Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1167099' dateline='1452353965']Chad,..What, specifically, are your beliefs? Do you identify with a formal religion, and if so, which one? If you are Christian, how literally do you interpret the bible?

I consider myself primarily a student of Swedenborg, the 18th Century visionary scientist and mystic. For the last three years I have been exploring the commonalities between Swedenborg’s theological works and Thomism.

... these arguments only go so far as to say: "there is more to this world than can be discovered by empirical science alone." You always fall short of actually saying what you believe in.

You’re a relatively new member so I understand that my approach may seem to be less forthright as of late. I generally have not shied away from being very explicit about my positions, like moderate realism, panentheism, a kind of essentialism, etc.

As of late, though I prefer to critique the critics. These critics are the people who presume that atheism is the only rational and logical stance with respect to the question “Does God(s) exist?”. They then proceed to demonstrate the apparent philosophical fallacies and theological follies they see in religious belief. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If their stance is as logical and/or as rational as they say then their critiques should be cogent and firmly grounded. I have found however, that when pushed, the self-identified paragons of logic retreat into incoherent and self-refuting philosophical dead-ends, like radical empiricism.

Turnabout is fair play.

Are you afraid that if you admit to being Christian you will be held accountable for bridging that gap between the ambiguity of knowledge theory and the Christian God of the bible.

No you’re right. There is a huge gap. There’s a huge gap between physics and linguistics, too, but no one says linguistics is bullshit just because it cannot be traced back to physics. If someone cannot see the general revelation of Nature than it would be pointless to discuss special revelation.

Besides, it took Aquinas about 80,000 words to bridge it to his own satisfaction and then, suddenly, he receives beatific vision and laments that all of his work was “as straw.”

... you REFUSE to admit to yourself that you can understand how philosophical theory in the absence of science might not be considered adequate evidence for a hard nosed atheist.

I’m quite aware that a ‘hard-nosed’ atheist will only accept the findings of scientific inquiry for fundamental questions. I’m only asking them to acknowledge the precommitments they have made like this one: all statements must be empirically verified before accepted as true, except this one.[quote/]


Thank you for answering my questions. I do sincerely appreciate it, as I did sincerely want to know. Okay, so you are Catholic. Why didn't you just say that? [emoji14]. I tend to think (or hope) that if St. Thomas Aquinas were alive today, he'd be rethinking his theories of existence in light of what modern science has revealed about natural selection and evolution. This Swedenborg fellow though...how sad that such a brilliant scientific mind was lost to mental illness; running around saying he visits heaven daily and talks to the Angels. You honestly take his accounts seriously? How bad do you have to want to believe in something in order to completely suspend common sense? I just don't understand.

The problem for a theist with turning the tables, is that you can't poke holes in my empiricist world view if you can't -demonstrate- to me why I am wrong. If you try to hammer a hole into an atheist POV using a mystical nail that only YOU experience as a nail, the atheist will just say: "there is no nail, and I see no holes. Where are they? SHOW me." You'll never be able to, due to the very unprovable nature of your beliefs. Trying to debate this way fails to convince anyone. Im just wondering what you hope to accomplish, that's all.