Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
sociological debate between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge has been occurring for most of the last few centuries (Anesi, 2003a). While the concept of "knowledge" is broad, and the definitions for "knowledge" even more broad (Meja & Stehr, 2000), this paper will only examine the concepts of religious and scientific knowledge, and the debate among modern sociologists between the two. This paper will present a definition of religious knowledge, present sociologists on both sides of the debate, and will examine how religious knowledge is used in Western society. This paper will attempt to show, based on the sociological views discussed, that the use of religious knowledge in today's world is warranted, in some cases.
As stated, the concept of a working definition of "knowledge" is difficult. In the broadest sense, "knowledge" can be thought of as awareness and understanding of facts, truths, or information (Gettier, 1963). According to modern sociology, those facts or truths are context-dependant and constrained by social factors (Meja & Stehr, 2000). Thus, it is easy to see how those social factors can be responsible for placing value on different types of knowledge. Sociologists George and Fischer further this idea by recognizing that all social differences in perceptions of knowledge have origins based in social context, and thus, are easily subjected to human control (1999).
With those ideas in mind, defining religious knowledge becomes a bit easier. Sociologist Alejandro Fregario defines religious knowledge as the learning of basics ideas of faith, the rites of religion, and the understanding of religious scripture (2000). He states that through religious experience, individuals are able to gain information about the world around them. Even if those experiences are in part motivated by scripture, they are then taken as proof of the correctness of the knowledge as a whole (Fregario, 2000).
Nicholas Wolterstorff defines religious knowledge by emphasizing common sense (1995). According to Wolterstorff, religious knowledge relies not on reasoning about the transcental conditions of knowledge, but rather, interpretations of reality. Thus, he describes religious knowledge as the knowledge of God and our world in such a way that is described through scripture and derived from our realities. He sees religious knowledge as maintained and learned through our experiences in the real world, and sees the real world applications of that knowledge as proof that the knowledge is truth (Wolterstorff, 1995).
There are some sociologists who believe that religious knowledge is inferior to scientific knowledge. Anesi (2003b) states in his discussion of scientific knowledge that knowledge is obtained through observation. Additionally, he states that knowledge can only be obtained with an observation by the senses about the world around us. He argues that, since religious knowledge is based on faith and abstract principles, true knowledge can only be gathered through scientific observation, since that relies on the tangible world (Anesi, 2003b).
Jason Dulle (2002) also argues in favor of scientific knowledge over religious knowledge. Dulle explains that, to prove any theory or fact, it is imperative to show evidence. Religious knowledge, according to Dulle, is merely personal assertions of religious belief, not true evidence. Any valid knowledge based on scientific principles relies on solid arguments of scientific principles, proven to be true. Thus, he states, religious knowledge is merely a construct of belief, whereas scientific knowledge is a fact (Dulle, 2002).
Another sociologist, Edward Wilson, describes the ultimate goal of knowledge as a single complete theory for everything, and argues that the foundation for that theory must be science. According to Wilson, the only way to establish a truth or refute a theory is through natural sciences, such as dissection of ideas into tangible elements. He states that because of this, religious knowledge, which relies on theory and belief alone, is simply unable to prove or disprove anything (Wilson, 1998). Wilson agrees with scientists like Jacob Bronowski (1973), who stated that scientific knowledge is not perfect, nor always accurate, but is very precise and far more precise than religious methods. Both Wilson and Bronowski state that there is no such thing as religious "knowledge," there is only religious belief (Wilson, 1998; Bronowski, 1973).
There are an equal number of sociologists who support the use of religious knowledge. Renowned sociologist Robert Wuthnow firmly believes there is a place for religious knowledge (1992). In his discussion of the scientific method, he reasons that religious knowledge, just like scientific knowledge, relies on qualitative information drawn from observation, interviews, and archival information. He states that carefully pouring through scripture and artifacts is as much a method of knowledge as computing regression tables (Wuthnow, 1992).
Edmond Cherbonnier also believes that religious knowledge can be used (1959). In his discussion of knowing God, he discusses knowledge as a personal concept. Since God is personal, he reasons, and since God is evident in each action, seen through one's own observation, then that knowledge of God is valid. Any conclusions made about that knowledge, he continues, are products of observation and intuition, based on a posteriori knowledge of God. More importantly, he states, scripture is a narrative account of religious activities throughout history, thus making it a valid historical document. Any historical document, studied for its contents about the world, is a valid basis for knowledge (Cherbonnier, 1959).
Paul Feyerabend also believed that scientific method was not necessarily the best method for knowledge (1991). In his discussions of the scientific method, Feyerabend made the observation that since we cannot predict what form our future knowledge will come in, we should not confine ourselves to a single method of knowledge. In addition, Feyerabend discussed science as basically anarchistic, and obsessed with its own form of mythology. In his view, scientists could not disprove religious knowledge, so it therefore was no more correct than the religious knowledge held by others. Since science knowledge did not arise from a single universal method which guaranteed high quality conclusions any more than religious knowledge did, neither was more correct or incorrect. Thus, using religious knowledge was just as valid as using scientific knowledge (Feyerabend, 1991).
One of the most vocal believers in religious knowledge is that of Alvin Plantinga. In a 1981 article titled Reformed Objection to Natural Theology, Plantinga argued that proof or logical argument is not required for the belief or knowledge of God. His claim was that religious knowledge is basic, in that the person with the religious knowledge is not required to produce evidence or proof. However, he points out that "one who takes belief in God as basic (that is, without proof or inferential evidence) can nonetheless know that God exists" (Plantinga, 1981, p. 190).
Plantinga furthered this idea in his discussion of religious knowledge in general in 1982. Plantinga argued in On Reformed Epistemology that there is a correct picture of knowledge, and this picture includes religious knowledge. According to Plantinga, a belief constitutes knowledge if it is true, and if it arises from the proper function of out epistemic capabilities. Religious knowledge, in his opinion, fit this scenario, and was thus true knowledge (Plantinga, 1982).
The use of religious knowledge in modern Western society is widespread. For some, religious knowledge helps act as a problem solving device for social issues. By knowing "facts" based on ones religious viewpoint, one can apply that "knowledge" to current problems within their lives as a means to assist in dealing with them (Sharpe, 1982).
Don Cupitt explains the use of religious knowledge in modern society as a way for people to explain why they are here, how they should live, and what they can hope for. He argues that religious knowledge helps people to know moral and social guidelines for behavior. It is a way to bind both values and reality into a constant state of realism (
Additionally, some argue that religious knowledge is used to gather "facts" about reality, and to make decisions based on those "facts" (Kappelman, 1998). For example, if one holds that their religious knowledge of reality implies that homosexuality is an abnormality, then that "fact" is made part of our construct. Thus, we believe homosexuality to be wrong. According to Kappelman, this belief is based on the religious knowledge we hold (Kappelman, 1998).
In a more general sense, religious knowledge can be seen in many areas of current Western thought, including the debate over evolution vs. creation, the political debate over stem cell research, the debate over prayer in schools, the crisis of the World Trade Center bombing, and the current war in Iraq. In all these cases, religious knowledge can and does form the base of "factual information" for some, while scientific knowledge forms the base of knowledge for others.
The use of religious knowledge in modern society can be of use. The basis for religious knowledge is learning by observation, and through readings of scripture and historical documents. Once a person has this "knowledge," it begins to be used as a basis for other knowledge in that person's life (Thistleton, 1996). The idea that God exists, for example, may lead a person…[continue]
"Sociology Of Knowledge" (2004, October 24) Retrieved December 7, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/sociology-of-knowledge-56779
"Sociology Of Knowledge" 24 October 2004. Web.7 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/sociology-of-knowledge-56779>
"Sociology Of Knowledge", 24 October 2004, Accessed.7 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/sociology-of-knowledge-56779
QUESTION THREE: "Is inequality of social classes inevitable?" The conflict theory put forward by Ralf Dahrendorf begins with a discussion of Marxism and the fact that in industry, the conflict between classes - the capitalist and proletariat (worker) - the worker had a natural inclination to be in conflict with the capitalists who were the authority, the bosses. The same kind of conflict carried over into the political realm as
This is not hubris or the idea that the author of this response is any "better" than that of Giddens. However, sociology texts and summaries seem to leave out the idea that some actions, thought patterns and mindsets that are cultural and/or societal in nature make little to no logical or basic sense in the grand scheme of things. However, perhaps a covering of that dynamic would be too
And as we have gained greater scientific, medical, technological and ideological diffusiveness, theorists from every discipline concerning human matters have required their own lens for examination. For instance, the text by Conrad & Gabe (1999) focuses the whole of its discussion on the relationship between social systems and our ever-growing body of knowledge on systems specific to the physical makeup of the human being. Indeed, the authors provide an
(Frazer 8) to this end she develops the categories of "affirmation" and "transformation." In understanding Frazer's view it is imperative to bear in mind that older regimes of theory cannot achieve the synthesis that she is looking for and that new and more creative modes of political and social theory are necessary. In essence what Fraser suggests is that in order to overcome this antimony between redistribution and recognition and
Take as an example McDonald's venture to extend its business operations in countries within the Asian region. Through globalization, the company has learned to adapt to the culture of the country it invests in. Examples of such adjustments are the introduction of rice in most of the meal offerings of McDonald's in the Philippines, inclusion of spicy foods in McDonald's menus in India, and the establishment of large McDonald's buildings
Sociology: Changing Societies in a Diverse World (Fourth Edition) George J. Bryjak & Michael P. Soroka Chapter One Summary of Key Concepts Sociology is the field of study which seeks to "describe, explain, and predict human social patterns" from a scientific perspective. And though Sociology is part of the social sciences (such as psychology and anthropology), it is quite set apart from the other disciplines in social science; that is because it emphasizes
Sociology Nazi Germany and how it would be analyzed by Karl Marx, Max Weber and/or Emile Durkheim Max Weber, born in 1864, is one of the best-known and most popular scholars of 'sociology', as well as of 'economic work'. One of his best contributions to the cause of economics as well as to sociology is his work entitled "Vertstehen" or what is also known as the theory of 'Interpretative Sociology' and his