On learning and ignorance.

During the past few days, I have been part of a very helpful discussion which grew out of a comment posted on a Facebook page regarding attitudes by some scientists who dismissed any consideration of the role of God in creation. My initial comments pointed out that the term ‘God’ is a far less clear term than many people realize – especially if you dig down and ask questions about exactly what people mean (or think they mean) by God. Obviously, if one looks at all the various conceptions of God offered by the various religions throughout time, plus the massive amount of output of theologians and philosophers though the millennia, not to mention the contributions of scholars of anthropology and archaeology, one sees an enormous variety of concepts and issues related to “God.”


I am preparing to teach a fully online course for the first time, GNHU 151, Inquiry into the Humanities, and this discussion has helped me think of what I wish to accomplish in the course.

When I thought about resurrecting this course, my plan was for the course to help students better understand what exactly the Humanities are and what they are useful for. I also wanted to explore a series of issues raised by various fields of the humanities, such as “What do we mean by democracy?” “What do we mean by justice?” What do we mean when we make a contrast between fact and option?” “How compatible is a meritiocratic system with democratic ideals?” and so forth.

There are many problems in our world, and one which particularly bothers me is how people (including major political figures) will offer strong and assured opinions about complex subjects without the slightest awareness of the depth of complexity of the issues at hand, or even show a willingness become more informed – especially if the truths may prove to be ‘inconvenient.” I think one of the best intellectual quality one can acquire is a sense of our own ignorance and lack of understanding – thus the well-known Socratic dictum “The only thing I know is that I do not know”. (which has it own problems, but let’s not go there…)

This, as Plato pointed out long ago, is one of the problems of making a democracy function in a complex world, democracy here being defined as a political environment in which all adult citizens, regardless of education, personal temperament, or background (excepting certain criminal or medical backgrounds, of course) have an equal right to vote, express their opinions and try to influence fellow citizens, and hold office and govern. If accept the idea that complex problems really need complex study and thought to understand and untangle, then the majority of individuals are simply not up to meaningfully engaging these questions. Thus there is a marked tendency (especially in the USA) to have a quite conflicted view of ’expert opinion’.

I do not advocate, as Plato would, rule by Philosopher kings. But one of the goals of this course is to make students more aware of the real depth of complex subjects, and less satisfied and willing to accept glib, populist answers to hard issues. I guess I want students to be more ready to ask “What do you mean by that statement? How can you know that? What are the logical consequences of that belief? What do I need to know to understand the issues better? To what extent do I know enough to have a strong opinion on this issue?”

Comments welcome!

Thought of Day July 8

One definition of God which occurs to me is 'the incalculable eudaimonic potential within the universe, which, because it is incalculable, precludes us from holding despair as pure certainty, for, until Time itself is ended, there remains open the possibility of radical revision, and a end different from what we could imagine happening…’

Thought of the day July 7, 2009

Does anybody think that higher education and psychology are alike in the sense that they in part distract individuals from the real source of problems? For example, I am convinced that often psychologists are asked to cure problem that arise in large part from conditions found in society and family, and thus the reason often all psychologists can help us do is to manage our distress is that the real causes and cures rest in changing society. Similarly, educators cannot solve problems which arise from a broken families, frayed social relations and the lack of decent jobs for people who do not want to work as part of the information economy. We cannot educate society out of its problems that way.