Over the past couple of weeks we have been considering the status of religious beliefs or truth-claims. What standards should we hold them to? Should we demand that they could gain the assent of any rational observer, or else they shouldn't be held? Or are we satisfied if they are simply justifiable? I.e., we may not necessarily agree or assent to someone's beliefs, but we are open to the possibility that his or her beliefs have justification? What would the foundations of such beliefs--"true" or "justified"--be? What constitutes "evidence" in this case, or is some other foundation required--or maybe (in the case of Plantinga) we need no foundation at all.
The problem gets even more complicated when we add religious experience to the mix, because if you ask many religious people why they believe the things they do, they will cite some kind of subjective experience. But how far does that go?
All of this is fascinating in its own right, but discussing these issues in a religious context also points to even bigger issues in epistemology: how do we know the stuff we think we know?!
I got exasperated at some point trying to read these articles -- they seem like language games to me (perhaps the Geivett one more so than others). I have always liked William James, though; and I agree that we cannot simply write off mystical experiences and claim that they are mere delusions. However, ultimately I agree with Hume. I am not suggesting that God doesn't exist (I have become largely confused in this matter), but that perhaps ultimately religion has to rely on faith itself. I wonder if a mystical experience can even happen without some element of faith.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hume that miracles violate the "laws of nature", and that the burden of proof lies solely in the testimony of human witnesses. I agree, also, that there is no testimony for any miracle that has not been opposed by many (equally intelligent or credible) witnesses. Definitely we shouldn't simply write off claims of mystical experiences, but such claims ultimately cannot stand alone as being "reasonable" evidences.
Courtney
ReplyDelete(on James from week 9)
He claims: "Mystical truths exist for the individual who has the transport, but for no one else"
What kind of status can/should a truth claim have if it does not exist for everyone? I tend to lean more towards some sort of objective truth about the real world, so I find this statement troubling. I think it is also interesting to ask whether to say "a truth exists for someone" and "statement is true" is saying the same thing or something different. Can a truth exist for someone individually and still be objectively false--maybe it coheres with their internal set of truth claims but those truth claims do not match up with the real world?
Courtney
ReplyDelete(on epistemology from week 8)
I think Clifford's attempt to merge epistemology with ethics is a really important one. He may take it too far (maybeeeeee there are some things one can hold on to that are false that will not harm anyone else) but I think a GREAT DEAL of held false beliefs do lead to action and cause harm.
I also think that Plantinga definitely fails (for me) in clearly explaining what makes something properly basic and what does not. I still do not understand why "the world is more than 5 minutes old" is not properly basic but the statement "god created this universe" is properly basic. I also still wonder whether we can claim someone to be in the right mental state of mind (a condition necessary for beliefs to be taken seriously by Plantinga) if they are in fact claiming that God speaks to them...
I am very hesitant to agree with Clifford, mainly for reasons such as these:
ReplyDelete"There are ... cases where fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming. And where faith in a fact can help create the fact, that would be an insane logic which should say that faith running ahead of scientific evidence is the 'lowest kind of immorality' into which a thinking being can fall. Yet such is the logic by which our scientific absolutists pretend to regulate our lives." (James)
God aside, there are a lot of things which simply will not happen (although they ought to) without preliminary faith. Going back to my human rights example, why should we believe that human beings have equal, inalienable, and universal rights? Who gave us those rights? Perhaps we really need to rely on faith when we think about such things (that our intellect cannot resolve); things that would be beneficial for mankind if they exist (regardless of whether or not they truly do).
Just a thought.
Philip Nuttle
ReplyDeleteWhen are we going to get to a philosophical idea that can't be refuted? All of our readings seem to contradict each other and it's maddening?
Karen
ReplyDeletePascal’s “The Wager” is pretty insulting to religions everywhere. He’s taking something people dedicate their lives to and put so much emotion in, and making it a game. His rationale does make sense, “if you win you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing.” Though it does make some sense to believe in God, because if he does live, you have eternal life, and if he doesn’t, you were just a good person; but those who do not lead a religious life would feel like they are missing out on quite a bit.
Religion isn’t something you can just say you’ll follow, it takes time. In Christianity, you have to sacrifice part of every Sunday to attend a service. As well as follow all the stipulations that come with Christianity, such as following the days of fast, giving up something during lent, confession, the guilt that comes from sinning, as well as chastity until marriage. These are all things that someone who does not lead a religious life might feel like they are missing out from.
It is easy to say you believe in God, but to actually do it is not as simple as Pascal makes it seem. Pascal suggests that the doubter should, “concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God’s existence but by diminishing your passions.” What he proposes people do in order to believe in God is incredibly superficial, and if God turned out to exist, it could be assumed he would see right through this forced belief.
Karen
ReplyDeleteDavid Hume makes an interesting argument in relation to miracles. Miracles are often just looked at for their wonder, not for how they were founded. Hume focuses on how testimony of what happened is how a miracle comes about, giving it the qualities of a rumor almost.
One of the points that struck me the most interesting is:
“there is nothing mysterious of supernatural in the case, but that all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the marvelous, and that, though this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never be fully extirpated from human nature”
People are drawn to miracles and want to believe them. So whereas a rumor may be brushed aside as not having enough evidence for support, the wondrous state of a miracle makes people more apt and willing to believe them. This is interesting; a lot of people just accept miracles, but when they are viewed as simple word of mouth, they don’t seem extraordinary anymore, but rather somewhat foolish to believe as well.
Karen -- I agree with you (and Hume). People *are* drawn to miracles. Perhaps ultimately what we want are miracles, not God. Interestingly I'm reading Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor" in another class, and I found this passage incredibly interesting: "But Thou [Jesus] didst not know that when man rejects miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot bear to be without the miraculous, he will create new miracles of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and witchcraft, though he might be a hundred times over a rebel, heretic and infidel" (Dostoevsky, "The Grand Inquisitor")
ReplyDeleteDorian
ReplyDeleteAside from the difficulty that arises in accepting ones "mystical" experience as true, I feel like perhaps the truth of these experiences, in regard to their potential for acting as evidence of a mystical realm or even God is to be judged beyond just validity. Rather I think it might be based on how much of an impact they make (i know this might be somewhat unclear but I will explain,lol) Lets say it is possible to make it apparent to others that God or something like that exist.
Lets take the class love example for instance. It may be difficult to prove that someone loves you if you are just describing things that they do-like make you breakfast in bed or tell you that they love you. Those things may be true-but the love might still be questionable despite this.
However, lets say someone tells you that someone is into them. And then you see that other person with the other's name tatooed on their neck. It would be hard to say their not into them (there still stands the possibility that the other person forced them,but its far more convincing)
So in the event that someone is trying to prove something mystical- I belief the truth goes beyond making sure that the event is true and depends on how much of an impression it makes and whether it can be visible to you-thereby set on a kind of different standard.
Dorian
ReplyDeleteI feel like its not fair to totally deny mystical experiences. Like James said you really cant know about them till they happen to you. But I feel like if you completely deny the possiblity of them it is somewhat ignorant-to the extent that they cant be held to a universal standard because thats exactly what their not and that is implied in their definition. I feel that just because they cannot be classified as true are false, they should not neccesarily be denied-bc then are millions of people who claim theyve had such an experience just crazy?I think its fair to say that if you dont know, you dont know but an openess doesnt hurt-im not sure their is a point in fighting to deny them but i think holding them up to evidence is appropriate
(sorry for my extra sloppy language i just wrote this out and it didnt go through lol)
Nadine
ReplyDeleteWeek 8
I found W. K. Clifford’s piece very interesting. It is certainly a strong stance-that one is wrong to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. It is obviously problematic when looking at religion, because so much of religion is personal and not evidence based, I think that Clifford does make good points when discussing that even if one is not found out about their actions, they are still guilty for having committing such actions on faulty evidence. Overall, I think Clifford makes a good and certainly unique argument. However, my biggest problem with his argument-no matter how interesting I believe it is-is that it does not work when looking at religion. I feel very strongly that much of religion is personal and private, and this evidential approach does not go hand in hand with personal beliefs.
Nadine
ReplyDelete(Week 9)
I found David Hume’s The Unreasonability of belief in Miracles” to be an interesting piece. The ideas that there are never enough intelligent people that believe in these miracles, and the fact that such miracles are never undisputed are legitimate arguments. However, I am not sure that I am sold. Perhaps my opinion falls under one that is philosophically irresponsible, but if such miracles aren’t hurting anyone as far as I’m concerned its ok for people to believe in them. If such ideas are not harmful, it honestly does not affect me or anyone else, so why shouldn’t people find comfort and believe in such miracles. I know, I know, this is not a philosophically right approach, but I think it is the humanely right approach and therefore I respectfully dispute Hume’s claims.
Dorian
ReplyDeleteIt seems that a large part of Hume is stuck on the fact that he cant find a reliable source that has accepted the possibility of miracles. I was thinking that maybe none of his friends have written an account of this, or perhaps havent attempted to form any logical connections from it because maybe they, like him are also concerned with the LAWS of nature?hmm dont know
Also, I was wondering what category would witchcraft fall under? Some people actually perform witchcraft, and have recognizable outcomes-what are they communicating with?
I find Clifford's stance a tad paralyzing, but while reading it i did get a sense for more of a progress of learning and knowledge rather than the dropping of religion altogether. the last line of his essay i found to be more of a challenge, not one necessarily of denigration towards religion.
ReplyDeletereligion is not static, it is constantly changing and evolving. this does not happen when people blindly follow their beliefs, people need to question and reevaluate their ideologies. the people who never stop to think are the dangerous ones that Clifford is writing about. Clifford writes about peoples duty to doubt, and its good to doubt especially when faced with traditions and practices that are outdated and possibly detrimental to both those in and out of the belief system.
k. byrnes
i understand what James is arguing, it is more compatible with the pluralistic hypothesis explained by hicks but it suffers from similar problems. it verges on a rather relativist standpoint that says "everythings okay".
ReplyDeletePascal, i do get his logic but the biggest turnoffs are the heavy reliance on fear and rewards, which while it makes his point, does seem to cheapen the message of religion.
k. byrnes
I agree with Clifford on the importance of having evidence to hold a faith as important as religion. Religion, whether one is aware of it or not, influences the thought process and many actions that individuals take. To have a faith which holds such importance and weight in society without having sufficient evidence seems absurd.
ReplyDeleteDimitria
Pascal's wager seems to refute the whole concept behind religion. Isn't Christianity based on the concept that people sacrifice their impulse to sin in order to be closer to God and the faith? How then can one just choose to be religious for the mere ability to "strike it rich" and make it into heaven, if in fact, judgement day does arrive. This seems to undermine God and if God does indeed exist and created the world in his likeness and omnipotency then I am sure he knows when humans are trying to fool their way into the pearly white gates of heaven. I wonder how He feels about that.
ReplyDeleteDimitria
I get what Dimitria is saying but putting aside what almost seems to be a bribe in pascals wager can also be seen as some sort of victory however insincere it may be. if a person does not wholeheartedly believe, there are still, at least in Pascals Christian view, living a good, moral life.
ReplyDeletealso k. Byrnes above
ReplyDeleteDorian
ReplyDeleteI wonder if those who argue against religious experience had religious wars in mind when they denied the possibility of miraculous events. I am trying to think about why people would deny what occurs to many subjectively --and then my mind wanders to what hume said about peoples tendency to want to believe that such events occur. Also that if a religious war broke out it would be difficult to discern who was right if we accepted both sides as having a legitimate arguement without proper evidence