Module 1 link: https://uncg.instructure.com/courses/18203/files/832527?module_item_id=280000

What are the canons of epistemic rationality and how can they be employed in rational theology? How does epistemic rationality differ from prudential or practical rationality? How might one rationally believe in the existence of God for prudential or practical reasons? How might one rationally believe in the existence of God for epistemic reasons? What is the essential difference between these two cases?

     As someone who has a strong interest in semantics (basically the "meaning of words"), I foresee a real challenge in dealing with some of the terminology of philosophy, and will be compelled at times to comment within that context. Being a self-professed "word-nerd", I will not be able to resist- but my intentions are good: I only hope to make these terms clearer for myself, and hopefully others.

     "Canons of epistemic rationality" for example- an impressive string of syllables that sounds quite important. But what does it mean? First, one has to break it down- a canon is a "general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged". Epistemic is "relating to the study or theory of various aspects of knowledge". Finally, rationality is the "quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason". Fine. While the individual definitions alone cannot give the full meaning of the phrase, at least we're in the ballpark. "Canons of epistemic rationality" becomes, for me at least, the "methods by which we evaluate our knowledge (or evidence) in a factual manner".

     And therefore, the phrase now makes more sense to me, as does how these canons might apply to rational theology (a fact-based analysis of the existence of God). These methods, to paraphrase our text The Divine Attributes (Hoffman and Rosenkrantz 1), are the laws of logic (the most important component) together with other facets of our reasoning such as introspection (our inner analytical processes), perception (our senses), and memory (retaining what we learn). Philosophy seems very much about breaking mental processes down into their smallest parts- it's the physics of thought, you might say.

     How do you utilize logic in a study of God? I'm sure we'll learn a number of examples as the course proceeds, but I can see mathematics as being useful. With numbers, we can prove what seems an impossibility- infinity. (There are actually infinities of infinities). I can intuit a connection between infinity and omniscience. Given infinite time, wouldn't an immortal being learn everything? (And does that mean we all could become omniscient?)

     Using logic and our mental powers to try and determine the existence of God might sound a little odd to those who have been advised by their churches to take His reality on faith alone. But shouldn't we examine these beliefs that have been such a major part of world culture? (People used to take it on faith that the world was flat). Why have religious leaders often been so opposed to science and logic? Maybe because they were afraid that their "Gods" wouldn't hold up to too much scrutiny...

     Epistemic rationality is a more pure quest for knowledge than practical rationality- the former seeks truth and logic above all other considerations in approaching a belief in God, while the latter isn't as concerned with all the hair-splitting, as it were. A practical potential believer in God has perhaps observed that many of his family, friends, and associates believe, and seem to be happy and successful as a result- so he joins them in their belief for that reason. It's more mundane; not everybody can walk around with their head in the clouds. (Some people go to church for the business connections they can make, so it's all relative). An epistemic believer by contrast has delved into the matter of God's existence quite deeply, and decided through logic and deduction that it behooves him to believe- the numbers add up, and it would be foolish not to believe. (I assume there could be epistemic or practical atheists too, correct?)

     It would seem that "defining or analyzing the nature of God" (4) is what separates the epistemologists from the pragmatists. I think I know which team I like better...

 

Work Cited

Hoffman, Joshua, and Gary S. Rosenkrantz. The Divine Attributes. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Print.