RE: If there was a loving God, would you accept him?
May 2, 2014 at 10:19 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2014 at 10:19 pm by Faith No More.)
All you have to do to show empiricism is inferior is to demonstrate, qualify, and quantify what exists beyond its reaches, which is what empiricism allows us to do, and pointing at abstract concepts like courage doesn't count.
The thing is, for all of the talk about the metaphysical and the spirit, we never reap any benefit from them beyond some people finding psychological stability and balance. Given the fickle nature of the human mind, that's hardly a ringing endorsement for the validity of metaphysical thought.
And sure, there were very intelligent philosophers before the enlightenment, but the skeptics decimated their arguments and showed that they were simply blowing hot air.
The thing is, for all of the talk about the metaphysical and the spirit, we never reap any benefit from them beyond some people finding psychological stability and balance. Given the fickle nature of the human mind, that's hardly a ringing endorsement for the validity of metaphysical thought.
And sure, there were very intelligent philosophers before the enlightenment, but the skeptics decimated their arguments and showed that they were simply blowing hot air.
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
