DOCSLIB.ORG

Fideism, Evidentialism, and the Epistemology of Religious Belief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fideism, Evidentialism, and the Epistemology of Religious Belief Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2013 Fideism, Evidentialism, and the Epistemology of Religious Belief Matthew P. Butcher Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Epistemology Commons Recommended Citation Butcher, Matthew P., "Fideism, Evidentialism, and the Epistemology of Religious Belief" (2013). Dissertations. 508. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/508 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2013 Matthew P. Butcher LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO FIDEISM, EVIDENTIALISM, AND THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY BY MATTHEW P. BUTCHER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS MAY 2013 Copyright by Matthew P. Butcher, 2013 All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation was completed only because of the wealth of support (in both personal and academic ways) of those around me. First I would like to thank Paul Moser, Thomas Carson, and Blake Dutton for their tireless work as members of my committee. They have provided invaluable corrections, advice, and guidance. Paul Moser has worked with me on every step of this dissertation, leading me back from many a rabbit trail or false start. Thomas Carson has at many points sharpened my focus and raised my awareness of competing views. And Blake Dutton, perhaps more than anyone else, is responsible for awakening me to the challenge of skepticism—particularly in regards to religious belief. This thanks should also be extended to David Yandell and James Murphy, both of whom directed me from the early proposal toward what is now the dissertation. David’s long-time friendship and sincere mentorship turned me back toward evidentialism, and it was James Murphy who suggested that fideism is an important foil to evidentialism. Additionally, I would like to thank J.D. Trout, whose guidance on my Master’s thesis has displayed itself in surprising ways in this dissertation, and also to Andrew Cutrofello, who helped me clarify (via Kant) what it means to have evidence for a religious proposition. iii I would like to thank Drs. Dina Berger and Jessica Horowitz, along with the respective participants, for their mentoring and coaching through the dissertation bootcamps in 2011 and 2012. Thanks to Kristina Grob for advising me on the technical aspects of dissertation formatting. Alfredo McLaughlin encouraged me through many a medium, including the most amusing series of SMS messages I have ever received. Thanks to the amiable staff of Caribou Coffee in Glenview. The supply of caffeine and good humor daily fortified me for writing, and all that coffee still cost less than a good therapist. And thanks to Hewlett Packard and my colleagues there for the measure of flexibility given me in the name of this dissertation. My family relinquished their claims to my time on too many occasions to count. That is a debt that I will never be able to repay, and it is a profound lesson in grace and in love. Thanks to Angie, Annabelle, Claire, and Katherine for loving me enough to love my work. Thanks to Jon and Jane Hodge, Paul and Paula Butcher, Wes Munsil and Janet Seibert, Joanna and Chris Jones, Ryan Butcher, Dorothy Lesiw, Kristy Potter, and to Amanda Grace, all of whom put up with more philosophy than any non-philosopher ever ought. Thanks to our Tuesday small group, the table group, and the Saturday men’s Bible study. I am so blessed to be surrounded by such encouragement. Dr. Walter Lesiw, my grandfather, inspired my love of knowledge. My uncle Cliff Potter instilled in me a love of wisdom. Both passed away during the writing of this dissertation, but the influence of each is apparent to me on every page. When I too have crossed the bar, we three shall have a laugh at what we here iv thought were knowledge and wisdom. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii CHAPTER ONE: RATIONALITY, BELIEF, AND FAITH 1 Job 1 Introduction 4 Overview 8 Rationality 11 A Model of Rationality 13 Obligation 23 Belief 25 Doxastic Voluntarism and Fideism 32 Believing In and Believing That 46 Faith 49 Bishop’s Seven Models of Faith 50 Entitlement 65 Fideism 70 Conclusion 75 CHAPTER TWO: RATIONAL FIDEISM 77 Introduction 77 Rationality 80 The Failure of Reason 86 The Limitations of Reason 87 The Effect of Sin on Reason 94 The Impact 99 Faith 102 Biblical Faith 103 Faith as a Capacity 106 Fideism and Responsible Fideism 110 Epistemic Justification and Knowledge 114 Warrant and Knowledge 121 Responsible Fideism 125 Three Questions 129 What is the Role of Defeaters? 130 Defeaters 131 What Defeats What? 134 If Knowledge is External, How Can It Depend on Faith? 140 Knowledge, Warrant, and Justification 140 Externalism 142 The Result 147 Should We Really Side with Faith Over Reason? 148 Conclusion 154 vi CHAPTER THREE: FAITH AS VENTURE 158 Introduction 158 Clarifications 161 Entitlement Refined 164 The Evidential Ambiguity Thesis 169 Does the Evidential Ambiguity Thesis Hold? 171 Epistemic and Moral Rationality 178 Privileging Moral Obligation 179 The Moral-Epistemic Link Principle 186 Supra-evidential Fideism 190 Faith 191 Doxastic and Sub-doxastic Ventures 194 Framing Principles 202 Theses (J) and (J+) 207 Thesis (J): Permissibility of Doxastic Ventures 209 Thesis (J+): Morally Moral Permissibility 212 Abraham's Doxastic Ventures 217 The Problem of the Problem of Evil 219 Is Faith a Bad Guide? 222 Is Fideism Preferable? 228 Conclusion 230 CHAPTER FOUR: EVIDENTIALISM AND FAITH 233 Introduction 233 Doubt and Skepticism 236 Entitlement and the Skeptic 238 Is Evidentialism Defeated? 245 Moderate Evidentialism 245 Evans's Claims Against Evidentialism 253 Cognitive Limitations and Inference 254 Cognitive Limitations and Sinfulness as Defeaters 258 Rational Conflict, Selfishness, and Cognitive Limitations 259 Bishop's Claims Against Evidentialism 261 The Fideist's God 271 A Robust Notion of Evidence 277 Private Evidence 281 Evidence and God 284 Disconfirming Evidence 292 A Further Challenge from Bishop 294 Conclusion 296 Future Directions 298 REFERENCE LIST 301 VITA 307 vii CHAPTER ONE RATIONALITY, BELIEF, AND FAITH Job The ancient Hebrew epic poem Job, written perhaps in the tenth century BCE, tells of Job's suffering and lamentations during the testing of his faith.1 Early in the story, Job loses assets, family members, and his own health.2 As the plot unfolds, Job exchanges several verbal volleys with three of his friends, each of whom attempts to explain why God would allow such devastation to befall Job.3 Yet none gives an answer that Job finds satisfactory. Job expresses the locus of his frustration with the explanations of his friends. Surely there is a mine for silver, and a place where gold is refined. Iron is taken from the ground, and rock is poured out as copper. Man puts an end to the darkness; he searches the farthest recesses for the ore in the deepest darkness. Far from where people live he sinks a shaft in places travelers have long forgotten, far from other people he dangles and sways.... He has cut out channels through the rocks; 1 For possible dates, and the myriad complications in accurately dating the book of Job, see Norman C. Habel's The Book of Job, 40-42. 2 Job 1:13-2:10. All biblical quotations are from the New English Translation (NET) Bible, 1st Edition. 3 Elihu, the fourth friend, has not yet appeared by chapter 28. Elihu's first speech is in chapter 32. 1 2 his eyes have spotted every precious thing. He has searched the sources of the rivers and what was hidden he has brought into the light. But wisdom—where can it be found? Where is the place of understanding? Mankind does not know its place; it cannot be found in the land of the living.4 Mining is Job's chosen image of seeking what is precious. In this poem he lists several techniques for locating and extracting precious gems and minerals. Look at the extent, says Job, to which humankind has developed a technology for finding hidden things of value. Yet wisdom and understanding, whose value is immeasurable, remain elusive. Job wants insight into his present circumstances. When God speaks to Job, enlightenment is not on the agenda.5 To the fideist, Job may be seen as a sort of epic hero.6 Here is the fideist's take on the story: Job confronts the quandary of understanding the divine. Humankind, notes Job in his rumination on mining, has made laudable progress in the realms of science and industry. Much has been learned, much has been gained. But when confronting the problems of a divine nature, human capabilities have fallen short. There is a lacuna, a mandatory lacuna, that cannot be bridged 4 Job 28:1-4, 12-13. 5 Steven M. Cahn points out that the odd thing about the story is that the reader does have insight into the reason for Job's suffering—the explanation is found in Job 1 (Cahn 2006, 31-33). The point of Job, argues Cahn, clearly is not that humans cannot understand God's motivations, for we are told his motivations. 6 For more on Job as an epic hero in the tradition of Sumerian, Hebrew, and Babylonian folklore, see Habel 1985, 35-40. 3 by human understanding.7 The fideist extracts the following moral from the story of Job: The solution is to overcome this limitation with faith.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking Fideism Through the Lens of Wittgenstein's Engineering Outlook
    University of Dayton eCommons Religious Studies Faculty Publications Department of Religious Studies 2012 Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook Brad Kallenberg University of Dayton, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/rel_fac_pub Part of the Catholic Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons eCommons Citation Kallenberg, Brad, "Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook" (2012). Religious Studies Faculty Publications. 82. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/rel_fac_pub/82 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Religious Studies at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Religious Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Note: This is the accepted manuscript for the following article: Kallenberg, Brad J. “Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 71, no. 1 (2012): 55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11153-011-9327-0 Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook Brad J. Kallenberg University of Dayton, 2011 In an otherwise superbly edited compilation of student notes from Wittgenstein’s 1939 Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cora Diamond makes an false step that reveals to us our own tendencies to misread Wittgenstein. The student notes she collated attributed the following remark to a student named Watson: “The point is that these [data] tables do not by themselves determine that one builds the bridge in this way: only the tables together with certain scientific theory determine that.”1 But Diamond thinks this a mistake, presuming instead to change the manuscript and put these words into the mouth of Wittgenstein.
    [Show full text]
  • Friedrich Nietzche on the Way of Recurrence to Oneself
    Friedrich Nietzche on the Way of Recurrence to Oneself Natalya Shelkovaia 1 Instead of a Preface1 In a very difficult period of my life, short thoughts and aphorisms about the nature of a person and the world began to come to my mind. At first, I wrote them down on sheets of paper, then I got a big notebook, which eventually grew into a big book. While composing this “Diary of Thoughts” at some point the name “The Way of Recurrence to Oneself” occurred to me. Later, when I read works by the mystics, I noticed that “recurrence to oneself” was the goal of a mystical spiritual action. And more recently, carefully reading Friedrich Nietzsche’s works and working on them, I noticed again that for Nietzsche “re- currence to oneself” has been the aim of spiritual practice: “Lonely one, you go the way to yourself!”2 Only “recurring” to oneself can one be considered, accord- ing to Nietzsche, a super-human, a new person. Although, based on the idea of eternal recurrence, rooted in antiquity and reanimated by Nietzsche, the new person is only a regenerated, primordial one. And what is interesting: those works about Nietzsche, which seemed the most appealing and close to me in spirit, were, rather, not studies of his work, not “works about Nietzsche,” but “co-thinking, co-feeling with Nietzsche.” This implies similarity between their authors’ “vital world” (Lebenswelt) and that of Nietzsche. I saw this in Lev Shestov’s article, “The Good in the Teaching of Count Tolstoy and Friedrich Nietzsche,”3 in Andrei Bely’s article “Friedrich Nietzsche,”4 in the article by Vladimir N.
    [Show full text]
  • Seven Atheisms
    SEVEN ATHEISMS Andrew Walker SEVEN ATHEISMS Exploring the varieties of atheism in John Gray’s book Seven Types of Atheism Andrew Walker Emeritus Professor of Theology, Culture and Education, King’s College London Christian Evidence Society christianevidence.org Text copyright © Andrew Walker 2019 Published by the Christian Evidence Society, London, 2019 christianevidence.com All rights reserved Editing and design: Simon Jenkins Cover photograph by PhotoDu.de / CreativeDomainPhotography.com. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license Contents Introduction 5 The seven atheisms 19th century atheism 6 Secular humanism 8 Science as religion 12 Modern politicial religion 15 God-haters 18 Atheism without progress 22 The atheism of silence 25 Conclusion 27 Index 30 Introduction John Gray’s Seven Types of Atheism (Allen Lane, 2018) is an important book for both religious and non-religious readers. John Gray, who describes himself as an atheist, is nevertheless critical of most versions of atheism. His attitude to atheism is the same as his attitude to certain types of religion. This attitude is predicated upon Gray’s conviction that human beings are intrinsically dissatisfied and unpredictable creatures who can never get along with each other for any length of time. His view is based on a reading of human nature that sails close to the wind of the Christian concept of original sin, and is out of step with most modern forms of atheism. In particular, Gray is allergic to any forms of cultural progress in human behaviour especially if they are couched in positivistic or evolutionary terms. 5 ATHEISM 1 19th century atheism Gray sets out his stall in his first chapter, ‘The New Atheism: A Nineteenth- century Orthodoxy’.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge
    ....... CONJECTURES sense similar to that in which processes or things may be said to be parts of the world; that the world consists of facts in a sense in which it may be said to consist of (four dimensional) processes or of (three dimensional) things. They believe that, just as certain nouns are names of things, sentences are names of facts. And they sometimes even believe that sentences are some- thing like pictures of facts, or that they are projections of facts.7 But all this is mistaken. The fact that there is no elephant in this room is not one of the processes or parts ofthe world; nor is the fact that a hailstorm in Newfound- 10 land occurred exactIy I I I years after a tree collapsed in the New Zealand bush. Facts are something like a common product oflanguage and reality; they are reality pinned down by descriptive statements. They are like abstracts from TRUTH, RATIONALITY, AND THE a book, made in a language which is different from that of the original, and determined not only by the original book but nearly as much by the principles GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE of selection and by other methods of abstracting, and by the means of which the new language disposes. New linguistic means not only help us to describe 1. THE GROWTH OF KNOWLEDGE: THEORIES AND PROBLEMS new kinds of facts; in a way, they even create new kinds of facts. In a certain sense, these facts obviously existed before the new means were created which I were indispensable for their description; I say, 'obviously' because a calcula- tion, for example, ofthe movements of the planet Mercury of 100 years ago, MY aim in this lecture is to stress the significance of one particular aspect of carried out today with the help of the calculus of the theory of relativity, may science-its need to grow, or, if you like, its need to progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Developments in Neuroscience and Human Freedom: Some Theological and Philosophical Questions
    S & CB (2003), 16, 123–137 0954–4194 ALAN TORRANCE Developments in Neuroscience and Human Freedom: Some Theological and Philosophical Questions Christianity suggests that human beings are free and responsible agents. Developments in neuroscience challenge this when wedded with two ‘fideisms’: ‘naturalism’ and ‘nomological monism’ (causality applies exclusively to basic particles). The wedding of Galen Strawson’s denial that anything can be a cause of itself with a physicalist account of brain states highlights the problem neuroscience poses for human freedom. If physicalism is inherently reductionistic (Kim) and dualism struggles to make sense of developments in neuroscience, Cartwright’s pluralist account of causality may offer a way forward. It integrates with thinking about the person from a Christian epistemic base and facilitates response to Strawson. Key Words: God, person, neuroscience, freedom, naturalism, nomological monism, physicalism, dualism, causality. Five years ago, the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, hosted a conference on ‘Neuroscience and the Human Spirit’. In his opening address, the organiser, Dr Frederick Goodwin, asked whether developments in the field do not pose a challenge to the ‘very foundation upon which our civilization rests’, namely, ‘free will and the capacity to make moral choices?’ The question I am seeking to address here raises the same issue with respect to the grounds of the Christian understanding of its message and, indeed, of what it is to be a person. In the light of recent advances in understanding the physical workings of our neural substrate, the electrochemical nature of cerebral processing and so on, does it still make sense to conceive of our minds as the free cause of our actions and the conscious centre of human life? So much suggests that the workings of our minds require to be construed in radically physical and, apparently, imper- sonal terms – as a complex causal series of synaptic firings and the like.
    [Show full text]
  • Reformed Epistemology
    Reformed Epistemology Matthew Jacoby Bertrand Russell, the famous twentieth century philosopher, sceptic, and atheist, was once asked what he would do if he died and it turned out that God did exist after all. What would he say to God who would now call him to account for not believing? His answer was simple: "not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!" Certainly many people feel the same way. They feel that they could not be held accountable for believing something that is not perceptually obvious or logically necessary. How can God hide so irretrievably from the senses of mankind and then hold us accountable for not believing in his existence? Another famous atheist, W. K. Clifford, went further than this. Working on a Kantian model for rationality and ethics Clifford insisted that, in the absence of evidence, belief in the existence of God is not only irrational but also immoral. The Christian is confronted here by a serious challenge. The challenge is to show that belief in God is rational and specifically by producing evidence. Now in most cases Christians will respond to this by immediately summoning up in their minds all the available evidence for God's existence that they feel is at least persuasive enough to give them a few moments of credibility. And this is very often how Christians deal with the situation precisely because they feel that almost everything in life is proof that God exists. But the Christian quickly realises that what is so evident to him or her is not at all obvious to the objector.
    [Show full text]
  • Should You Believe What You Hear?
    Should You Believe What You Hear? Dr. Allan Hazlett Much of what we think about the world we believe on the basis of what other people say. But is this trust in other people's testimony justified? This week, we’ll investigate how this question was addressed by two great philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, David Hume (1711 - 1776) and Thomas Reid (1710 - 1796). Hume and Reid's dispute about testimony represents a clash between two worldviews that would continue to clash for centuries: a skeptical and often secular worldview, eager to question everything (represented by Hume), and conservative and often religious worldview, keen to defend common sense (represented by Reid). Part One - Introduction: Hume on Testimony and Miracles Testimony and believing what others tell you. Enlightenment 1700-1800 Intellectual autonomy Hume – Essays on Miracles “there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men” What is distinctive of "naturalistic" approaches to philosophy? (Select all that apply.) No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of Nature. No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of supernatural phenomena No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of God No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of human societies. Never believe a miracle based upon testimony Assumption of testimony: You have to have evidence that the person is speaking is likely to be right. Evidentialism – “A wise man…proportions his belief to the evidence.” Which of the following captures Hume's assumption about basing beliefs on testimony? To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have independent evidence that testimony is true.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dispositional, Internalist, Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology
    This is a repository copy of A Dispositional, Internalist, Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/94260/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Byerly, T.R. (2014) A Dispositional, Internalist, Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology. Logos and Episteme : an International Journal of Epistemology, V (4). pp. 399-424. ISSN 2069-3052 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ A Dispositional Internalist Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology This paper articulates and defends a novel version of internalist evidentialism which employs dispositions to account for the relation of evidential support. In section one, I explain internalist evidentialist views generally, highlighting the way in which the relation of evidential support stands at the heart of these views. I then discuss two leading ways in which evidential support has been understood by evidentialists, and argue that an account of support which employs what I call epistemic dispositions remedies difficulties arguably faced by these two leading accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revelation of God, East and West: Contrasting Special Revelation in Western Modernity with the Ancient Christian East
    Open Theology 2017; 3: 565–589 Analytic Perspectives on Method and Authority in Theology Nathan A. Jacobs* The Revelation of God, East and West: Contrasting Special Revelation in Western Modernity with the Ancient Christian East https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2017-0043 Received August 11, 2017; accepted September 11, 2017 Abstract: The questions of whether God reveals himself; if so, how we can know a purported revelation is authentic; and how such revelations relate to the insights of reason are discussed by John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, G. W. Leibniz, and Immanuel Kant, to name a few. Yet, what these philosophers say with such consistency about revelation stands in stark contrast with the claims of the Christian East, which are equally consistent from the second century through the fourteenth century. In this essay, I will compare the modern discussion of special revelation from Thomas Hobbes through Johann Fichte with the Eastern Christian discussion from Irenaeus through Gregory Palamas. As we will see, there are noteworthy differences between the two trajectories, differences I will suggest merit careful consideration from philosophers of religion. Keywords: Religious Epistemology; Revelation; Divine Vision; Theosis; Eastern Orthodox; Locke; Hobbes; Lessing; Kant; Fichte; Irenaeus; Cappadocians; Cyril of Alexandria; Gregory Palamas The idea that God speaks to humanity, revealing things hidden or making his will known, comes under careful scrutiny in modern philosophy. The questions of whether God does reveal himself; if so, how we can know a purported revelation is authentic; and how such revelations relate to the insights of reason are discussed by John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, G.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Doctrine of Religion As Political Philosophy
    Kant's Doctrine of Religion as Political Philosophy Author: Phillip David Wodzinski Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/987 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2009 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Department of Political Science KANT’S DOCTRINE OF RELIGION AS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY a dissertation by PHILLIP WODZINSKI submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2009 © copyright by PHILLIP DAVID WODZINSKI 2009 ABSTRACT Kant’s Doctrine of Religion as Political Philosophy Phillip Wodzinski Advisor: Susan Shell, Ph.D. Through a close reading of Immanuel Kant’s late book, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, the dissertation clarifies the political element in Kant’s doctrine of religion and so contributes to a wider conception of his political philosophy. Kant’s political philosophy of religion, in addition to extending and further animating his moral doctrine, interprets religion in such a way as to give the Christian faith a moral grounding that will make possible, and even be an agent of, the improvement of social and political life. The dissertation emphasizes the wholeness and structure of Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as a book, for the teaching of the book is not exhausted by the articulation of its doctrine but also includes both the fact and the manner of its expression: the reader learns most fully from Kant by giving attention to the structure and tone of the book as well as to its stated content and argumentation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demarcation Problem
    Part I The Demarcation Problem 25 Chapter 1 Popper’s Falsifiability Criterion 1.1 Popper’s Falsifiability Popper’s Problem : To distinguish between science and pseudo-science (astronomy vs astrology) - Important distinction: truth is not the issue – some theories are sci- entific and false, and some may be unscientific but true. - Traditional but unsatisfactory answers: empirical method - Popper’s targets: Marx, Freud, Adler Popper’s thesis : Falsifiability – the theory contains claims which could be proved to be false. Characteristics of Pseudo-Science : unfalsifiable - Any phenomenon can be interpreted in terms of the pseudo-scientific theory “Whatever happened always confirmed it” (5) - Example: man drowning vs saving a child Characteristics of Science : falsifiability - A scientific theory is always takes risks concerning the empirical ob- servations. It contains the possibility of being falsified. There is con- firmation only when there is failure to refute. 27 28 CHAPTER 1. POPPER’S FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION “The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation” (6) - Example: Einstein 1919 1.2 Kuhn’s criticism of Popper Kuhn’s Criticism of Popper : Popper’s falsifiability criterion fails to char- acterize science as it is actually practiced. His criticism at best applies to revolutionary periods of the history of science. Another criterion must be given for normal science. Kuhn’s argument : - Kuhn’s distinction between normal science and revolutionary science - A lesson from the history of science: most science is normal science. Accordingly, philosophy of science should focus on normal science. And any satisfactory demarcation criterion must apply to normal science. - Popper’s falsifiability criterion at best only applies to revolutionary science, not to normal science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Certainty in Wittgenstein's On
    THE NATURE OF CERTAINTY IN WITTGENSTEIN’S ON CERTAINTY THE NATURE OF CERTAINTY IN WITTGENSTEIN’S ON CERTAINTY By COLIN MCQUAID, B.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts McMaster University © Copyright by Colin McQuaid, March 2012 McMaster University MASTER OF ARTS (2012) Hamilton, Ontario (Philosophy) TITLE: The Nature of Certainty in Wittgenstein’s On Certainty AUTHOR: Colin McQuaid, B.A. (UNBSJ) SUPERVISOR: Professor Ric Arthur NUMBER OF PAGES: iv, 92 ii Abstract In this thesis I examine the concept of certainty in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, with a focus on the collection of remarks entitled On Certainty. In the first part I examine two essays of G.E. Moore that initiated Wittgenstein’s discussion of certainty and critique of Moore’s two essays. As I show, Wittgenstein believes that Moore misunderstood the use of the expression of I know in relation to the propositions of common sense. Instead, Wittgenstein believes that the common sense propositions stand for a certainty that belongs to the language-game itself, a certainty that stands fast for everyone who participates in the language-game, like hinges on which the rest of our knowledge and doubt turn. The rest of my thesis is spent examining three different interpretations of this notion of hinge certainty. The first is hinges as presuppositions to combat skeptical arguments, offered by the philosophers Crispin Wright and H.J. Glock. The second is that hinges are Wittgenstein’s version of foundationalism, serving as the foundational framework of human language, a notion primarily advocated by the philosophers Avrum Stroll and Danièle Moyal-Sharrock.
    [Show full text]