THE PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY OF INTELLECTUAL HUMILITYProject directors: John Greco and Eleonore Stump
Saint Louis University has received a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to explore the subject of intellectual humility. The Templeton Foundation will contribute over $2.7 million to the project, with contributions by SLU bringing the total grant to over $3 million.
The Philosophy and Theology of Intellectual Humility project is being led by John Greco and Eleonore Stump.
The project will focus on a variety of philosophical and theological issues relevant to the topic of intellectual humility, as informed by current research in the empirical sciences, including: virtue epistemology; regulative epistemology; peer disagreement; intellectual humility, intellectual autonomy and deference to authority; religious pluralism; divine hiddenness; intellectual humility and theological method; biases, heuristics, dual-process theories and evolution; intersubjectivity and mind reading.
The Saint Louis University effort complements the activities and research occurring under Templeton’s Science of Intellectual Humility project by encouraging philosophers and theologians to integrate empirical research on questions surrounding intellectual humility into their own investigations.
A number of opportunities are available for interested scholars, graduate students, and groups. Applications for the various positions are now open. Please see details below. Inquiries can be sent to Humility@slu.edu.
-
Request for Proposals: “Philosophical and Theological Research on Intellectual Humility”
-
-
-
-
When you hear the word “humility,” it’s invariably from the religion side of the religion/science debate. You don’t hear scientists calling theologians to be more “humble,” but that’s because scientists don’t pay attention to theology. If they did, they’d realize that it’s the theologians and not the scientists who require humility; after all, scientists aren’t ashamed of admitting that they don’t know something.
Theologians love to tell scientists to be humble because it’s one of their few pathetic ways to go after a paradigm which is infinitely more successful than religion in producing knowledge about the universe.
And Templeton has once again wasted a huge amount of money.
I think I might apply. Something along the lines of is it a tad hypocritical to take the humility angle if you think God created the earth just for us and kept tinkering with evolution until she ended up with us.
Oh, that’s nothing.
Almost all Christians are convinced they know what’s on Jesus’s list of preferable and proscribed sex acts.
Put that in your humble pie and smoke it!
Cheers,
b&
To be fair, SLU is a Jesuit institution, so it’s not like they’re the go-to place for anything requiring serious intellect or academic integrity. Templeton’s money is just so many more marketing dollars in the lying-for-Jesus industry, as usual.
b&
Eleonora Stump has deep religious belief. We used to argue a lot at Cornell where she took her doctorate and later at Virginia Tech.
Literally nauseates me.
“divine hiddenness”
Now that’s a research area with some promise!
I certainly expect it would generalize to Russell’s Teapot and other non-divine hiddennesses.
I can hardly wait for the follow-on: “A Systematization of Ineffability”.
Effing the ineffable?
/@
Oh, penguin the systematization.
b&
Egad. “Intellectual humility”? The title alone is rage inducing.
What the hell is “divine hiddenness”?
Yeah the divine hiddenness had me wondering as well. Is it the idea of numen or peek-a-boo with Jesus?
Sounds like a research program where discovering anything means you fail :D.
+1
Lol!
Probably related to the free will argument for divine hiddenness – i.e., God can’t show his hand because if he did, faith would lose meaning.
Has someone pointed out to the Jesuits that intellectual humility can’t be much of a virtue, given that their omnibenevolent and definition-of-all-good diety doesn’t have it?
Hell, for that matter…is “humble intellectual” what springs to mind when you think of the Pope pontificating on the nature of the Universe from inside the Vatican?
b&
Silk dresses comes to mind for some reason.
Only the finest — and newest — for the Holy Roman Emperor!
b&
God plays peekaboo according to some Christians. It’s a great excuse for the impotence and evident non-existence of this god thing. But alas, they must invent a new god that hides since this god had no problem with showing itself and supposedly the patriarchs had lots and lots of faith. More Christian excuses and lies. Such a shame….
Perhaps they have noticed how the gaps for god to sit in are getting smaller and smaller.
So plan b the reason you cant see god is cos, ermm, well they are hiding to test your faith or something.
It also explains why there havent been any decent miracles since the bible was written. Its a game of hide and seek which is still ongoing and until someone looks in the right cave no more miracles or rapture etc etc.
The argument from divine hiddenness might be the second- or third-most-popular argument for atheism.
It goes something like this:
1. If God exists, then God wants everyone to know that He exists.
2. If God exists and wants everyone to know that He exists, then reasonable nonbelief will be rare.
3. But reasonable nonbelief isn’t rare.
4. So God does not exist.
“Intellectual humility” — that which Templeton does not have.
Well some ‘good’ Templeton stuff that I read this morning … http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/astronomer-uses-kepler-telescopes-data-in-hunt-for-spacecraft-from-other-worlds/2013/07/22/21cef70c-dce6-11e2-85de-c03ca84cb4ef_story.html
Hmmm. When I read any science or mathematical text written for specialists, my intellect feels very humble indeed. I’m sure I could convincingly demonstrate my intellectual humility. Do I qualify for some of this money?
“Intellectual humility”
*snort*
Translation: “Come on, god just did it. I mean…because…he just did, ok? Just go with it. Jeez!”
It’s religious New Speak all over again.
Mind reading? I don’t see how that fits in.
I think it needs a renaming. Something like
Science of Humble Intellectual Theology. To be known by the acronym.
Study, please, not science!
/@
+1
Theologians love to tell scientists to be humble…
I am reminded of the debate between Rick Warren and Sam Harris (excerpts published in Newsweek in 2007, links seem to have evaporated), in which Warren calls Harris arrogant for saying that evolution deniers are wrong, then elsewhere claims to converse on a daily basis with the creator of the universe.
St. Louis University’s philosophy dept. is chock full of humble people – with much to be humble about.
The last thing I think about when I hear these terms is abrahamistic religions and their claims to know the only magic agent that are powerful enough to have made … everything and that something that ‘explains’ any thing pointed at ‘explains’ … everything.
Contrast their one-size-fits-all ‘explanation’ with actual, empirical, explanation, and its ability to discern between what is known and what is not yet known.
I humbly offer that what is put out on the market of ideas is already examples of the inborn humility of the scientific process.
“Dual-process theories and evolution” is a code word for creationistic evolution (‘theistic evolution’), I take it.
Even under the no-shame cover of “philosophy and theology”, how can Templeton think of parading open theology and open anti-science rejects of creationism & telepathy [!] around as a “Science of Intellectual Humility project”? I think scientists should oppose this sham, loudly.
At the very least we should recover scientific terms such as “science” and “evolution” for science.
The wording leaves a lot open. I wondered about that Dual-process theories and looked on Wikipedia wrt evolution. It says this:
So you’d think it would be about that….but something tells me we’ll see Jesus in this. I don’t know why I feel that way. It must be something. I just can’t put my finger on it…. 😉
The System 1/System 2 approach is well supported. See Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow by Hahnemann.
Religious explanations (Jesus, et al.) are very clearly examples of System 1 (“lazy”) thinking; science, System 2 (“hard”) thinking.
/@
Yes Kahneman but I just don’t know. Something in this Templeton funded thing makes me wonder how they will handle it…I don’t know what it is….wait! I know! It’s the Jesus money!
Sadly, that ship sailed long ago, with Mary Baker Eddy at the helm….
b&
The more I think about it, the more outrageous I find it.
If Templeton, after consulting their vaunted experts, can’t tell science from theology and anti-science, how can its money be said to be useful for science? And why are scientists still taking money from what on the outside looks like the PR firm for a catholic mafia organization?
An Intellectual Humility Cluster Group? Words fail me.
Isn’t Templeton wasting its money essentially a good thing?
From our perspective they’re wasting it.
Thing is, given their agenda, how could they not waste it? Trying to shore up the god proposition with “science” or “philosophy” can’t possibly bear any fruit because there is no god.
But they’re not wasting it from the perspective of conferring credibility to the god proposition in the eyes of lazy thinkers. Their project could actually succeed in that sense.
aka don’t ruffle any feathers!
intellectual humility = wah, wah, mean ol’ scientists have told us we’re wrong, our magical special friend is imaginary and we don’t like it, wah wah.
oh and nice to see the templeton twits saying “let’s waste money and screw everyone dying from a disease this money could have gone to research! It’s all about us and making us feel better about our imaginary friends!”
I never have figured out Sir John’s fascination with humility, so when Templeton throws the term around, in humility I simply say “hummm, bull.”
I don’t know anything about the SLU philosophy department. However, in years gone by, I team taught ichtyology with a SLU Biology Department colleague, and know several other SLU biolgists quite well. SLU has a very good biolgy department. Lot of good evolutionary research going on there.
TF: “The project will focus on a variety of philosophical and theological issues relevant to the topic of intellectual humility, as informed by current research in the empirical sciences, including: virtue epistemology; regulative epistemology; peer disagreement; intellectual humility, intellectual autonomy and deference to authority; religious pluralism; divine hiddenness; intellectual humility and theological method…”
Mel Brooks: “You said ‘intellectual humility’ twice.
TF: “I like intellectual humility!
“Atheists and scientists should be more humble” is just a very polite way of saying “atheists and scientists should shut the f*** up”.
Do people give money to Religion to have it used to proselytize?
Tax evasion money used for this purpose (Templeton) is surely gaining money under pretenses.
Tax churches or sue them for teaching false science etc.
It’s amusing when any organization around for centuries, asks others to be “humble”, as if they deserve respect. I disagree that giving liars any respect, is wise, and history seems to agree with me.
I can only think of one type of person that asks others to be humble, and they do so in order to diminish the others position, not debate fairly.
This says it all:
“The project will focus on a variety of philosophical and theological issues relevant to the topic of intellectual humility, as informed by current research in the empirical sciences, including: virtue epistemology; regulative epistemology; peer disagreement; intellectual humility, intellectual autonomy and deference to authority; religious pluralism; divine hiddenness; intellectual humility and theological method; biases, heuristics, dual-process theories and evolution; intersubjectivity and mind reading.”
When I saw “intellectual humility” I got interested, because it is a part of the critical thinking paradigm that I learned. But I think they have a different idea of it than I do. Here is the definition of “intellectual humility” from the criticalthinking.org website:
“Having a consciousness of the limits of one’s knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one’s native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one’s viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one’s beliefs.”
I don’t think I see anything in there about humbling oneself before institutions built on tradition rather than intellectual questioning.
Take a look at this while you’re at it: http://www.fuller.edu/About-Fuller/News-and-Events/News/2012/Fuller%E2%80%99s-Thrive-Center-Awarded-$5-3-Million-Grant.aspx
Fuller Theological Seminary got $5.3 million to study the same thing!
Fuller’s Thrive Center defines “intellectual humility” thus: “an openness to new ideas, receptivity to new evidence, and a willingness to revise even deeply held beliefs in the face of compelling reasons.”
There is a subtle shift in emphasis from the definition I quoted in comment no. 25 above. The Thrive Center’s definition clearly focuses on “willingness to revise beliefs in the face of compelling reasons”–but what makes reasons compelling is not stated.
What is notably missing here is “insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one’s beliefs.”
Also missing is anything resembling “sensitivity to circumstances in which one’s native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one’s viewpoint.”
Being “open to new ideas” and “willing to revise . . . deeply held beliefs” are likely consequences of awareness of the limitations of egocentrism and bias, but not to make that connection makes the Thrive Center’s description weak and vague.
It’s hard to imagine that the persons in charge of this study seriously think that both sides are in equal need of intellectual humility–I think they already see themselves as open to new ideas, evidence, and willingness to revise thinking. They probably think that the science community is showing intellectual arrogance.
Peter Atkins: “It’s not arrogance if you’re right.”
More considered: Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg, “Do You Only Have a Brain? On Thomas Nagel”, a review of Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos:
/@
As Jerry suggests in another post, it’s science that disproves science. Religion doesn’t disprove science, so it’s a little disingenuous for theologians to ask scientists to be open to their ideas and anticipate the latter to “change their views in the face of compelling evidence.”