ToK Essay Titles Nov 2019 Prompt 5
ToKTutor • Jul 08, 2019
Doubting Thomas, scepticism & knowledge
Jesus was by all accounts an extraordinary being. Extraordinary things happened to him, nothing more so than his resurrection after being crucified. Hence, when news of this amazing event reached his ears, Thomas, one of Jesus’s disciples, responded like a modern day sceptic: “unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my fingers into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe” (John, 20:24-9). In spite of witnessing Jesus do some pretty wild things while he was still alive, like bringing Lazarus back from the dead, this strangely morbid request for concrete, physical evidence seems out of place.
The incident has generated much debate as to the meaning of Thomas’s reaction. Didn’t he already believe in the divinity of Jesus? Why should he question his faith? In the alleged words of Carl Sagan, what Thomas wanted was some ‘extraordinary evidence’ to support an ‘extraordinary claim’. That is, Thomas was not going to accept the claim about resurrection simply through eye witness testimony. He wanted first-hand experience of seeing the nail holes and feeling the wounds in Jesus’s body.
Caravaggio’s painting gruesomely depicts how Thomas got what he asked for and, at the same time, imagines that he probably got more than he bargained for! The impact on Thomas was, nevertheless, instantaneous. He believed. His knowledge and faith now reinforced, Thomas’s life took on new meaning and purpose. He became the Apostle who took the teachings of Jesus into the East and founded the Christian mission in India.
But what about us? Isn’t Thomas supposed to be the perfect TOK role model: the one who questions knowledge claims? Aren’t we supposed, like Thomas himself, to question the reliability of eye witness testimony and not take things on the basis of personal anecdotes? The problem is, of course, that Thomas had the privilege of coming face to face with the resurrected Jesus. All we have is a third party story by John which recounts Thomas’s own discovery of extraordinary evidence of Jesus’s resurrection. We don’t have access to this or any other such concreted evidence. So shouldn’t we remain true to the spirit and letter of Thomas’s own scepticism? From a religious perspective, probably ‘No’.
God’s response to Thomas gives a clue as to why we should remain open to the possibility of the extraordinary without requesting extraordinary concrete supporting evidence: “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” One interpretation of these words is that we must embrace the possibility that we will never get the kind of hard physical evidence that Thomas received in our quest to know Christ. This means that in some ways Christ is never fully knowable and will remain a mystery. In other words, Thomas’s own doubts become a permanent symbol of the divine mystery of God’s creation and all the associated wonders of His work. What remains is for us to bridge that doubt and uncertainty by opening ourselves up to faith
as a justification of religious knowledge.
The Christian Scriptures point to two sense of ‘faith’ that encapsulate this idea. First, faith is described as ‘a conviction of things not seen’ (Hebrews, 11:1). That is, believing something without grounding it in the evidence of the senses. Second, ‘faith apart from works is dead’ (James, 2:26). That is, believing is not simply an intellectual acknowledgement of, or justification for, something more than human; it is a commitment to act on your beliefs. Initially, Thomas may not have had faith in the first sense, but he more than made up for it by showing faith in the second sense. In short, his immediate scepticism neither diminished, nor undermined, nor jeopardised his later successful production of Christian knowledge through his missionary work in the Eastern lands…
Thinking about the various challenges involved when experts transfer knowledge between contexts creates various challenges for the experts who and whether or not they underestimated these challenges. Does the analogy of growing tomatoes help understand the question?
‘Fresh’ has the connotations of ‘new’ or ‘innovative’. And when something new arrives into the world, it’s usually accompanied by change. Often it’s hard to measure the impact of change until time has passed and we can look back with the cool, detached eye of objectivity.
Human beings are at the centre of the knowledge universe. This is why in your TOK studies everyone explores the ‘Core Theme’. Figure 3 pictures ‘Me as a knower and thinker’. Anyone who pursues knowledge, whether an expert or not, will at some point have to reflect on the fact that there are various factors, both internal and external, which either promote or constrain their endeavours.
Do we truly need custodians of knowledge, those who safeguard and preserve our collective wisdom throughout time?
Let’s look at two alternative senses in which knowledge might be acquired within ‘bubbles’. One within the Natural Sciences. The other with the Arts. In the former, we explore the notion of scientific 'paradigms'. In the Arts, we look at the notion of 'storyverses' or fictional worlds into which we imaginatively immerse ourselves...
HS experts are supposed to be trained to communicate difficult knowledge about mental health conditions and yet our expectations sometimes ignore the fact that diagnosing and treating mental illnesses is a messy business and not always easy. New tech allows experts to create visualisations which in turn can be helpful in communicating the complexities of a case and potential treatments...
Artists are like magpies who copy from other artists. This form of ‘copying’ is the broad sense of the term ‘replicability’ in this Title. From one point of view, such ‘replication’ leads to the creation of original works of art which make us see the world anew. From another point of view entirely, such copying borderlines on artistic plagiarism, fraud or forgery...
Exploring how a song about apartheid turned into an anthem, voicing the strength of those who have been marginalised from society, sometimes in a violent way. To what extent does such exclusion actually help build resilience and self-knowledge? How far is it harmful?
There is a branch of knowledge, akin to pseudo-scientific knowledge like ‘flat Earth theory’, in which one can seem to have absolute certainty and full confidence, because the truth of that knowledge is somehow ‘guaranteed’ or ‘underwritten’ by a higher power. Faith-based knowledge.
Now, consider a clichéd example when we seem to have the utmost certainty and confidence in knowledge and they both seem to be moving in the same direction: 2 + 2 = 4. On the one hand, this is something you cannot doubt, isn’t it? You know this with 100% certainty.. You might actually be very confident about your knowledge...