When to Trust Authoritative Testimony: Generation and Transmission of Knowledge in Saadya Gaon, Al-Ghazālī and Thomas Aquinas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects When to Trust Authoritative Testimony: Generation and Transmission of Knowledge in Saadya Gaon, Al-Ghazālī and Thomas Aquinas Brett A. Yardley Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Yardley, Brett A., "When to Trust Authoritative Testimony: Generation and Transmission of Knowledge in Saadya Gaon, Al-Ghazālī and Thomas Aquinas" (2021). Dissertations (1934 -). 1075. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/1075 WHEN TO TRUST AUTHORITATIVE TESTIMONY: GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF KNOWLEDGE IN SAADYA GAON, AL-GHAZĀLĪ, AND THOMAS AQUINAS By Brett A. Yardley A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University & KULeuven in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin United States of America & Leuven, Flanders, Belgium August 2021 2 ABSTRACT WHEN TO TRUST AUTHORITATIVE TESTIMONY: GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF KNOWLEDGE IN SAADYA GAON, AL-GHAZĀLĪ, AND THOMAS AQUINAS Brett A. Yardley Marquette University & KULeuven, 2021 People have become suspicious of authority, including epistemic authorities, i.e., knowledge experts, even on matters individuals are unqualified to adjudicate (e.g., climate change, vaccines, or the shape and age of the earth). This is problematic since most of our knowledge comes from trusting a speaker—whether scholars reading experts, students listening to teachers, children obeying their parents, or pedestrians inquiring of strangers— such that the knowledge transmitted is rarely personally verified. Despite the recent development of social epistemology and theories of testimony, this is not a new problem. Ancient and Medieval philosophers largely took it for granted that most human knowledge primarily comes from listening to a trustworthy speaker whose virtuous character serves to mitigate against the twin concerns of inaccuracy and dishonesty. Thus, unlike contemporary Social Epistemology, few testimonial theories were explicitly laid out despite the crucial role testimony plays throughout a wide range of topics and teachings. To date, the working theory of testimony underpinning the works of medieval philosophers are just now being codified. This is particularly relevant for the Abrahamic faiths since they originate with testimony from God himself. The goal of this dissertation is to explore how the generation and transmission of religious knowledge (i.e., testimonial theory) appears in an exemplary thinker from each faith: Saadya (Sa'adiah) Gaon of Judaism (882- 942), al-Ghazālī of Islam (1058-1111), and Thomas Aquinas of Christianity (1225-1274). While not contemporaries, these exemplars are theological philosophers who are like- minded in their desire to maintain an orthodox faith while possessing philosophical approaches to truth. Thus, they maintained sophisticated epistemological theories of generation and transmission within their own religious contexts (e.g., revelation, scripture, and prophecy). Cataloguing these medieval testimonial theories reveals a historical incongruity with the current contemporary concept of testimony and its frameworks. Based on the testimonial theories of these three thinkers, I argue for a "transhistorical" concept of testimony that does not presume an evidentialist framework to account for pre-modern theories of testimony which predominantly rely on virtue theoretic frameworks. To test the proposed neutral framework, I offer a virtue epistemological account of testimony in which trust is not an intellectual virtue, but the intellectual aspect of the historic virtue of autonomy. I argue that intellectual autonomy and trust are inversely related in one's interactions with authority (both practical and theoretical). i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Brett A. Yardley I dedicate this project to my family: First and foremost, my wife Beth who has supported and championed me in three cities, at two universities, and across one ocean; my three children, Jethro, Edessa, and Genevieve, who I hope surpass me in every way; my parents, Craig and Shauna, who taught me to value of hard work and education; and finally my sister Nicole, and my wonder aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws, and friends who make our lives a joy. I would also like to thank the many people who have empowered me along the way. My mentors and co-advisors: Richard C. Taylor who has opened more doors for me intellectually and academically than space permits me to detail; and Andrea Robiglio who has guided and connected me with scholars and publishers internationally. I am also indebted to my other committee members: Michael J. Wreen, Owen Goldin, and Sarah Pessin whose commitment to scholarship and direction is a model for emulation. In addition, I would like to thank my many instructors at Marquette University, such as David Twetten, for their time and investment. For their guidance and assistance as the directors of Graduate studies, I would also like to specially thank Theresa Tobin and Sebastian Luft of Marquette and Stein De Cuyper of KULeuven for their daily help and special efforts to make this joint university dissertation a reality. Finally, I would like to thank all the administrators, friends, and colleagues of Marquette University, KULeuven, Keizersberg Abbey, and the Fulbright Commission of Belgium for making it possible for me to study at both institutions. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i CHAPTERS 1.0 INTRODUCTION: AUTHORITY, TRUST, AND THEIR RELATION 1.1 Trusted Authority and the Bootstrapping problem 1 1.2 What is Authority? 10 1.2.1 Practical vs. Epistemic Authority 10 1.2.2 Communal Epistemic Authority 15 1.3 Self-Trust, Blind-Trust, and Virtuous-Trust 20 1.3.1 Closed Rationalism & Self-Trust 21 1.3.2 Rational Fideism & Blind-Trust 26 1.3.3 Open Rationalism & Virtuous-Trust 29 1.3.3.1 Saadya Gaon 34 1.3.3.2 Al-Ghazālī 35 1.3.3.3 Thomas Aquinas 37 1.4 Conclusion: The Nature of Testimony and Revelation 38 2.0 THE INTERSECTION OF SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY AND MEDIEVAL TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE 2.1 Introduction 42 2.2 Brief History of Social Epistemology 43 2.2.1 Standard Framework of Social Epistemology 45 2.2.1.1 Testimony: Transmission vs. Generation of Knowledge 45 2.2.1.2 Testimony: Justification 47 2.3 Historical Assessment of Testimony 50 2.3.1 Testimony in St. Augustine 53 2.3.1.1 C.A.J Coady. 1992: Testimony 53 2.3.1.2 Peter King and Nathan Ballantyne. 2009: "Augustine on Testimony" 54 2.3.1.3 Matthew Siebert. 2018: "Augustine’s Development on Testimonial Knowledge" 57 2.3.2 Testimony in Avicenna & Averroes 60 2.3.2.1 Deborah L. Black. 2013: "Certitude, Justification, and the Principles of Knowledge in Avicenna’s Epistemology" 60 2.3.2.2 Deborah L. Black. 2018. "Avicenna on Knowledge" 62 2.3.2.3 Deborah L. Black. 2018: "Constructing Averroes’ Epistemology" 63 2.3.3 Testimony in Thomas Aquinas 64 2.3.3.1 C.A.J. Coady. 1994: Testimony 64 iii 2.3.3.2 Eleonore Stump. 2014: "Faith, Wisdom, & the Transmission of Knowledge through Testimony" 65 2.3.3.3 Matthew Siebert. 2016: "Aquinas on Testimonial Justification: Faith and Opinion" 68 2.3.3.4 Richard Cross. 2018: "Testimony, Error, and Reasonable Belief in Medieval Religious Epistemology" 71 2.3.4 Testimony in William of Ockham 75 2.3.4.1 Robert Pasnau. 2010: "Medieval Social Epistemology: Scientia for Mere Mortals" 75 2.3.4.2 Jennifer Pelletier. 2018: "William Ockham on Testimonial Knowledge" 76 2.4 Virtue Epistemology’s Contribution to Testimony 77 2.5 Rethinking the Contemporary Categories of Testimony 82 2.5.1 Evaluating Social Epistemology’s relation to other Epistemological Fields 88 3.0 SAADYA GAON'S THEORY OF HUMAN AND DIVINE TESTIMONY 3.1 Introduction 91 3.2 Saadya Gaon and his Milieu 94 3.2.1 Medieval Jewish Communal Authority 94 3.2.2 Saadya’s Account of Knowledge 102 3.3 Testimony in Saadya Gaon 114 3.3.1 Human Testimony 122 3.3.2 Divine Testimony 133 3.4 Conclusion: Testimonial Assessment 143 3.4.1 Is Saadya Gaon an anti-reductionist? 144 3.4.2 Is Saadya Gaon a reductionist? 147 3.4.3 Saadya Gaon's Virtue-Theoretic Account of Testimony 151 4.0 AL-GHAZĀLĪ'S THEORY OF HUMAN AND DIVINE TESTIMONY 4.1 Introduction 156 4.2 al-Ghazālī and his Milieu 159 4.2.1 Medieval Islamic Communal Authority 159 4.2.2 al-Ghazālī’s Account of Knowledge 167 4.3 Testimony in al-Ghazālī 179 4.3.1 Human Testimony 185 4.3.2 Divine Testimony 207 4.4 Conclusion: Testimonial Assessment 218 4.4.1 Is al-Ghazālī an anti-reductionist? 219 4.4.2 Is al-Ghazālī a reductionist? 222 4.4.3 al-Ghazālī's Virtue-Theoretic of Testimony 224 iv 5.0 THOMAS AQUINAS'S THEORY OF HUMAN AND DIVINE TESTIMONY 5.1 Introduction 228 5.2 Thomas and his Milieu 232 5.2.1 Medieval Christian Communal Authority 232 5.2.2 Thomas's Account of Knowledge 241 5.3 Testimony in Thomas 251 5.3.1 Human Testimony 255 5.3.2 Divine Testimony 269 5.4 Conclusion: Testimonial Assessment 288 5.4.1 Is Thomas an anti-reductionist? 288 5.4.2 Is Thomas a reductionist? 291 5.4.3 Thomas's Virtue-Theoretic of Testimony 293 6.0 TOWARD A TRANSHISTORICAL CONCEPT OF TESTIMONY 6.1 Introduction 298 6.2 Testimony as evident vs. evidence 301 6.3 Towards a transhistorical testimonial framework 314 6.4 Accounting for a virtue-theoretic testimonial theory 319 6.4.1 Trust and the Virtue of Intellectual Autonomy 320 6.4.2 Insufficient Autonomy, Excessive Trust 326 6.4.3 Excessive Autonomy, Insufficient Trust 330