reason—disguises the irrationality.)
Rational and responsible people base their
beliefs and actions on knowledge.
Commitment:
may not involve belief or knowledge;
simply means “choosing and implementing a
course of action” (Willard, p. 16)
(sometimes we just need to do something, so
we do)
Profession:
what we say we believe;
some profess what they do not believe and
may not be committed to
Whether religious or other teachings are
KNOWLEDGE matters.
“Knowledge, but not mere belief or
commitment, confers on its possessor an
authority or right—even a responsibility—to
act, to direct action, to establish and supervise
policy, and to teach.” (Willard, p. 17)
Knowledge also gives belief and action
stability and communicability—
“because knowledge involves truth: truth
secured by experience, method, and
evidence that is generally available.” (p. 18)
This is “why we want leaders, professionals,
and others we rely upon to know what they
are doing, not just to believe or feel
strongly about it.”
“If they lack the knowledge assumed, they
are disqualified, even if they remain in a
position of service or power.” (p. 18)
Belief and knowledge are different
and have different roles in life.
“rational and responsible people are
those who strive to base their beliefs
and actions upon their knowledge”
(Willard, p. 19)
Belief and knowledge are different and have
different roles in life.
“rational and responsible people are those
who strive to base their beliefs and actions
upon their knowledge” (Willard, p. 19)
Ideally, knowledge is the basis of belief; it
is the best basis; but belief is not a basis
for knowledge.
Religion presents itself as knowledge. E.g.
Christianity as knowledge of God—
which can lead to belief and commitment to
action that go beyond the knowledge
but are “still conditioned on knowledge of God”
Faith is commitment to action—not a blind
leap into belief without knowledge
Current western understanding of “leaps
of faith” is actually leaping without faith,
with no belief. “The result has been to
undermine the foundations of faith in
knowledge and to leave the teachings of
Jesus and his people (along with those of
all other religions) hanging in the air,
with no right or responsibility to direct
human life. (Willard, p. 21)
The statement: “all religions are equal” –
means “all religions are equally devoid of
knowledge and reality or truth. In fact,
however, no known religions are the
same; they teach and practice radically
different things. You only have to look at
them to see that. To say they are all the
“same” is to disrespect them. It is a way
of claiming that none really matter, that
their distinctives are of no human
significance.” (p. 21)
All religions “present themselves as
providing knowledge of what is real and
what is right. To think otherwise is to
falsify the very nature of religious
consciousness and religious life as well
as the claims of the particular religions.”
“they offer—whether they are right about
it or not—knowledge of certain profound
truths, and they call people to act on the
basis of that knowledge.”
Eg. Buddhist enlightenment “is offered
as knowledge, as passing beyond the
false beliefs and passions engulfing
the usual human existence and
grasping ultimate reality.” (p. 22)
December 6, 2011
1. Sorry, don’t have rubric for group presentation; will email it late
tonight
2. Options for 10% of grade:
2.1. Religions Reflection Paper: my religion and another religion
2.2. Covey habit 7: personal development teaching and learning
projects
2.3. Covey: vision, mission, roles and goals for Payap student
career; 30-day plan project and reflection
Details (rubrics) on Thursday –
choose and tell choice to Katie at midterm
Epistemology: how we know we know
Historically 3 sources of knowledge:
1. Authority
2. Thinking or reason
3. Experience (empiricism and
naturalism)
Epistemology: how we know we know
Historically 3 sources of knowledge:
1. Authority: “based on historical or
social position (mainly in church and
government) has mostly dominated
human life and is still dominant today in
many parts of the world—often where it
is least suspected.” (p. 58)
Epistemology: how we know we know
Historically 3 sources of knowledge:
2. Thinking or reason: became
dominant when authority broke down
Excessive claims of reason led to revolt
3. Experience (empiricism and
naturalism)
Science appeals to all three sources
“but in undigested and incoherent
ways that permit it to be manipulated
in the public arena, where policy
issues are in question, for numerous
unscientific and political purposes.”
(p. 59)
Today we need a clear understanding
of “science” but science can’t offer it.
This is the “impasse of modern life.
Science is the presumed authority on
knowledge, but it cannot provide
scientific knowledge of science.” (p.
59)
Clarifying Science and its relationship
to the Humanities (Richard Gorsuch)
Two major academic areas:
The Sciences and the Humanities
Philosophy undergirds both of them
Sciences
Classical pyramid
(omits some sciences):
Philosophy & theology (develop
totalistic views of nature of reality)
Sociology
Psychology
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Physics the foundation of the
sciences—
know enough physics, could write
chemistry as physics;
Know enough chemistry—write
biology as chemistry, etc.
Philosophy and theology – parts of
them are independent of science, but
they have to do with the nature of
reality, so they must include science
and what it has established
Humanities Philosophy and theology
History
(from events recorded in many people’s
lives)
Biography
Autobiography
Arts and literature
Personal experience
Primacy of philosophy for both:
“because of the question of how
knowledge in each discipline can be
attained. That is not a simple task.
(Gorsuch, p. 33)
The heart of that discussion is one
historical, philosophic point the virtually
defines the postmodern philosophical
era in which we live: Descartes’s ‘Cogito,
ergo sum.’ Many hold this is a critical
critique that would invalidate much of
the search for all knowledge; to what
degree are they correct?”
(Gorsuch, p. 33)
[Descartes (1701/1990)
mathematics gave 100 % certain proofs
when assumptions granted
Anything else?
“Descartes decided to accept only that for
which no doubt could be raised.”
Concluded he could not doubt
that he doubted.
“Cogito, ergo sum” = “I think, therefore I am”
But actually no basis for “I” (Gorsuch, p. 33)
“The average person and Descartes
have this in common:
Neither have taken his or her doubting of
the existence of everything else
too seriously.”
Philosophers “have given up—
after searching for several hundred years—
on finding any conclusive foundation on
which to build a philosophy of knowledge.”
(Gorsuch, p. 45-46) ]
“Decisions about knowledge are
psychological decisions” (Gorsuch, p.33)
Do the humanities “have a unique approach
to truth? Will integrating this with scientific
truth lead to wisdom?” (Gorsuch, p. 34)
The Nature of Science
Scientific reports:
help us understand the logic of science
“Science is based on the ability of
anyone trained in a discipline to replicate
the results of anyone else. This points to
several values in science.
First, the principle that the report must
show
how to replicate the experiment
provides a definition of ‘fact’:
A fact is established when people running
the same research procedure get the same
results.
A fact is not some ‘magical’ way to ‘truth’ of a
radically different nature from the truth of
everyday life. A fact is instead based on data
consistency; that is, an outcome that occurs
when data are collected under the
standardized conditions of the experiment.”
(Gorsuch, p. 37) The Nature of Science
Objective: “A statement is ‘objective’
to the degree that all qualified people
readily agree to it.
In psychology, the degree to which
measurement is objective is assessed
by rater agreement (Gorsuch, 2002):
The higher the rater agreement, the
higher the objectivity.
‘Subjective’ is the opposite of
objective, when the raters disagree.
Combining this definition of objective
with the condition for concluding that
a fact is established means that
scientific facts are objective.”
(Gorsuch, p. 38)
Second value of science seen in the
research report:
“the open communication of ideas
and procedures.” (p. 39)
Others can run the test themselves.
“Third, the science report shows that
a community is involved.
It is expected that others will be
replicating the study, and that the
results will only be accepted as fact
when that community is convinced by
replicating the results.” (p. 39)
Science—publish procedures
producing results and “others
following that procedure find the
same results” (p. 41)
Theory: “a theory is a convenient way to
summarize facts so they can be grasped
by our human minds.” (p. 41)
“it must make sense to the current
generation of thinkers. A new generation
may wish to rewrite the theory so ‘it
makes more sense’ to them; that is, they
rewrite it so it can be grasped by their
human minds. Theories are therefore
social constructions. (p. 41)
Of course, any theory that replaces an older
theory does so either because the new theory
accounts for more facts or because the new
theory is easier to grasp (sometimes referred
to as more ‘elegant’).
But the new theory must do as well as the old
theory in accounting for the established
facts.
(A change in theories may well change which
facts are seen as relevant and how the facts
are described.)” (p. 41)
All the science disciplines rest on
“assumptions regarding the nature of
reality and our relationship to it. Science as
commonly practiced implicitly assumes that
our experiences show us reality, a reality
that was the same in the past as it is now.”
(p. 42) and “our senses give us reasonably
accurate information” (p. 44)
These assumptions are not addressed by
science. “they need to be justified by
philosophy and theology.” (p. 42)
Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology provides
basis for science.
[What is a Buddhist basis for science? EW]
Sciences & Humanities – wisdom?
Nomothetic vs idiographic distinction
(uniqueness is the underlying issue)
Nomothetic is concerned with that which can
be generalized, such as basic principles.
Idiographic is concerned with that which is
unique (and therefore not generalizable).
(Gorsuch p 50)
Science (purpose and procedures)
are nomothetic –
basic principles that happen every time
So procedures designed to produce
nomothetic knowledge
(multiple scientists produce same basic results
from same procedures)
But people live idiographic lives:
each event of our lives is unique;
one event can make for a major shift
We approach nomothetic knowledge
from our idiographic perspective
Disciplines most linked to idiographic
events of our lives are the arts and
humanities.
“They express our situations—including
spiritual ones—in ways that communicate
beyond the formal, logical exposition of
nomothetic science. The arts themselves
are expressions of our idiographic selves,
and we resonate with art that ‘strikes the
right cord’ with us.”
“The idiographic is also central in our
professional and personal lives because of
the nature of ‘understanding and insight.’
While nomothetically we support the theory
that even the insights that we have
follow nomothetic principles,
how the insights happen
is still idiographic to each of us.” (p. 51)
Science uses replicable events
to build into a conceptual framework
Humanities take our idiographic events and
build them into a conceptual framework
For psychology,
the most important humanities are
literature and history
History helps understand unique events
that are background to present interactions
Pyramid of idiographic understanding:
Philosophy and theology
History
(from events recorded in many people’s lives)
Biography
Autobiography
Arts and literature
Personal experience
Is only science objective?
Not according to earlier definition:
agreement among raters using the same
definition
Idiographic discipline such as history “looks
for rater agreement not by replication
(science) but by checking for consistency of
reports across records or memories.”
[EW What might be the connections among
right and left brain functions,
sciences and humanities,
nomothetic and idiographic knowledge?]
So how do we know?
(back to Dallas Willard)
The three sources of knowledge
(authority, reason, experience)
are not opposed,
but supplement each other well in real life.
Earlier definition of knowledge: “We have
knowledge of something when we are
representing it (thinking about it, speaking
of it, treating it) as it actually is, on an
appropriate basis of thought and
experience.”
Appropriate basis of thought and
experience – depends on the subject
matter.
We may not know that we know
“the concrete progression toward
knowledge, in real life, is always rather
messy”
the “skepticism” of the academy and
classroom come from attempts to restrict
knowledge a narrow range to try to avoid
or simplify the messiness
[RG says issue of objectivity]
Three basic worldview stories:
theistic,
nirvana, and
secular/naturalistic
Stephen Prothero (2010). God is not One:
The Eight Rival Religions That Run the
World—and Why Their Differences Matter.
HarperCollins Publishers: NY, NY.
Since 1960s in west: “fashionable to affirm
that all religions are beautiful and all are
true” (p. 1)
“No one argues that different economic
systems or political regimes are one and
the same.” (p. 1)
[Prothero here supports Willard’s
contention that religion is not considered
KNOWLEDGE, but rather personal
preference]
Need to know where religions clash and
where they can cooperate (p. 4)
Religion is a powerful force among
humans—for both terrible evil and
wonderful good.
Prothero trying to be fair
to the most influential religions in today’s
world—
show them all
in both their positive and negative aspects
Each religion describes:
a PROBLEM (something is awry in the
world).
a SOLUTION to deal with the problem.
a TECHNIQUE (or techniques) for moving
from this problem to this solution
an EXEMPLAR (or exemplars) “who chart
this path from problem to solution” (p. 14)
Each religion presentation should include
the following elements of the religion:
a PROBLEM (something is awry in the
world).
a SOLUTION to deal with the problem.
a TECHNIQUE (or techniques) for moving
from this problem to this solution
an EXEMPLAR (or exemplars) “who chart
this path from problem to solution” (p. 14)
“Families” of religion have several dimensions
(Ninian Smart – seven dimensions of religion)
Ritual
Narrative
Experiential
Institutional
Ethical
Doctrinal
Material
Each religion presentation should include
descriptions of the following elements of the
religion:
Ritual
Narrative
Experiential
Institutional
Ethical
Doctrinal
Material
Religions teach us how to be fully human.
Each has a different vision of “a human being
fully alive.”
“Each offers its own diagnosis of the human
problem and its own prescription for a cure.
Each offers its own techniques for reaching its
religious goal, and its own exemplars for
emulation.” (Prothero p. 333)
“All their adherents are human beings
with human bodies and human failings,
so each of these religions attends to
our embodiment and to the human
predicament, not least by defining
what it is to be fully alive.” (p. 333)
(Willard) The Four Fundamental Questions
of Life
1) What is the nature of reality? What is
“real”?
2) What would your life look like if you
were “doing well”? or what is a quality life?
3) What does it mean to be a truly
good person? Or what is real goodness?
4) How does one become a truly
good person?
Each religion presentation should include the
religion’s answers to The Four Fundamental
Questions of Life
1) What is the nature of reality? What is “real”?
2) What would your life look like if you were
“doing well”? or what is a quality life?
3) What does it mean to be a truly
good person? Or what is real goodness?
4) How does one become a truly good person?
Compare Prothero’s description of what
religions have and do with Dallas Willard’s four
fundamental Questions of life:
The Four Fundamental Questions of Life
1) What is the nature of reality? What is “real”?
2) What would your life look like if you were
“doing well”? or what is a quality life?
3) What does it mean to be a truly
good person? Or what is real goodness?
4) How does one become a truly good person?
(Prothero)
Religious way to talk about religion: our
religious creeds, etc. are true [knowledge]
Secular way to talk about religion: does not
assume truth or falsehood of religion; “aims
instead simply to observe and to report, as
objectively as possible, on this thing human
beings do, for good or for ill (or both).” (p. 336)
How does Prothero’s description
of the “religious way” to talk about
religion and the “secular way” to talk
about religion
compare to Gorsuch’s definition of
nomothetic and idiographic
approaches to knowledge?
Payap University is church-related
Mission: express God’s love
Motto: Truth & Service
reveals our position that there is true
truth in Christianity
Christianity is fundamentally historical
and also values science
Payap University is church-related
Mission: express God’s love
Motto: Truth & Service
reveals our position that there is true
truth in Christianity
Look now at the history and core values
of Payap University