Three Epistemological Principles
Childhood Credulity
A normal human child believes whatever the authority figures in her life teach her, unless and until she encounters reasons not to believe it.
Intellectual Conservatism
If a person already believes something, then it is reasonable for her to continue to believe it, unless and until she encounters reasons not to believe it.
Intellectual Ownership
A person is rational and intellectually responsible only if she has her own good reasons for the important beliefs in terms of which she organizes her life.
Question 1
Is the principle of Intellectual Ownership at odds with the principle of Intellectual Conservatism?
Question 2: Encountering non-belief
A person grows up believing something because the authority figures in her life believe it. She reaches adulthood and learns that many other persons who not (otherwise) appear to be stupid or perverse disbelieve it. What, if anything, should she do about this?
Question 3: Encountering Groundless Authority
A person grows up believing something because the authority figures in her life believe it. She reaches adulthood and realizes that these authority figures acquired their belief in essentially the same way she did, i.e., from the authority figures in their childhoods. She also ascertains that none of their beliefs descend ultimately from anyone who acquired the belief by way of a direct examination of the evidence for and against it. What, if anything, should she do about this?
Question 4: Encountering Grounded Disbelief
A person grows up believing something because the authority figures in her life believe it. She reaches adulthood and learns that many other persons disbelieve it. She also realizes that some of those who disbelieve it appear to be better situated vis-à-vis the evidence to make a judgment on it than the authority figures in her life from whom she acquired the belief. What, if anything, should she do about this?
Question 5: Encountering Undefeated Defeaters
A person’s belief is in accord with the Intellectual Ownership principle. But eventually she discovers that there are persons who disbelieve it and, when she investigates, she discovers that some of them have objections to the reasons she offers for her belief to which she cannot effectively respond. She also finds that some of them offer reasons against her belief that she cannot counter. What, if anything, should she do about this?
10 comments:
This weekend I was involved in one of those fantastic late night college conversations. We were discussing our feelings toward the religious right.
My friend Jack claimed that if one was a Christian one should vote for Huckabee because he is a Christian and therefore would make a good president. I questioned him further and discovered that he believed this because of his previous experiences with Christian leaders (his parents) and their advice to him. He is a walking example of Childhood Credulity and Intellectual conservatism.
My other friend Jill shared that she also supports Huckabee but not because the authority figures in her life do. She actually didn't want to caucus for Huckabee because he is a Christian. After researching Huckabee she decided to support him because of his character and position on ethical issues. She is a walking example of Intellectual Ownership.
Jack and Jill believe Mike Huckabee should be President but they came to that belief through very different means. Are these two principles at odds if they came to the same belief? Jack and Jill were actually arguing even though, in the end, they came to the same conclusion. Does this mean that one Epistemological Principle is better than another?
Names have been changed :D
Just because they came up with the same conclusion does not mean that the two principles aren't at odds. Sure in this situation they agree, but I'm sure we can agree that won't happen every time. Plus, you said yourself, that they were still arguing even though they did agree on the outcome. Most likely what they were arguing about was whether Jack's means of belief (Childhood Credulity and Intellectual Conservatism) was good enough. Obviously Jill does not think so, because she felt the need to research and support Huckabee for her own reasons.
I guess I see Jack as getting lucky this time. He was lucky that his authority figures supported the candidate that after hearing Jill's research he was still happy with his stance. I doubt this would happen all the time. As you can probably guess, I believe Intellectual Ownership is better. I don't see a problem in trusting your authorities' beliefs, but I do see it as laziness when you don't research and learn about what you already believe. I don't know if Intellectual Ownership is necessary in order to keep a belief, but I do believe that it is ALWAYS better to have reasons and support for your beliefs than simply the fact that you trust someone else's reasoning. We are all different, so what makes someone think that we would agree with any one person on every issue?
Responding to question 5, one who is unable to respond to opposition to their belief should, I think, be open to differing beliefs but not readily abandon their own belief for another without consideration and exploring both sides. I think she should find the core things that make her believe her belief is true, and ask herself "if this thing/reason was not true of my belief would i still hold fast to it?" Also, "What reasons for my belief can I not compromise and what about the reasons make my belief different from those who don't aogree with me?" Agreeing with Kristi's comment on the definition of faith, I think this person should also decide if faith, to them, means possibly not being able to fully prove their faith by reason; that reason maybe being the evidence brought against her belief.
I think that the answer to each of the five questions that were presented could merit very different responses depending upon what belief is that is being questioned. I think that generalized answer would simple fuel debate and be pick apart by those seeking so say "What about in this situation or this one?" I think that the five questions would have to be answered on a situation by situation basis. I don't think a general rule can be established as an answer for any of them.
I tend to think of Childhood Credulity,Intellectual Conservatism, and Intellectual Ownership as potential progressions through life. For this reason I don't think they can be at odds. When encountering these other people who have different beliefs it says to me that they are in a different stage...their path may have started out on an opposite track or may have skipped one. I think that for sure everyone experiences childhood credulity and intellectual conservatism. Intellectual ownership takes a more conscious effort and if the other people's beliefs cause her to explore her own beliefs in pursuit of intellectual ownership than go for it!
I believe that for most of the situations in the questions that when a person comes upon doubt and learns that others disbelieve what you believe, that you need to do some research and learn more. For a person's faith to mean something to them, they have to have some basis and support. By doing the research a person can find the support they need for their faith, and as a result, their faith can become stronger. I also realize that the result could go in the opposite direction, and change or lose their faith, but even in that case they would still have support for what they are saying and it isn't just a faith and reasoning from someone else, it then becomes their own.
Do you have to 'own your own faith' or can you be a part of a faith and accept the beleif in that faith. For example, in the Catholic Church after the homily(sermon) we pause to consider it and then WE profess OUR faith by saying the Nicene Creed. Also, when we take communion we are also agreeing to everything the church teaches. Now, it would be pretty hard to say you know all the teaching on the Catholic faith, but I think there is freedom to say you don't know everything, but that you have choosen to accept the stuggle of trying to know and understand. To surrender and trust your beleifs to a faith...is that ownership?
In regards to question 1 I think it depends on if by taking ownership they are reinforcing their belief or if by taking ownership they encounter reasons not to believe it. But they could also be at odds if when a person starts taking ownership they continue to stick to their beliefs but for different reasons than before any ownership was taken.
On the other hand while taking ownership for a belief the person discovers more reasons for their belief that go along with their other reasons and build them up, then conservation and ownership would go hand in hand.
I think I agree. To truly know what you believe and why you believe it, don't you have to know the opposition's reasoning?
If you hear the other side (and really do listen to their point of view) and still believe what you believe, then you have both conservatism AND ownership.
If you change your mind, then hey, you've still crossed over into ownership.
I am blessed to have a brother who has brought up these questions many times to me, due to the fact that he himself is a philosophy major in college. Most of our conversations about religion start off with him posing a question, me answering it, and the answer not being good enough in regards to strength, soundness, and cogency. He proceeds to ask me 10 other questions about my answer and picks apart everything until I'm so confused I don't know how to answer. This is when I realize that "I guess I don't have any reasons, I just believe it." Doesn't cut it.
Sometimes, this answer works. But when dealing with a non-Christian who thinks you should have a reason for your beliefs, this just isn't good enough. In this way, I am not just posting about question #5, but I AM questions #5.
I would say, my answer "I just believe in Christ" is good enough in regards to my salvation. (Rom 10:9) But if my brother is going to even start to listen to anything I have to say, I must first think through the logical side of things. So it is not only something I should consider, but it is my duty that when people are asking questions, that I can give an answer for the hope that I have.
Post a Comment