(November 3, 2014 at 5:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I don’t see the difference. In the context of a previous post, the stance was defined as reason applied to experience. Aristotelian and Neo-Scholastic metaphysics come out of that approach just as much as any other metaphysical position.
Stop being obtuse.
(November 3, 2014 at 5:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Truly, I believe you’re reaching. You cannot honestly believe that atheism doesn’t affect subsequent inquiry. Ruling out options, like divine influence over physical reality, is one such philosophical consequence.
Sure, it affects subsequent inquiry, but by a fraction of the amount that theism does. By believing in god you view everything through a specific lens, while not belieivng in god only entails that you won't be using that one lens.
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
