Epistemology and Theology
Epistemology and theology are intrinsically related studies. Man’s primal desire is to take the knowledge he has gained through epistemology and apply it to his role relative to God or some other theological proof. It therefore follows that one’s epistemological views would be linked to his theological – suffice it to say, this is as true for me as it is for anybody.
Both my epistemological and theological viewpoints are based on my sincere “faith” in hard science. I believe that knowledge is something outside of man, while religion is something inside him. It is up to science, an empirical criticism, to decipher what has often been justified through religion. While I do not doubt that religion serves a purpose, I truly do not feel that it is any more legitimate than a quantifiable, logical experiment. Then again, my opinions are based principally on that day’s weather, so it’s hard to say. Based on this, I subscribe to Pavlov’s wager – I will neither reduce myself to orthodoxy (my word choice is deliberate) nor declare extreme atheism or nihilism. I view this as the generally prudent thing to do. Therefore my theological stance could best be described as agnostic. Even this definition is far from a mot juste, however. While agnosticism is unable to decide if there is anything greater than man, I already feel that there isn’t. It is probably my excessive pride and fatal hubris that makes me feel that way.
Stephen Wolfram, a mathematician, physicist, and software engineer, believes that the complete unfolding of the natural world can be modeled in only three or four lines of computer code. I agree fully with this. I cannot accept the idea of a universe laced with disorder and chaos. Please do not misconstrue this as tacit acceptance of a deity, however. It is entirely possible that a system as simple as the one Wolfram speculates about could have developed from itself, without the need for outside assistance. In my opinion, this reconciles both religious and secular views, while satisfying my own epistemological outlook. Wolfram’s example serves as the basis for the remainder of how theology does not play a role in my life.
It is difficult to apply the ideas of precepts and concepts to my own personal philosophy. Clearly, I believe in the existence of numerous precepts. There are things that we don’t need to experience to believe in – whether the people believe in them are not, I am referring to the “lines of code” which govern our existence. Perhaps it is man’s job to reverse engineer the code; regardless, they exist and must be accepted in order to move on to a more cognitive region of the epistemological plane. Still, there are many concepts which must be dealt with. They come from experience and one’s own perception, yet perhaps are equally as valid as precepts. They are the only way that mankind is able to understand the world around him, communicate his thoughts, and ultimately arrive at any theological conclusion. By observing specific instances and occurrences, man is able to create a generalized model for existence (this is similar to the “Mathematica” software that Wolfram created, which helps to visualize numerous experiments and equations that prove his viewpoint.) Obviously, there is something of a paradox in the way that I accept both forms of knowledge collection. Determining when to use them (one for epistemological, the other for theological, for example) could very well be the key to a more sound and justifiable philosophy.
Given my view of concepts and precepts, it seems natural that I would agree with Gail Stenstat’s concept of anarchic thinking. There are multiple answers to any given problem in the universe. Once again I will fall back on an example from the exciting world of computers. If you have to accomplish a task while programming, it doesn’t matter specifically how you approach it. All that matters is the input you accept and the output you create. The innards of your function are really inconsequential. I find this strangely applicable to my epistemological and theological viewpoints as well. There are numerous paths to a meaningful existence. It is possible that there are numerous religions that could be “correct” for each individual person. It’s even possible that there are numerous sets of four lines of code that are affecting different people. Yes, this is somewhat more chaotic than my previous explanations, but I am hard-pressed to believe that life could be so monolithic as to have one pre-defined path being the only acceptable way to live.
Speaking of ways to live…William James, one of the most sundry philosophers imaginable, felt that humans have an innate thirst for all things spiritual, and that through the course of their lives they used religion as a way to stop the “uneasiness” of a pagan existence. He felt that it was difficult to prove whether religion was true, but that one could prove that if definitely worked, and that’s all we need to know. In this respect, I agree with him. Although religion doesn’t do a lot of good for me personally, I see that it does bring happiness to a wide range of people. I see this in my father. I think that I’m too innately optimistic about mankind in general to bring myself to blindly subscribe to any particular faith. I don’t see any limit to how far our inquisitive, knowledge-seeking nature can take us. Some say that with each great technological step we act as if we want to replace God. I don’t see any problem with this.
One of the readings for this combined unit talked about Dr. James Austin and the discovery of a neurochemical explanation for religious experiences. This is why I describe theology as something that is inside of each person. Really, it is just something that people create as a way to help organize things for themselves. It makes perfect sense that homo sapiens would have evolved a way to “hit the God spot.” Again, religion has various ways of making people feel better. They are calm, composed, meditative, peaceful, and generally transcendent of the more terrestrial problems (for a time, anyway.) Under this system, yes, religion is true, but it is not supported by the existence of a deity. It really is no different from any other human emotion, like happiness or loneliness. This goes a long way towards explaining what is often a wavelike pattern of religious behavior in a person – their theological moods are just as subject to outside forces as their more traditional social moods.
Being in a class such as this one often makes me feel frustrated. My views make perfect sense to me, but in the context of the course, it’s a grab bag of philosophies that really doesn’t fit into any traditional mold (this is generally how the rest of my life works, by the way.) I rarely use theology in my day-to-day life; I am more prone to adopt a humanistic approach to morals and behaviors. My relationship with religion is troubled; encounters with my more-religious relatives tend to be awkward at best. I do enjoy talking about theology and playing devil’s advocate to some of my more conservative peers. I don’t necessarily object to the idea of religion – I simply demand that a more empirical basis be formed before I accept any particular doctrine.