“A different way of knowing”

21 July 2009 · 2 Comments

I’ve often come across the idea that religious (and other non-evidence-based) ideas are “a different way of knowing”.

“A different way of knowing” what, precisely?

What does their “way of knowing” say about those materialistic things in the universe, like the speed of light? How about electron spin? The mass of Jupiter? Integral mathematics? The calorific value of set honey? The resonant frequency of quartz? The conductivity of copper? Allele frequencies in populations? The decay rate of ²³⁸U? Mass/energy conversion rates? Transistor energy barriers? Molar masses? The structure of DNA or diamond or dopamine?

How about something closer to home?

What’s the ideal sonic profile of a church for organ music? The aesthetics of a stained-glass window? The most comfortable shape for a pew? The ideal colour for priestly robes? The ideal number of choristers to sing a reasonably rousing rendition of Handel’s Messiah?

How about something a bit more metaphysical?

Why (according to them) is it wrong to kill or steal? Why shouldn’t homosexuals share a loving relationship? Why should sex be reserved for marriage, and marriage alone (which is of course only ever between one man and one woman)? Why are condoms “evil”? Why is ever-so-tasty bacon not allowed? Why are their favourite ancient stories considered as fact and all others of that ilk are just (and “obviously”) myth, or simply false? How does the doctrine of a “trinity” make any sense when, in every single other case that humanity has ever considered, 1+1+1=3?

Why is their particular interpretation of their scripture “better” or “more correct” than that of any of their heterosectarian neighbours? Why should they enjoy special privileges, often enshrined in statutes, that the rest of us cannot? Why are their opinions considered beyond criticism? What gives them the idea that they are entitled to judge the rest of us by their standards, especially when they often cannot live up to them themselves? What should we believe is true, without any evidence whatsoever, and why should we believe them over their competitors in the marketplace of ideas and opinions?

How can we use this different way of knowing? What is the process for acquiring new knowledge? How can we check that our results are correct? How can we test our newly acquired knowledge against alternate scenarios? What could falsify whatever we think we’ve gained from our different way of knowing, if we’re somehow completely on the wrong track? To what other domains can we apply this different way of knowing?

What things do they knowâ€”and how do they know themâ€”that the rest of us cannot, and that isn’t simply an appeal to ancient manuscripts, traditions, personal experiences, authorities, popularity, flattery, fear or emotion, red herrings or hasty generalisations, or guilt by association, or cherry picking, or biased samples, or trying to shift the burden of proof, or straw men, or slippery slopes, or equivalent to just making-shit-up to suit their own preconceptions, preferences or prejudices?

Answers on a postcard (or perhaps just in the comments).

Tags: <I demand respect!, question, religion, scripture, special treatment/religious privilege>