We tend to separate religion from
skepticism, and we associate science with evidence even though of religion and
science, only science is open to revision. Kierkegaard remarked that there is
something absurd about religious belief, and yet a religionist should believe,
and even without any evidence to back up the absurd. In fact, in the early-modern
period in the West, religious belief was often assumed to have a higher
epistemological status than philosophy and science even though the latter two
are supported by the strictures of reason and the support of empirical
evidence, respectively. I submit that it is precisely to the extent that religious
beliefs are held to be certain that we should be modest about them in terms of
what we can know. According to Peter Adamson, religions were once very open to
skepticism, whereas the Aristotelian philosophers were certain of their
epistemological certainty. Considering that varied assumptions have been
applied by philosophers to their craft, they should be weary of their own
claims of having achieved epistemological certainty. I contend that
religionists should get back to being more tolerant of, and even invite
skepticism, even within their own minds. Being humbly aware of falling short,
both as an individual and as a species, of grasping true religious knowledge as
it is, undeluded by our own limitations (e.g., opinions), is rarely the case as
religionists make declarations as if with epistemological certainty.
In a talk, Peter Adamson asked,
why does God allow us to be so ignorant? Why does God make us subject to error?
It must be for some reason, Descartes thought. The problem of ignorance is akin
to the problem of evil. Is the former just a sub-case of the latter? They may
be the same problem. I submit that even if the two problems are related or
relatable as being similar, the hatred that is endemic to evil is absent from
ignorance. Stated on a more secular basis, ignorance does not necessarily come with,
or spring from a bad attitude.
Nevertheless, Adamson viewed
ignorance in religious terms. To Augustine, ignorance is due to free-will amid
original sin. Also, the limited nature of creation is why knowledge is limited,
hence ignorance exists. A religious basis exists for ignorance in terms of people
tending to latch on to just some knowledge. Augustine’s Free Choice of the
Will does not insist on grace because Augustine had not yet encountered
Palagianism. In the text, Augustine is in dialogue with Evodius, a convert to
Christianity. Adam and Eve were created in a state “between wisdom and
foolishness.” In our fallen state, we are “born into ignorance, difficulty, and
mortality.” “Evil is turning away eternal things, . . . and instead pursuing
temporal things, which are perceived by means of the body.” Also, when desires
rule over the mind, “the mind is dragged by inordinate desire into ruin and
poverty . . .” This characterizes infants, according to Augustine. In short,
ignorance, which is synonymous with foolishness, exists due to free-will in the
state of original sin. But why then are Adam and Eve ignorant? To Augustine,
this is like complaining about the world because it is not as good as heaven.
Descartes wrote, “it is in the nature of a finite intellect to lack
understanding of many things, and it is in the nature of a created intellect to
be finite.” God certainly is not obligated to do more, and we are able to
obtain knowledge. According to Adamson, Stoics and neo-Platonists, including
Plotinus, have contended that individual evils are part of a good whole. According
to Leibniz, the best of all possible worlds reflects this philosophy. The upshot
is that human ignorance is just part of the best of all possible worlds that
God could create, so we should not blame God for our own ignorance. I contend
that it is important even when looking at scripture in a revealed religion to
keep in mind that human ignorance is not exempted on our end. Therefore, humility
in making religious claims, as if declarations, could greatly reduce the
typical impious air of infallibility on our end. Even if revelation does in
fact come from an intelligent being that transcends the limits of human
cognition, perception, and emotion, such news must travel through our fallible
atmosphere before we can make sense of the distinctively religious truth.
It follows that religious
accounting for human ignorance is not exhausted by one religion, or at least
that in humility human epistemology should be open to alternative accounts.
Even if one religion holds a monopoly on truth, the truth of this truth is not
contained within our purview. Accordingly, in his talk, Peter Adamson discussed
the religious account of Jainism, which is native to South Asia, with respect
to ignorance. Umasvati (4th to 5th century), for example,
author of the Tattvartha Sutra, was a Jain, so he was not a Brahmanic
thinker. On the topic of the human self, Jain thought is that the Brahmanic and
Buddhist philosophies are in part right and in part wrong. The Jains claim that
there is an eternal, changing self. Liberation means freedom from the cycle of
samsara and comes through “enlightened worldview, knowledge, and conduct,” so
one is not trapped in a one-sided view. Being non-violent, Jains didn’t want to
disagree too strenuously with others, but this explanation doesn’t fit with the
polemics in some Jain texts. Also, the Jains criticize a person having
one-sided knowledge. In addition to assertability, there is the notion of
unassertability. Omniscience refers to knowledge of all substances in all their
modes, past present, and future.” The path to knowledge is about elimination of
karmic bondage. Growth in knowledge involves the steady falling away of
one-sided thinking. Seeing the world from every perspective rather than from
only one is thus to be sought. Delusion
is at the root of ignorance, and is associated with having a one-sided view;
both are associated with karmic bondage, which keeps a person from liberation.
So rather than original sin from a Fall, which itself is premised on Creation, Adamson’s account of Jainism is that delusion is part of the unenlightened human condition, wherein we may tend to have one-sided views. Our knowledge and perspectives tend to be one-sided, and we are susceptible to being in bondage to them—even to being deluded that they are wholistic rather than partial. Both Augustine and Umasvati were skeptical concerning the pretensions of human knowledge. In his talk, Adamson added in Francis Bacon’s view, which is that Adam has perfectly functional cognitive faculties, whereas we, the fallen, do not. True knowledge is the province of divinity. I submit that religionists would greatly enhance their own credibility as purveyors of truth that is inherently sourced beyond our reach by humbly keeping in mind their own fallibility even and especially with regard to what is actually religious belief rather than knowledge, for if the content of religion were known, what place would faith have when the human mind enters into the religious domain?
