TOK+Final+Essay

[|Adam-Essay Assessment Criteria.docx] Adam - See some teacher comments at close of essay below. cct __How do the ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true?__ As humans, it is in our nature to strive for truth. We do not want to get mixed up between something that is actually true and something only believed to be true, but which may ultimately be false. Fortunately, in a situation like this, we are able to employ the ways of knowing to help us distinguish between the two. Although there are many different ways of knowing, the most important ones that help us in distinguishing between something true and something that is believed to be true are perception, reason, and empirical knowing. Throughout this essay, there will be an argument consisting of two viewpoints: the purely scientific belief that the Big Bang, the phenomenon that created the universe, occurred merely by chance and the religious belief that the Big Bang was instigated by God. One of these assertions is true while the other is only believed to be true. The three aforementioned ways of knowing will individually help us distinguish between which is the true assertion and which assertion is only believed to be true. To begin with, let us take perception into account. In relation to the Big Bang phenomenon, when, in nature, have we humans ever seen, heard, or felt an event even remotely close to the Big Bang – in regards to importance – which happened by pure chance? When, in the estimated billions of years that the universe has existed, have we ever perceived this? Never. This has never been perceived. As a result of this perception (or lack thereof, rather), we can conclude that the Big Bang could not have happened by chance and that there has to be some form of intelligence, in this case God, to have instigated it. Otherwise, if it did happen by chance, by some random luck that made us exist here today, then in the estimated billions of years that the universe has existed we would have perceived at least ONE event of major importance that has happened by chance. But we never have. And so, this is one way of knowing which enables us to deduce that the religious belief of the Big Bang being instigated by God is the true assertion while the purely scientific belief that it all happened by random chance is the one that is believed to be true. The second way of knowing to be taken into account is reason. Rationally thinking, it is not logical to assume that the universe all of a sudden began and then expanded (and is still expanding) out of nowhere – there has to be something that instigated its expansion, something that began this process of universal expansion that still occurs. Why is it not rational thinking to believe that the universe just suddenly expanded? Because something just suddenly happening, just suddenly working, has never happened in the estimated billions of years of the universe’s existence. Again, reiterating the broad idea of the previous paragraph, this was never perceived. Therefore, reason also leads us to conclude that there must be some form of intelligence that instigated the Big Bang. This is the second way of knowing that has allowed us to reach the conclusion that the religious belief is the true assertion while the scientific belief is the one that is believed to be true. Finally, the last way of knowing that helps distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true is empirical knowing. In order to simulate the belief behind the scientific viewpoint of the argument, that the Big Bang was an event that occurred by random chance, one can perform a very simple experiment. This experiment consists of grabbing a bucket of paint and throwing it at a wall. What will appear on the wall? A reasonably large blob of paint. Now if different buckets of paint were repeatedly thrown at this same wall, would a perfect image ever occur, just by chance? Perhaps some distorted shapes, but otherwise, no perfect image would ever occur. So, after this experiment, we gain empirical knowledge that an event, such as throwing a bucket of paint at a wall, cannot create a perfect image. So how is it logical to believe that the Big Bang was a random event, not instigated by anything, that, by chance, just happened to create our universe, a universe characterized by unimaginable perfection? This is a completely illogical and absurd declaration. Therefore, we can conclude that the Big Bang must have been instigated by something to have created such a complex, yet perfect, universe. And thus, empirical knowing, the last of the three most important ways of knowing that help to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true, leads us to the conclusion that the religious viewpoint must be the true one. Skeptics to these arguments generally get mixed up between the two viewpoints and ultimately deny the existence of a God. Many use the argument, “I don’t see God, therefore I don’t believe he exists,” hence leading to their full support of the scientific viewpoint. Although they may believe that this is quite a clever retort and that this logic leads them to true information that a God doesn’t exist, they did not employ these three ways of knowing before making their claim. To disprove their claim, let us take an example of something that we don’t see but that we know exists: pain. Do we see pain? No. But does pain exist? Without a doubt, yes. These three important ways of knowing (perception, reason, and empirical knowing) can prove the existence of pain. Firstly, we can perceive the effects of pain on people: people scream in pain, people cry in pain, and some people even laugh in pain. After this perception, we use our reason to draw the conclusion that something must have made them scream, cry, or, in some rare cases, laugh. And finally, empirical knowing can further back this claim because when we experience pain, we actually feel it, and so we know it exists. Do we see God? No. But we see the effects of a Creator: the perfection in the universe. We then employ reason to come to the conclusion that this perfection could not simply have been the result of a completely random event, an event that began by chance and was not instigated by anything. Therefore, thinking rationally, the only logical conclusion is that the Big Bang was instigated by God, and was not just an event of random chance. When these three important ways of knowing are taken into account to distinguish between what the true assertion is (the religious viewpoint) and what the assertion that is merely believed to be true is (the scientific viewpoint), as just argued in this paper, and one is still willing to deny the fact that the Big Bang was instigated by God, then obviously the person is not employing these three different ways of knowing. If they are employed properly, then they easily help us distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true, but is, truly, false. In this paper, these three different ways of knowing helped us come to a conclusion, in a logical process, that the assertion that the Big Bang was an event that was instigated by God is a true assertion and that the other assertion, that the Big Bang happened just by chance, is the assertion that is believed to be true, but really is false. The other ways of knowing can be used to prove this, but perception, reason, and empirical knowing function as the most important distinguishers. However, if one still refuses to come to this realization of truth, then ultimately the problem lies within this person – they are not being open-minded.

TEACHER NOTES - cct __How do the ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true?__

SUMMARY: Essay looks at the Big Bang Theory as religious belief or scientific belief, weighing each on WOK scales of P and R and ‘empirical knowing’

Areas of relative strength: · Intention (sometimes successful) to clearly map out argument for reader · Effort (sometimes successful) at organizing argument into paragraphs · Bold quality to the argument – not afraid to take a stance and try to back it up

Areas of relative growth: · There is a danger launching with an unquestioned assumption. In this case – the notion of Big Bang as truth, scientifically or religiously justified. There are people out there who do not ascribe to the theory, let alone the two justifications framed here. · Watch out for blanket statements / arguments without anticipating an argument in reverse. Example – the essay describes “ a universe characterized by unimaginable perfection” following a bucket throwing experiment that describes exactly the reverse. Potentially a ‘universe’ of imperfection. · Take the time to define terms: eg religion (ie can someone believe in a God without being “religious”?) · More extensive development of an argument through multiple examples. Here the Big Bang is discussed through brief descriptions about perception, reason and empirical knowing. Would the argument be strengthened through a look at other examples? · Keep potential reader viewpoints in mind and use them to your advantage in your writing. Eg – stereotypically, the Ways of Knowing of LANGUAGE and EMOTION are used to validate or give weight to what you frame as a religious justification of the Big Bang theory.