International Baccalaureate - Theory of Knowledge Course
Below is a letter written by The Christian Coalition For Education regarding the International Baccalaureate - Theory of Knowledge Course:
Dear Dr Béguin,
International Baccalaureate - Theory of Knowledge Course
We recognise that the purpose of the Theory of Knowledge (TOK) course is valuable inquiry into how we know what we know. We are writing to you, however, because, as representatives of various Christian organisations involved in education. we are concerned about some aspects of this course.
The IB’s own website explains that as a thoughtful and purposeful inquiry into different ways of knowing, and into different kinds of knowledge, TOK is composed almost entirely of questions. The most central of these is "How do we know?", while other questions include:
What counts as evidence for X?
How do we judge which is the best model of Y?
What does theory Z mean in the real world?
In practice, however, there are assertions in the course material which as religious believers cause us concern. The instances given below seem to us to show bias against religious belief and more specifically against a religious epistemology. In general, there is a strong tendency towards a particular concept of epistemological relations between a knower, knowledge and reality. A constructivist theory of knowledge seems prevalent, for example, and ‘critical realism’ does not seem to get the same curricular weight. The ‘arguably’ qualifier is not used for theories of knowledge which are consistent with or arise from theism.
Overall, the strong impression is given that religion is idiosyncratic, clashes with science, goes wrong, leads to flaws and circular reasoning, has no place in an empirical, logical/linguistic theory of knowledge, does not receive challenges from science, which has refuted notions of miracles, is paradoxical, has knowledge maps which contradict the natural sciences. We are concerned that this method of reasoning may find other applications in IB generally. Whilst there are some attempts to qualify assertions, there is not enough about presenting knowledge in the context of multiple views of religion and science:
We have commented below on a number of excerpts:
https://www.tok2022.net/knowledge-and-religion.html
● “Arguably, atheists could question to which extent religion can offer genuine true knowledge rather than just belief.”
(Theists, on the other hand, could ask whether an atheistic theory of knowledge leads to a restricted worldview).
● “The idiosyncratic nature of proof, validity and rationality in religion, led some people to take an atheist stance.”
(Lack of meaning and purpose in atheism, however, could lead some people to look to spirituality and religion for satisfaction in life).
· “Whether or not you accept religious knowledge may depend on the community of knowers you belong to, which is in its turn influenced by individual and shared memory, language, and emotion.”
(This is true of all knowledge which stands in a shared tradition of knowing. See the work of Polanyi and Newbigin in this area).
· “Religion and science often clash because the ways in which they aim to understand the world are arguably intrinsically opposed.”
(Science has its own field about the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ questions but cannot pronounce on the ‘why’ or ‘what for’ ones, which arise from its own data but which are beyond its competence to answer).
● “Arguably, using religion to explain scientific facts and vice versa is missing the point of what religion is all about. In that respect, it may come as no surprise that some leading scientists and theologians reject the notion of Intelligent Design whilst calling it “neither sound science nor good theology.” (ISSR)
(There are many prominent scientists, who are theists, and who see no contradiction between their faith and science. Some may be evolutionary theists, others may incline to Intelligent Design or other ways of interpreting the factual data. All would agree that mind and purpose cannot be left out of understanding ourselves or the Cosmos).
● “It is particularly interesting to discuss the role of evidence and proof within religion, as this is excellent TOK material. When we try to prove knowledge offered by religions through the kinds of evidence we would expect within, let's say, the natural sciences, it often goes wrong. In fact, attempts to use empirical evidence, as well as rationalisations (eg post hoc ergo propter hoc and circular reasoning) are often flawed.”
(Scientific as well as religious belief should be open to appropriate critical review by all. There are many different kinds of evidence, for example, historical, which are different from that of the natural sciences).
● “So what about empirical verification? This is where it gets a little tricky. For example, logical positivists argue that true knowledge can only be obtained through empirical or logical/linguistic verification. Logical positivists are sceptical of theology, as there is no place for it in their empirical, logical and linguistic theory of knowledge. This sort of thinking permeates much of contemporary discourse.”
(The premise of logical positivism is not itself empirically verifiable and leads to barrenness in philosophical discourse).
● “When scientific claims based on empirical grounds have challenged religious claims, this has not always been received well, as the Galileo affair demonstrates.”
(The Galileo affair itself was as much a dispute within the science of the time, and between scientists, as it was with the institutional church).
● “Hume refutes the notion of miracles and many philosophers have tried to steer away from an all too human interpretation of God. ”
(Many philosophers and theologians have refuted Hume. Both humans and God cannot be denied real agency and freedom to act meaningfully in the universe. Many of the everyday things we do today would have been regarded as impossible in the past. Can we deny any notion of the deity agency greater than ours?).
● “Is it possible to think about God without resorting to anthropomorphism? Some philosophers paint God as an 'omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omniamorous (all loving) creator of the universe' (Lagemaat, 2011). Yet, such concepts may lead to religious paradoxes. The paradox of omnipotence is the most widely discussed. But also concepts such as suffering (particularly relevant to Christianity) could seem paradoxical.”
(This needs explanation – paradoxical in what sense? There is much good writing on God and suffering Eg CS Lewis on ‘The Problem of Pain’, Austin Farrer’s ‘Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited’, Bill Vanstone’s ‘Love’s Endeavour Love’s Expense’, John Bowker’s, ‘The problem of Suffering in the Religions of the World’, the philosopher Keith Ward’s work etc).
● “Sometimes it seems that knowledge maps from religions and the natural sciences contradict each other. Evidence from the natural sciences, for example, contradicts the notion of intelligent design. We can try to rationalise these contradictions by playing with the language of religious texts: we can widen the meaning of translated phrases, metaphors and imagery. We can also connect the unconnected to make religious knowledge match with new scientific findings.”
(Intelligent design is only one way of relating science to religious belief. Theistic evolutionism, for example, is yet another but which is not mentioned here. Scientists like Paul Davies see Science as a surer path to God rather than religion. John Polkinghorne, Frank Collins, Dennis Alexander are well known scientists who are also theists. There are many others. When evolutionist theists and Intelligent Design scholars meet, they disagree about some things but their agreement about the wonder of Creation, its nature, purpose and goal is much deeper. In the end, all interpretations of scientific facts must give a satisfactory explanation of the fundamental complexity of creation, the tendency to convergence in the development of life forms, cooperation within and between species, the rise of consciousness, self consciousness and conscience, as well as the remarkable correspondence between our minds and the Universe which enable us to make sense of the latter).
We would welcome a response and some discussion with IB that our comments above will be seriously considered in the context of presenting theories of knowledge within IB courses.
tho
Yours sincerely,
Edmund Adamus - Education Consultant at Fertile Heart
Steve Beegoo – Head of Education at Christian Concern and Vice Chairman of CCFE
Lizzie Harewood – Executive Officer of the Association of Christian Teachers
Guy Hordern MBE – Member of the General Synod of the Church of England
Phill Moon – Core Team Member at Christian Schools’ Trust
Monsignor Dr Michael Nazir-Ali – President of OXTRAD Chairman of Christian Coalition for Education
Alastair Reid - General Secretary of TISCA (The Independent Schools Christian Alliance)
Cristobal Rodriguez-Casado – Director of In Christ In Schools
Nick Seward – Former Headteacher at Kingham Hill School
Ron Skelton – Headteacher at Broadway Academy