Recently I read a comment on Facebook asking, “Why doesn’t anyone quote textbooks on Ontology anymore?” (That guy needs to be apart of our blog.) This seemed like an odd question to me. Isn’t the answer obvious? No one quotes textbooks on Ontology anymore because no one reads textbooks on Ontology anymore.
Allow me to offer a couple more observations before I get into the meat of the entry. I was in Barnes & Nobles the other month (yes they still sell books that are in print), and had some trouble finding the Philosophy (here forward referred to as Phil) section. The reason that I had trouble is because this section had been condensed down to three shelves. This equates to one-half, of one-sixth, of one side, of one section of the bookstore. I contrasted that to the self-help, romance, and graphic novel sections which all still seemed to be booming. That same visit I picked up a Newsweek magazine that had ranked the top 100 grad programs according to each discipline of study—business, law, medicine, education, psychology, etc. I looked for the Phil section, but could not find him. Then I thought that maybe he would be listed under liberal arts or humanities. He wasn’t there either. Newsweek did not list Phil as an area of graduate studies.
In my cynical opinion, Phil is a dying breed. I have a growing concern that he is approaching extinction. It is possible that Phil could be revived, but it may require checking him into intensive care. He definitely needs it. Im not writing to prescribe a treatment plan as I am not sure what that would entail. I just want to highlight two primary reasons why we are losing Phil and what that has to say about our society.
Cash Rules Everything Around Me!
A few years ago, it was my stated purpose in life to teach Phil in a university. I began my graduate work with zeal, but I have since abandoned this academic pursuit. There are a number of reasons for this, but the primary one is that I could no longer ignore the growing concern—where am I going to find a job? I do not recall ever seeing a “Now hiring Philosophers” add in the classifieds. They failed to include Phil as a category on careerbuilder. Yes that is right, I succumbed to the selfish, materialistic concern of wanting to provide for myself and my family (if I ever have one lol).
It is no secret that our society has become pragmatic. Most students now attend universities, not to get an education, but to get a degree. I do not mean that they are not getting an education in the process of obtaining a degree, but the purpose for universities, in the eyes of many, is now to prepare and qualify one for a career. If there is not much opportunity for a career in your chosen area of study, it is not very practical to pursue it. I am not saying that everyone is eying a big paycheck, but nobody wants to be unemployed. The situation that this has created is only the degrees that have practical value—the ones that will get you a paycheck—are now pursued in college. Many universities are cutting back in their Phil department. The reason they are doing that is because of the dwindling number of Phil majors. Universities are not going to continue to pay professors to teach classes that students are no longer taking. If Phil cannot provide a paycheck, then Phil will no longer be studied. What will this result in? The vast majority of our college graduates, future leaders, and society will have no philosophical training.
“Would you please stop trying to make fun of me with such jokes! From you I have learned the price of a basket of fish and how much interest one can demand when one lends money. This is your science. From you, dear Kamaswami, I have not learned how to think; you should rather learn that from me.” –Siddhartha
The result of this pragmatic shift is that we are steadily learning what to think, but steady losing the ability of how to think. When I state that Phil is on the brink of extinction, I do not at all mean that we are no longer utilizing Phil. Phil is inescapable. Everyone operates on philosophical foundations, but most do not realize it. The dominant foundations that most people operate on are instilled or assumed, but they are not evaluated. You could almost call them a priori. So while we have and will always have philosophical foundations to our beliefs/ideas, those foundations go unchecked and tend to be very sloppy. I would never pronounce Phil to be dead, but I fear he may be comatose.
I Thought Monopolies Were a Bad Thing?
Along with the pragmatic reason for Phil’s condition, there is an epistemological reason that we are losing Phil. Of course, the irony in this is that epistemology is one of Phil’s offspring. Paradoxically, Phil is hurting Phil. Epistemology is the branch of Phil that studies knowledge. Phil is losing his claim to knowledge, while science is cornering the market. There is a false dichotomy between Phil and science that has been created due to our sloppy philosophical foundations. This false dichotomy has created the misconception that science tells us anything meaningful about reality while Phil deals strictly in speculation. They don’t know Phil very well.
Phil was once considered the “Queen of the Sciences.” Surprisingly, theology was once considered her King. Aristotle was thoroughly inductive in his approach to knowledge. For instance, he gave us our first classification of species. When Aristotle was taking a scientific approach to understanding reality, he was doing Phil. Somewhere along the way, Phil caught a bad rep though. At times, Phil became very unscientific and this made some of his students angry. They sought to reclaim Phil. They said, “Lets cleanse Phil of all speculation. We shall return him to the sciences.” Like many reactions, this became a bit of an overreaction, and eventually we came to believe that science didn’t need Phil. We even bought the preposterous idea that science could escape Phil! So we falsely charged Phil with the crime of speculation and we locked him away in the prison of meaninglessness. This is where Theo lives too.
In all seriousness, Phil is considered by many to be some kind of exercise in imagination that is full of prejudices and opinion, but no knowledge. Only science gives us knowledge. This misconception assumes that science does not operate on philosophical foundations. It also assumes that scientific discovery does not lead to inferences made from the data. If the inferences are not noticed, how can they be rigorously evaluated? And since Phil has been removed, many scientists are not trained to conduct rigorous evaluation of their inferences. These unevaluated presuppositions and inferences have produced brilliant scientists who are crummy philosophers. Exhibit A: Richard Dawkins.
The Silver Lining
Phil of Religion is making a comeback and theists are becoming more prominent amongst philosophers. I think this is due to the growing interest in Phil amongst theists and the declining interest in Phil amongst non-theists. Although there is reason to be hopeful, we should be concerned about the state of Phil. It does us no good to gain ground in this discipline if the discipline itself has been written off. This only serves to keep theism relegated to the realm of speculation. Phil must be revived! I wouldn’t seriously advise someone to pursue a career in Phil, but I would suggest paying him an occasional visit. You can find him hiding in the corner of your local Barnes & Nobles store.
“A society where the simple many obey the few seers can live: a society where all were seers could live even more fully. But a society where the mass is still simple and the seers are no longer attended to can achieve only superficiality, baseness, ugliness, and in the end extinction.”
-CS Lewis
ADDENDUM: 1/28/2013
The following link takes you to a discussion between Richard Dawkins & Neil deGrasse Tyson on the wonders of science. Right around 01:02:45, they are asked a question on philosophy’s role in science. Tyson responds by saying that since the advent of quantum physics, Philosophy’s contribution to science is obsolete. As an added bonus, Dawkins demonstrates some ignorance of the history of philosophy in his response.
Nice Wu Tang quote, brother!
I’m glad u caught that. I couldn’t remember the next word. Is it green?
CREAM (Cash. Rules. Everything. Around. ME.)
I thought it was that, but I didnt know how that made sense. Now it is obvious. Lol
Interesting post. I enjoy philosophy and agree with you that everyone could benefit from it. I do wonder, however, if you actually know any scientists or have done any scientific work yourself, because your remarks about how scientists do science comes across as uninformed. Furthermore, Philosophers like Daniel Dennett work in disciplines like Cognitive Science to help clarify and ground that research from philosophic perspective.
Maybe philosophy as a profession has become insular and irrelevant.
i appreciate guys like Dennett and Harris who have devoted time to the study of philosophy. I think that is why I hold their work (particularly their criticisms of faith) in higher regard than Dawkins. Also, I think that any person who wants to pursue an academic career in philosophy should complement their philosophical studies with a scientific discipline as well. Its just really difficult to see how anyone can contribute any meaningful knowledge of the world apart from those disciplines.
So while I am not saying that empirical observation is not the primary means to obtaining knowledge (bc i think that it is), it is not the exclusive means. Yet this seems to be the dominant opinion amongst the scientific community. This is a philosophical issue, and without some philosophical training I fear that this is a conclusion that is not sufficiently informed. That is one example of what I consider to be a sloppy philosophical foundation.
As far as my comment on rigorously evaluated inferences, I believe this requires a healthy dose of formal logic. Beyond that, I really didnt make any statements about method.
My greater point is that it is the growing opinion amongst the scientific community that science is not enhanced by philosophy. I think the video that I added confirms that. I agree with Tyson, that philosophy has made no modern contribution to scientific discovery since the advent of quantum physics, but that does not mean that philosophy no longer contributes at all to the physical sciences. This is a prime example of a conclusion that has not been rigorously evaluated.
“If I ruled the world” (imagine that), every scientist would be required to take a course in intro to Phil, a survey in the hist of Phil, and at least one course in logic.
Thanks for your response. How would you define ‘knowledge’?
Check out http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/is-philosophy-of-science-dead/
Thank you for that link! I agree almost entirely with the points made in the entry that you posted. I could write, and may write, multiple blogs on the abuses of Philosophy. I am not a postmodern thinker except to the extent that I am culturally bound, and even then I make every effort to escape that! I tried to allude to these abuses in my entry when I talked about how “unscientific” that philosophy has become at times. I would definately throw existentialism into that category as well. Of course, these are just abuses that have occurred in western thought.
The only point that I would disagree with is that a particular philosophy could ever become complete. If you study the history of phil, it is incredibly cyclical and everytime a tradition comes back around, it is improved upon (not necessarily in a positive sense.) The relativism of existentialism, which was a reaction to empiricism, is very similar to the relativism of the stoics and epicureans, who were reacting to the materialism of the pre-Socratics (see atomists). It was this climate that gave rise to Socrates, who was in search of a transcendental universal. This is why im holding out hope for the state of philosophy.
To answer your question, I define knowledge as a true belief. I follow the correspondence theory of truth-that which corresponds to reality. I define reality as the actual state of affars. So, knowledge is a belief that corresponds to the actual state of affairs. Of course, determining whether or not a belief corresponds involves evaluations such as justification and warrant. These inevitably leads us to some kind of probability. The simple way of saying this is that, “if a belief is probably true, I consider it to be knowledge.”
I would like to modify your definition to “…that which corresponds to my/our perception of reality.” We strive for objective knowledge, but that is based on our (the knower) ability to perceive directly or indirectly that which is real. I think Phil is necessary for accessing new methods for knowing. Cognitive Science is a wonderful example of a still quite new discipline that is using new methods to explore the brain and mind.
Can perception of reality be false? Is so, if a belief corresponds to a false perception of reality, is it knowledge? Essentially, your definiton removes the truth condition of knowledge. Im sure you realize that this puts us on the pathway to reductio ad absurdum. How do you avoid that?
I am fascinated by neuroscience, and I am eager to learn what it teaches us about beliefs, perception, knowledge, etc. I am glad that we seem to agree that phil still plays an essential role in the evaluation of these methods. This is primarily where I think phil will always make a contribution to science.
My definition doesn’t necessarily remove anything. I’m only emphasizing a fact that our knowledge is necessarily based on our perceptions. And because our perception is limited, we will invariably believe things that aren’t true.
Right. And at the point that our perception is false, we no longer have knowledge. I would modify your definition by adding one word–knowledge is that which corresponds to a TRUE perception of reality.
Agreed and thanks for your willingness to clarify what you meant by knowledge.
I think when scientists comment about the irrelevance of philosophy, they may be referring to metaphysics.
You said, “Phil of Religion is making a comeback and theists are becoming more prominent amongst philosophers. I think this is due to the growing interest in Phil amongst theists and the declining interest in Phil amongst non-theists. Although there is reason to be hopeful, we should be concerned about the state of Phil. It does us no good to gain ground in this discipline if the discipline itself has been written off. This only serves to keep theism relegated to the realm of speculation.”
As I understand it, to do science one must begin with methodological naturalism – that’s the presupposition. Which makes sense if you think about it. All that we can hypothesize, test, and measure is the physical world. So, from the scientist’s perspective, a branch of philosophy like metaphysics or theology is speculation (def: reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.)
And if we’re defining knowledge as that which corresponds to a TRUE perception of reality, then how can we test our perceptions, hypotheses, beliefs, etc. against physical reality to see if they’re true, if, in my opinion, they are untestable? I know we hold many beliefs that we consider “logical” and “reasonable” that are very hard to test by any rigors scientific test. And for pragmatic reasons, I’m willing to count them as knowledge in the sense that we all need to pick a starting point to work from just like scientists start with naturalism to do science. But when we begin to claim these beliefs as the truth, then I say, show me the money. Where’s the evidence?
Full disclosure: I used to be a Christian, but now consider myself pretty much agnostic on the god question.
Thank you for your openness and you presented a very rational case. I am glad that you identified your presupposition, and you are right in stating that we all have to start with a fundamental presupposition. At this point in the convo between a theist/agnostic, the theist may want to challenge that presupposition, and I think that is worth considering, but that would not fit the context of this discussion. We began talking about science, and I agree with you that for the purpose of science, methodological naturalism should be the method employed for scientific discovery. I think that we both agree that it is the job of science to report to us facts about the natural world. Why would we expect science to go beyond that? I do not.
“All that we can hypothesize, test, and measure is the physical world. So, from the scientist’s perspective, a branch of philosophy like metaphysics or theology is speculation (def: reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.)”
I agree with this statement. The key phrase in this statement is “from the scientist’s perpective.” I do not expect the scientist to comment on anything beyond the natural world (i.e. metaphysics). So for the purpose of science, metaphysics is speculation.
I think that when we bring up the topic of “knowledge,” we have arrived at a subject that I believe it is fair for philosophy to comment on. Epistemology is a philosophical subject, and if the scientist believes that knowledge belongs exclusively to the sciences, I think that they have now gone beyond our expectations for science. This is pretty much the point that I was trying to make in the latter part of my entry. Science is seemingly creating a monopoly on knowledge.
“And if we’re defining knowledge as that which corresponds to a TRUE perception of reality, then how can we test our perceptions, hypotheses, beliefs, etc. against physical reality to see if they’re true, if, in my opinion, they are untestable?”
Do you notice the move that you made? We agreed on a definition that included the word “reality”. In the following sentence, you added the word “physical.” Once again, I expect the scientist to report to me facts about the physical world, and nothing more. But at this point in our convo we were discussing the definition of knowledge, and when you limit knowledge to “physical reality,” you are limiting knowledge to only what the scientist is supposed to report on.
The irony in all of this is that the supposition that knowledge is limited to the physical world has been a philosophical debate long before the advent of modern science. And it is precisely bc this debate was seemingly dominated by the emipiricists, that the scientist developed the supposition that knowledge is limited to sensory observation. So in that respect, the scientist should at least shake the philosopher’s hand and tell him thank you.
Unfortunately, I dont think the debate has been settled. I do not think that knowledge is limited to the senses. We agree that science is limited to the senses, but we didnt agree that knowledge is. I do believe that there are other faculties that can be employed in the quest for knowledge. I would argue that there are other faculties that are always employed in the quest for knowledge. Now, im not going to get all religous on you and start talking about faith, experiences, revelations as legitmate faculties. I would agree that such conjecture does involve much speculation.
As you already stated, scientific knowledge is limited to what can be tested. Many theists believe that God has actually acted in real time and space–miracles, incarnation, resurrection. Unfortunately, none of this can be tested. The validity of these reports is a matter of historical investigation. Already, we have departed beyond the scope of science. Are you going to argue that historical investigation is not within the confines of knowledge? I hope not. So, we have already arrived at knowledge that is not limited to the scientific method.
Now, the empiricist would argue that historical knowledge is still knowledge that is limited to the senses, but it is second hand knowledge. In other words, this knowledge is based upon the sensory observation of eyewitnesses whose testimony has been passed on to others who did not have direct access. I agree with that, but I want to stress the fact that historical knowledge, though empirical, is not gathered by the scientific method. Historians have knowledge too.
This is central thesis of my argument–Knowledge begins with (empirical) observation-either scientific or historical-but it leads to (rational) inferences that are made from those observations. These inferences require employing the faculty of logic. Therefore, knowledge is not limited to the senses. I concede that these inferences come with a degree of probability attached to them. In others words, we cannot be certain of them. But I do not think that certainty is a requirement for knowledge. Not all inferences are knowledge; only the probable ones are. Nevertheless, knowledge includes data gathered from sensory observation and logical inferences made from the data. Sensory observation, by definition, is limited to the physical world, but logic, by definition, is not necessarily limited to the physical world. Therefore, if one were to begin with empirical observation of the physical world and then make probable inferences that lead to conclusion concerning a metaphysical reality, these conlusions should still be considered knowledge. Thus, knowledge is not limited to the physical world.
I have basically made two points in this response:
1. Knowledge is not limited to scientific investigation
2. Knowledge is not limited to the physical world
In conclusion, while scientific knowledge is limited to the physical world, knowledge is not limited to science. I am sure that you disagree with the majority of this very long response and I look forward to your response, but can we at least agree that this discussion is philosophical in nature, and at the very least, philosophy still holds an important place in this discussion on knowledge?
Now this is getting fun! I’ll need to think carefully about what you’ve written. My first impression from an initial reading is that I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. I’ll try to post something this evening as I would like to give your comments the thorough examination they deserve.
Best Wishes.
“I concede that these inferences come with a degree of probability attached to them. In others words, we cannot be certain of them. But I do not think that certainty is a requirement for knowledge. Not all inferences are knowledge; only the probable ones are.”
How do you determine the probability of inferences about metaphysical matters?
To me forming arguments about metaphysics can give us possible-knowledge. The rationale, as I understand it, is that if our argument is logically sound than we’ve created knowledge about the metaphysical world (if such a place exists). But how do we confirm the premises we’ve based our argument on are true? To me that inevitably brings us back to the physical world for confirmation.
I thought you might point out that I added ‘physical reality’ to our definition, and you’re right for doing so. Therefore I want to retract that phrase and change it to ‘reality’. Just as politicians never let a crisis go to waste, I want to briefly say that reality, as I conceive the notion, is the physical and mental world. Which is evident in the way I tried define knowledge a few posts earlier. Being a theist, I think I can safely assume that you believe there’s a reality beyond the physical and mental. I think this is a point at which we disagree. I’m open to the idea of a reality beyond the physical and mental, but I would need more proof then a logical argument.
I consider historical information to be knowledge, with the caveat, that it really depends on the amount and kind of evidence we have about a historical topic/subject.
I’ll end with this:
I grew up in the Southern Baptist tradition of Christianity. A pastor (and friend) once told me that there are no intellectual barriers to faith in Christ. People disbelieve because they are rebellious, selfish, and sinful. I never really gave that statement much thought until I begin to experience serious intellectual doubt. Now the pastor had very logical arguments, reasoning from premises based on scripture. (Trust me, I know this brings up a host of other issues to consider.) Because I now disbelieve (‘unconvinced’ is more accurate), does he have knowledge about my motivations/reasons for “leaving the faith”? Because I’m the only one who really knows and I think he’s wrong.
IDK if you have already, but may want to check out another entry on here entitled the “Galileo Affair.” Both the post and the discussion that follows is related to our discussion. U might want to chime it.
U r right it is fun. Even though I am a Christian, I tend have much more interesting convos with agnostic/atheists. Thanks for engaging me.
Will do.
First, I disagree with your Pastor. There are a ton of intellectual barriers to faith. I believe that good credible reasons (that are not necessarily dependent upon the authority of scripture) can be offered that serve to remove many of those barriers, but I will also admit that some still remain intact. Alot of intellectual barriers exist simply due to a misunderstanding of the Christian Faith. A prime example right now is the whole creation/evolution debate. Many Christians feel alot of unwarranted tension over this issue, which is simply due to their hermeneautical approach to Gen. 1-2. Of course, some critics argue that the existence of so many conflicting doctrines, some of which are mutually exclusive, demonstrates that its all bogus anyway. I respond that the existent of many different beliefs has no effect upon the validity of each individual belief. They cant all be true, but it doesnt follow that none of them can be true. Nevertheless, Christians should remain humble and open minded on alot of these doctrines due to a propensity towards error. I only say all of that bc I have encountered many persons who abandoned their faith due to some really bad teachings or representations of Christianity that they were presented. I told a good friend of mine the other day, “The Faith that you rejected is not the Faith that I possess.” In other words, the Christianity that he rejected is not the Christianity that I believe in. Ultimately, every person has to make their own journey and try to not allow that journey to be effected too much by what other people believe.
Second, I myself have wrestled severely with doubt so I sympathize with those who do. I remember my first yr of Bible college, I seemingly rejected everything that I believed and started over. I remember that some of my classmates accused me of having unrepentant sin in my life and that was the source of my doubt. This couldnt have been further from the truth. So no, I do not think that you have strayed from the Faith for any reason other than intellectual ones.
“How do you determine the probability of inferences about metaphysical matters?”
If I ever pursue a PhD, this will be the topic of my dissertation! I have thought long and hard about this very question. First, I need at least a Masters in Math to even begin a serious endeavor. I really do not know that much about probability theory. At this point, I can only ask what is the most probable explanation of certain phenomenon? You can approach this by asking questions like, which offers a more probable explanation of morality-theism/atheism? Or, what is the most probable explanation of what happened to Jesus body? Idk if you can apply an actual number to these phenomenon, but I do think that one can find themselves persuaded by a particular explanation moreso than the other possible alternatives. Interestlngly, Richard Swinburne actually has attempted to assign a statistical probability to both the existence of God and the Resurection (see “The Existence of God” and “The Resurrection of God Incarnate”). The following link is a critical assessment of Swinburne’s work on the Resurrection:
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23553-the-resurrection-of-god-incarnate/
Notice, that the proposed method begins with empirical evidence and then leads to inferences made about the metaphysical. So I am not proposing pure speculation or ever strict rationalism. Also, you mentioned that there is a physical and mental reality. My point is that mental reality grants us potential access to metaphysical knowledge. I am not proposing Descartes method of pure deduction. I am suggesting that we begin with induction that leads to deduction.
Some additional thoughts. I find that many atheists begin attacking particular Christian doctrines as apart of their case for Atheism. There is a difference between theism in general and particular expressions of theism. Refuting particular expressions of theism is not a refutation of theism in general. My particular method is one that expicitly rejects the authority of scripture. I believe in the authority of scripture but I intentionally create a case for theism that is not dependent upon the validity of scripture. If I offer a case for theism that does not assume biblical authority, I think it is only fair for my opponent to offer a case that does not attack biblical authority. If my case is not dependent upon biblical authority, then a refutation of biblical authority, or particular doctrines, does not undermine my case for theism. For example, if I present a case for the Resurrection that is not dependent upon the inerrancy of the Resurrection accounts, it does not undermine my case if my opponent points out contradictions in the Resurrection account. Another example, if I argue that God caused the universe to come into existence, it is irrelevant for my opponent to attack the Gen account of creation. I attach these thoughts to what I was saying above about particular expressions of Christianity. Simply bc takes issue with particular doctrines, they should not necessarily theism in general.
That makes sense. When I did claim and defend a theist position, I employed a lot of the same arguments you use. Please don’t interpret that statement as condescension, because I don’t mean it that way. I’ve found people have varying criteria for what is required for them to believe. Overtime I came to the conclusion that my arguments, though logically consistent, required me to ignore the more stricter criteria I used for assessing normal everyday life-situations. That inconsistency bothered me for a while. Finally I just admitted to myself that I don’t think I can ever really know if there’s a god or not “this side of the grave”, as my dad likes to say. I also realized that some people mostly believe in god for emotional/psychological reasons, and all the reasoning, arguing, and defending is really to protect themselves from the scary abyss called unbelief. I’m not saying that’s you, but it definitely was me four years ago.
The road from Theism to Christianity is a very long one. I lean towards empiricism (with a dash of pragmatism) because logic alone is insufficient. The premises matter a lot. If they can’t be proven to be true in a objective way (in this case I mean moving beyond our mental impressions and logic to a situation where other people can examine them with some rigorous methodology) then why build a house on such a foundation? That’s why I’ve really begun to consider a more pragmatic view of the whole topic. Is it useful to believe in god? For some it is. For others it’s not. The desire for certainty about the existence of god gave me such anxiety that I finally realized that the only honest position I could come to was “I don’t know, and I’m not sure I can ever know”. I could be wrong and Allah is in charge (Jesus, I hope not.)
Sorry for the rambling reply. My intention is to just share a perspective.
I understand. In complete honesty, I dont think I could abandon the Faith entirely. I have just been so consumed with doubt only to return to faith that I think im here to stay. I attribute that the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, but that is gibberish to you so im not going to stress that point. lol. Nevertheless, I think the arguments stand on their own, regardless of why individuals are persuaded by them. Ultimately, I dont think that most unbelievers are going to come faith as a result of being persuaded by the arguments, but I do think that they can be helpful to removing some of the barriers that you mentioned.
The only problem I have with the conviction that all premises must be empirically verfiable, is that creates an infinite regress. Also, can you empirically verify the premise that all premises must be empirically verified? One of the reasons that I am a rationalist is that I hold to a version of foundationalism that starts with the basic, self-evident, a priori, principles of formal logic. But I do not propose a system that is purely rational. I think that most knowledge is empirical. I tried to stress that in my comment before the last one. Idk if you read that bc i posted two comments back to back.
I agree that not all can be empirically verified. I think it’s you have to stop once you’re convinced that the evidence is sufficient to move to next thing or you’ll be caught in the infinite regress you mentioned. I just think there’s a lot of room to work b/w stopping and the infinite regress…that’s part of the differing criteria I mentioned earlier. I think you and I agree on several points. I recognize the limits of both rationalism and empiricism, so that’s why I tend to look things more from a pragmatic standpoint nowadays.
Also, I don’t think the Holy Spirit comment is gibberish, though it is not something that would convince me of anything to do with the existence of god. (I don’t think you meant it that way, though sister-in-law seems to think it should convince me.)
Email me at mbarnes297@gmail.com if you want discuss some more…any topic.
Will do. I just posted an entry on the Moral Argument for God’s existence. Im sure there were things that I said that you may not agree with–particularly in the last paragraph. Id love to hear your thoughts…
Great post. Really. I enjoyed and appreciated a lot the un-pompous approach. Thank you (for now).