(May 31, 2011 at 6:44 pm)Timothy Wrote:Regardless of how you're defining skepticism, your argument is that it is not a worthy way to interpret the bible because the bible says otherwise. That is circular.(May 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: So what you are saying is that a certain type of reasoning cannot be used to interpret the bible, because it is inconsistent with the bible? Please explain to me how this is not circular.No, I am saying that certain epistemological claims are inconsistent with the Bible. I am not using "skepticism" in the loose sense of "having a questioning attitude" but as the claim that "no knowledge (in a certain field) is possible". E.g. see here. Metaphysical skepticism is just one example of the kind of claims that one can't assume a priori when discussing the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
