Posts
I found Mason's discussion about the history of knowledge and understanding in regards to religion (specifically Christianity) very provocative. I think it is very beneficial to look back and see how the theories of understanding and the theories of knowledge have evolved from then until now. He says that belief was "viewed in terms of content," that beliefs mattered, had relevant support, were legitimate, subjective and meaningful because of the distinction between "genuine and spurious beliefs." (41-42) I agreed with him about most of them, except that religious beliefs are subjective. I went to Catholic school for 13 years and in my religion classes, these beliefs were not subjective at all. They had little to do with personal experience and I had very little right to believe only some or none of the teachings. There was not really a choice involved. I believed all or nothing. Mason says that the point of this religious method was to "enable me to ask, of any belief: Why should I accept that?" and this is where I started to lose him in his argument. It would seem likely that we should always be able to question why we believe something, but I'm not sure how that connect directly with understanding. I'm not sure if Mason is suggesting that understanding comes from questioning our beliefs or our beliefs stem from questioning our understanding of something.
As for the major point of the chapter-- deciding which comes first or which is more important, understanding or knowledge--it seems like it is eternally doomed to be a chicken-egg question. We have to have knowledge in order to understand something, but intrinsically it is impossible to understand something without having a knowledge of a few basic concepts (e.g. language) first. Perhaps this is not a question that even needs to be answered. Or perhaps Mason is right when he says that we can't push understanding to the back burner because we believe that knowledge has to come first. I suppose I'm left questioning WHY knowing whether understanding or knowledge comes first, or is more important than the other, is so important. How will this help us create a theory of understanding or a theory of knowledge?
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
I also do not agree with Mason's assertion that religious beliefs are subjective. If they are subjective, then why does the Catholic church have a creed that outlines exactly what someone must believe to call themself a Catholic? It seems to me that supplying people with a set of beliefs to uphold leaves little room for personal experience.
ReplyDeleteBut I did find his exploration of the connection between religion and the history of knowledge incredibly interesting. In another class that I'm taking we are talking about how Eastern religions have vastly different philosophies of mind and consciousness than Western psychology. This led me to wonder how Eastern religions might have shaped the history of knowledge differently than Christianity. I think it would be interesting to consider, and might perhaps lead to a helpful way of thinking about understanding as well.