N
nebula
Guest
I hope I’m not beating a dead horse here with our Mormon friends, but this is a topic that I have revisited since having read an interesting and educated Sunstone article on this very topic. The article, written by a PhD student, applies the theory of social knowledge to religious knowledge. Social knowledge theory basically says that to claim to know something is a special claim because by saying ‘know’ we claim a certain level of respectability to our claim. The things we ‘know’ we know not because of some standard of object evidence, there is no such thing, but rather has everything to do with the groups we run around in. The problem is, the theory goes, that evidence is socially conditioned. For example, the author claims that there is evidence that can be construed for and against the authenticity of The Book of Mormon. Non Mormons do not find the evidence the least bit convincing and focus on the evidence against, Mormons find the evidence for overwhelming and think the evidence against scanty.
Let me preface my critique by stating I think this article hits some important points. It is true none of us are completely objective; only God is. We all have biases that effect how we perceive these cases. But there is a fatal flaw in accepting the social theory of knowledge hook, line and sinker as a means of neutralizing the apologetic debates and avoiding the mess: how does anyone ‘know’ that the social theory of knowledge is a good idea?? According to the social theory of knowledge the only reason the author in question accepts it is because he runs in circles that thinks it’s a good idea-- and there is NO way to evaluate it in any objective manner. Therefore we can dismiss it at the outset by its own standards! Oops.
I submit to you that there are matters of objective reality that we can access, even if in an ultimately limited manner, and therefore we ought to evaluate claims of ultimate importance by recognizing our biases at the outset and attempting, as best as we can, to work around them. For example, there is no circle of people on earth who thinks jumping off a cliff is a good idea. Is it safe to assume then that even if you try to get a group together of insane people who claim to know that they can fly off of cliffs that they can’t really know that? That is, we can evaluate their reasoning and declare it insufficient or twisted at some point- in fact it must be. Surely cases of religious knowledge, claims about ultimate reality are going to be difficult because we are finite creatures trying to comprehend the infinite and will therefore always have a limited perspective, but that cannot neutralize the fact that there is at least a more right, and a more wrong, way to view things.
I bring this up because I know that in my conversations on this board, as well as with many other intellectual Mormons who I know, taking a relativistic approach to epistemology is a common way to approach things. The fact that so many Mormons would so quickly do this, as I once did, is reason enough for me to suspect that reflective Mormons know their truth claims are not so easy to defend.
Let me preface my critique by stating I think this article hits some important points. It is true none of us are completely objective; only God is. We all have biases that effect how we perceive these cases. But there is a fatal flaw in accepting the social theory of knowledge hook, line and sinker as a means of neutralizing the apologetic debates and avoiding the mess: how does anyone ‘know’ that the social theory of knowledge is a good idea?? According to the social theory of knowledge the only reason the author in question accepts it is because he runs in circles that thinks it’s a good idea-- and there is NO way to evaluate it in any objective manner. Therefore we can dismiss it at the outset by its own standards! Oops.
I submit to you that there are matters of objective reality that we can access, even if in an ultimately limited manner, and therefore we ought to evaluate claims of ultimate importance by recognizing our biases at the outset and attempting, as best as we can, to work around them. For example, there is no circle of people on earth who thinks jumping off a cliff is a good idea. Is it safe to assume then that even if you try to get a group together of insane people who claim to know that they can fly off of cliffs that they can’t really know that? That is, we can evaluate their reasoning and declare it insufficient or twisted at some point- in fact it must be. Surely cases of religious knowledge, claims about ultimate reality are going to be difficult because we are finite creatures trying to comprehend the infinite and will therefore always have a limited perspective, but that cannot neutralize the fact that there is at least a more right, and a more wrong, way to view things.
I bring this up because I know that in my conversations on this board, as well as with many other intellectual Mormons who I know, taking a relativistic approach to epistemology is a common way to approach things. The fact that so many Mormons would so quickly do this, as I once did, is reason enough for me to suspect that reflective Mormons know their truth claims are not so easy to defend.
