Misplaced Pages

Epistemics: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:52, 12 April 2008 editCardinalDan (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,355 editsm Reverted 3 edits by Rdsmarb identified as vandalism to last revision by Atyndall. using TW← Previous edit Revision as of 04:09, 13 April 2008 edit undoSolatido (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,002 edits deleted unpublished materialNext edit →
Line 5: Line 5:
] has defined it as "''the construction of formal models of the processes - perceptual, intellectual, and linguistic - by which knowledge and understanding are achieved and communicated''". ] has defined it as "''the construction of formal models of the processes - perceptual, intellectual, and linguistic - by which knowledge and understanding are achieved and communicated''".


'''Epistemics''' may be understood as the science that deals with the ] mechanics involved in the attainment of knowledge. R. Domenic S. Marbaniang's research on ] dismisses rational and empirical means to ] knowledge. In fact, it shows that both ] and ] separated from each other cannot come to an ultimate understanding of this-worldly-reality. The unitary tendency of rationalism forces it towards monism while the pluralistic tendency of empiricism leads to pluralism, which may further lead to relativism and skepticism of some kind.<br /> '''Epistemics''' may be understood as the science that deals with the ] mechanics involved in the attainment of knowledge.<br />




Line 11: Line 11:


''']''' refers to the ] mechanics involved in coming to some knowledge. While ] refers to the study of knowledge, epistemics goes beyond this to combine psychological and philosophical studies in human knowledge to understand the why and how of epistemic (or knowledge-related) conclusions. Epistemics of Divine Reality refers to the noetic-mechanics involved in coming to a belief in ]. Why do people believe what they believe about God? Are the means employed to knowledge valid or invalid? Such are questions that must be seriously asked.<br /> ''']''' refers to the ] mechanics involved in coming to some knowledge. While ] refers to the study of knowledge, epistemics goes beyond this to combine psychological and philosophical studies in human knowledge to understand the why and how of epistemic (or knowledge-related) conclusions. Epistemics of Divine Reality refers to the noetic-mechanics involved in coming to a belief in ]. Why do people believe what they believe about God? Are the means employed to knowledge valid or invalid? Such are questions that must be seriously asked.<br />

R. Domenic Savio Marbaniang, ] and professor in ], challenges the classical suppositions that God or 'Ultimate Reality' can be known by means of either reason or experience. Referring to ], ], and the Indian philosopher ], he establishes the emptiness of ] when it tries to rationalize reality by ultimately negating all experience. Such ] ultimately tends to ] or ]. ], on the other hand, evinces plurality and finitude of the universe. ], ], ] and ] are empirical responses to the epistemic problem of Ultimate Reality. Empirical theologies tend to do away with the rational ] of ], ], ], ], and ].

The characteristics of reason reflected in Rational theology are ], ], ], ], and ]; whereas the characteristics of experience are ], ], finitude, ], and ]. These are reflected in their respective theologies.
The Indian sources of knowledge acknowledges the SABDA pramana as Verbal Testimony. It is obvious that much of our knowledge comes from sources other than direct experience or our own cogitations. We learn much from hearing or reading. Divine Verbal communication in oral or written form is Divine ]. Supernatural experiences are void of revelatory content unless backed by verbal testimony. Verbal testimony doesn't invite blind conformity in faith but calls for rational assessment of revelation. The Indian criterion was three-fold as Hiriyanna has shown in his Indian Philosophy: supernaturally obtained truth, i.e., not humanly obtainable; consistency with known data; and rationally anticipated truth. This epistemic look at revelation is a form of rational ].
While Karl Barth rejected all kinds of natural theology and Brunner allowed only restricted general revelation, Domenic rejects in 'Epistemics' the possibility of man coming to known about God by means of natural theology. All that natural theology can produce is some sort of pure rational religion like monism or an empirical religion like polytheism, animism, etc.</br>

], however, also takes into consideration spiritual passions which, in the experience of alienation from God tend towards anxiety, boredom, rootlessness and such. It is in a meaningful encounter with God through reliance on His Written Word that solace of soul can be found. Here epistemology tends towards theology. However, the interaction with Verbal Testimony must lead to some conclusion. The criterion considered, the existentiality of the seeker must find fulfillment in a Reality that answers to the seekers rational and empirical reality, denies neither, and still in able to harmonize both in a meaningful relationship. That kind of a fulfillment, Domenic believes in found in the Biblical revelation of the Triune God Transcendent yet Immanent, Infinite yet Finite, Immutable yet Mutable, Necessarily existent yet Contingent, Unity yet a Triunity. God became man and yet is God. That is example of how Reason and Experience find harmony in the divine Godhead. This is a version of fideism quite different from ]'s existential ].<br />

== '''References''' ==

Marbaniang, R. Domenic S., Epistemics of Divine Reality, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Acts Academy, Bangalore, 2007.<br />
Theology of Revelation, <br />
Philosophy and Theology of Religion,<br />
Rational Fideism





Revision as of 04:09, 13 April 2008

Epistemics is a term coined in 1969 by Edinburgh University with the foundation of its School of Epistemics. It is to be distinguished from Epistemology in that this is the philosophical theory of knowledge, whereas epistemics signifies the scientific study of knowledge. Epistemics is also compared to Cognitive Science.

Christopher Longuet-Higgins has defined it as "the construction of formal models of the processes - perceptual, intellectual, and linguistic - by which knowledge and understanding are achieved and communicated".

Epistemics may be understood as the science that deals with the noetic mechanics involved in the attainment of knowledge.


Epistemics of Divine Reality

Epistemics refers to the noetic mechanics involved in coming to some knowledge. While epistemology refers to the study of knowledge, epistemics goes beyond this to combine psychological and philosophical studies in human knowledge to understand the why and how of epistemic (or knowledge-related) conclusions. Epistemics of Divine Reality refers to the noetic-mechanics involved in coming to a belief in God. Why do people believe what they believe about God? Are the means employed to knowledge valid or invalid? Such are questions that must be seriously asked.


Related Bibliography

Baillie, John. Our Knowledge of God, London: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Baillie, John. The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought, London: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Barth, Karl. The Word of God and the Word of Man, tr. Douglas Horton, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957.
Barth, Karl. Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum (Faith in Search of Understanding), tr. Ian W. Roberson, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1960.
Berthold, Fred Jr. The Fear of God: The Role of Anxiety in Contemporary Thought, New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1959.
Braithwaite, R. B. An Empiricist’s View of the Nature of Religious Belief, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.
Brierley, J. Religion and Experience, New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1906.
Flew, Antony. God and Philosophy, London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1966.
Kant, Immanuel. Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, tr. Theodore M. Greene & New York: Basic Books, Inc. Publishers, 1963.
Küng, Hans. Does God Exist? Tr. Edward Quinn; New York: Vintage Books, 1980.
Matczak, Sebastian A. Karl Barth on God: The Knowledge of Divine Existence, New York: St. Paul Publications, 1962.
Mc Connell, Francis J. The Diviner Immanence, New York: Eaton & Mains, 1906.
Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.
Mitchel, Basil (ed.). Faith and Logic, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1958.
Mueller, David L. Karl Barth, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1975.
Nash, Ronal H. Faith and Reason, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.
Pols, Edward. Whitehead’s Metaphysics: A Critical Examination of Process and Reality, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967.

External links

Categories:
Epistemics: Difference between revisions Add topic