|
|
Re: On credulity and religion
Bruce Sanchez (sanchezb@efn.org)
10 Jul 1996 16:16:43 GMT
In article <4rrgil$7cc@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, rosegs@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>
>>launching into some useless arguement of me trying to prove
something
>to you which you are unwilling to consider) is this:
>>
>>What are your thoughts about epistemology? Is empirical or
>theoretical knowledge the only valid way of knowing? If your answer
is
>yes then there is nothing left to say.
>>
>>Shannon Adams
>>shannon_adams@byu.edu
>
>Epistemology poses the question: How do we know what we know?
>Empirical scientific knowledge can only be gathered through the
senses,
>hence the only truth that this branch of philosophy can ever hope to
>examine and ascertain is the truth which can be proved or disproved.
>Much like James' Pragmatism, Epistemology inadvertently omits entire
>realms of knowledge, namely emotional knowledge, spiritual knowledge,
>and the aspects of the physical universe which we are not yet able to
>explain. Personally, I find the concept of God to be completely
>rational on its own, yet when one contrasts it with the theory of
>evolution, it becomes infinitely more rational. I don't know why
>people have a problem in accepting a God that always was and always
>will be, when the same folks can take a mass of chemicals floating
>around in the universe for granted--accepting on faith that this mass
>collided, exploded, cooled, and grew amebas who in turn acquired more
>cells which brought forth all of life as we know it. Thank you Mr.
>Darwin, our very own jolly Santa Claus!
Rosemary, What do you mean by "emotional knowledge"?
As for problems accepting God, I do not have a problem
accepting a god that "always was and always will be", the question is
what is the nature of such a god. I, for one, cannot seem to accept
the Christian conception of a god made in the image of Man, only more
perfect!
Bruce S.
|