God, religion, faith, and epistemology -- which one does not fit? The answer is epistemology -- the study and analysis of 'knowledge', and particularly 'good knowledge'.
Since the beginning of science, and then the Enlightenment period of philosophy, epistemology -- and the quest for good, solid, credible, reliable knowledge -- has generally been equated with what we will call here 'rational-empiricism', or alternatively, 'empirical-rationalism'.
What is rational-empiricism? Rational-empiricism, or alternatively, empirical-rationalism is not a term that you are likely to find in the philosophical literature. At least I have not bumped into it and I have been studying philosophy for a while now. ...
I just made a major rational-empiricist blunder and at the risk of looking foolish hee, I am willing to confess up to it in the name of teaching, and what I am attempting to accomplish here. I didn't check and verify my assumption regarding the non-existence of the term rational empricism -- or rather I did -- but after I had already started to write this essay and committed myself to a particular line of thought. (Always check and verify before you declare something to be true or not true and then look silly for not have checked.) Now my previous line of thought will have to be modified to take into account already existing philosophy -- which is no big deal. Modification is a critically important part of evolution. We do not need to re-invent the wheel here; just perhaps build a better one through modification. This is '(multi-)dialectical evolution' in process.
The term 'rational empiricism' (without the hyphen) does indeed exist in the philosophy literature, and furthermore, it has exactly the meaning -- at least on the internet where I found it -- that I wanted it to have. So rather than create the definition and description myself, I will defer to an already existing definition and description that I found very easily on the internet and will repeat right here:
.....................................................................................
Rational Empiricism
and the Scientific Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rational Empiricism
Even though historically it appears to have other meanings, I (Paul Antonik Wakfer) will use the term rational empiricism for the name of the epistemological method which is the foundation of all current knowledge and continuing knowledge advances in science, technology and philosophy. The methods of rational empiricism have been honed over millenia to their current state of refinement, yet these methods are not a finished product; they continue to evolve, and to be further refined in order to achieve greater efficacy as an aid to human understanding of reality and to the security that such understanding is really valid. However in spite of millenia of refinement, the methods of rational empiricism are still not too complex for most humans to understand, for they are, in fact, nothing more than the rational processing by the human brain of the data of experience (the sensory input to the body) for the purpose of understanding the organization, order and predictability of reality. Both the sensory input and the rational processing have been aided increasingly by the machines which have been created for that purpose. Formally, rational empiricism is a subset of rational thought (the logical integration of the evidence of one's senses into the mind's model of reality and the resulting evaluations, conclusions and decisions) of which the ultimate purpose is to maximize one's lifetime happiness.
.....................................................................................
Thus, the three main ideas connected with rational empiricism here are: 1. reason supported by; 2. our senses with the purpose of; 3. maximizing our personal lifetime happiness. Point 3. technically does not, or should not, belong to the definition of rational empiricism because it brings in an assumption that arguably lies outside of the strict realm of rational empiricism -- and that is the realm of ethics and the 'is-ought' gap. However, I have no problem connecting rational empiricism to humanism - 'the pursuit of happiness' -- and our founding Enlightenment fathers (Jefferson, Tom Paine, et al...) because I have found no better ethical alternative.
You will see a lot of hyphenated words in the type of philosophy that I am trumpeting here -- 'rational-empiricism', 'humanistic-existentialism', 'humanistic-capitalism', 'liberal-conservatism' or 'conservative-liberalism' -- becaue these are all outcomes of 'dialectical integration process'.
Two polar concepts, perspectives, philosophies, lifestyles...facing off against each other, assertively and competively, then empathetically and compatibly, resulting in mutual harmony rather than mutual rejection, a place reached integratively through creative imagination and negotiation, a place of better 'homeostatic balance' than either of the two polar concepts, perspectives, philosophies and/or lifestyles could achieve in and by themselves. This is dialectical negotiation, integration, evolution, and harmony or homeostatic balance. The more hyphenated words that you have, the more you are delving into 'multi-dialectics.
Who integrated God and Nature? Spinoza. However, Spinoza's religion, which we now call 'pantheism', is no more 'rationally empirical' than any form of orthodox religion. Why? Because an epistemological belief in God and religion require 'faith' and faith -- at least in any extended degree -- is not compatible with rational-empiricism.
Science is built on rational-empiricism. Our police enforcement and courts are built on rational empiricism -- at least when they are working well. Same with politics when it is working well. There is no room for extended amounts of faith in rational empiricism (except perhaps for faith in rational empiricism). Religion requires extended amounts of faith -- 'epistemological faith' relative to things that most people would not normally believe, or believe strongly without questioning. Thus, religion and rational empirical epistemology, are for the most part, incompatible, and at odds with each other. This is why I view all relgions and all views of God -- as 'myths'. Not necessarily bad because some myths can have good consequences on people's lives. But epistemologically bad because too much (religious) epistemological faith generally results in bad -- or wrong -- epistemology. Thus, all religions and all views of God should be viewed as myths and not as 'epistemological truths'. Treating religions as epistemological truths, and then worse, bringing these alleged religious epistemological truths into politics or a court of law is downright dangerous.
Politics and law should be run by 'good rational-empirical epistemology' and 'humanistic(compassionate)-existential(accountable) ethics'. A religion should be judged by its ethics; not the reverse. To bring unscrutinized religious epistemology and/or ethics into a court of law or into politics is a disaster waiting to happen. This is why our founding Enlightenment fathers clearly separated these totally different realms of human activity. American politics -- particularly among Republican factions -- seems intent of re-uniting what shouldn't be re-united. Religious epistemology (and for that matter, ethics too) -- based on a high degree of faith, trust, authority, and 'suspension of disbelief' -- is prone to pathology because it is not sufficiently scrutinzed on rational-empirical and humanistic-existential grounds. Keep religion out of politics and see all religions for what they are -- different breands of 'better' and 'worse' myths.
db, Sept. 2nd, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment