Jerry Coyne has a really solid post up on the problem of conceding authority to faith and faith-based views titled "Does religion have greater “epistemic authority” than science in some areas?" In short: faith-based authority on most matters is null because it lacks any evidentiary grounding. It's a game of "he said, s/he said" and fantasy. The lack of hard corroborable evidence for supernaturalistic beliefs - religion, astrology, astral projection, UFOs, ghosts, etc. - removes its epistemological authority.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Epistemic authority
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Right--and Coyne quotes from the writing of Tom Clark, which is dense but lucid and worth reading (link below)"Reality and Its Rivals:
Putting Epistemology First
Being epistemically responsible – not taking appearances at face value and seeking external confirmation for belief – inevitably pushes us toward intersubjectivity and science. This in turn increases the plausibility of the claim that there’s nothing over and above the natural world, what science shows to exist.
About the most crucial distinction we can make as cognitive creatures is between appearance and reality, between how things seem and how they really are, between subjectivity and objectivity . . .
. . . most religions and non-empirically grounded worldviews also claim objectivity; after all, that’s a primary function of a worldview: to provide a picture of what’s real. But these worldviews sometimes claim modes of knowing that reveal the existence of realms outside nature, or that support understandings of nature, and human nature, that sometimes contradict mainstream science. Scientists, science-promoting organizations, and those interested in getting at the truth about the world have a direct interest in assessing the reliability of such modes of knowing, as I’ve done above. Why? Because they want to make sure they’re not missing the cognitive boat in some respect. To openly question religious epistemology isn’t an unfair inquisition against religion or an attack on First Amendment freedoms of conscience, but a necessary defense of a precious and hard-won cultural resource: the epistemic virtue of submitting factual claims to tests which best insure their reliability. If there are other or better tests than what intersubjective empiricism, exemplified by science, has devised, scientists and other free inquirers want to know about them. On the other hand, if a religious or otherwise non-empirical epistemology isn’t a reliable guide to reality, that’s vitally important for people to know. In an interconnected global society, too much depends, both practically and ethically, on staying undeceived about the nature of the world and ourselves. The question of epistemology – of how we know what we know – has to be put front and center.
http://www.naturalism.org/epistemology.htm#concessions
Post a Comment