Yes, it is possible to have nonempirical knowledge, for example,
mathematics. However, the application of all mathematics to the physical
is not possible, for there are three main versions of geometry. The sum
of the interior angles of an experimental triangle cannot be >180,
exactly 180 and <180, though we may not be able to measure accurately
enough to tell the difference.
We also brag about theological and philosophical knowledge, where the
only test available is consistency. Unfortunately, there are at least
four major philosophical schools that can be consistent. There are
consistent theisms and consistent atheisms, but one cannot be both at the
same time. Of course, in all claims to knowledge, fallibility must be
factored in. Unfortunately, the more common principle on which humans
depend is: I'm right, and if you don't believe me, ask, and I'll tell you
how right I am.
Scripture recognizes the situation in noting that the basis for
Christianity is /pistis/, faith or trust. We believe that God is, but
cannot prove it. The common claim that faith is contrary to evidence is a
canard, for it is built on evidence. There are more misquotations of
Tertullian than accurate ones floating around.
Dave (ASA)
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:49:52 -0500 "David Clounch"
<david.clounch@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
I
Unless they can control the divine input (A happens when God acts, not-A
when God doesn't act), they cannot have a nonnatural methodology.
Just to try to better understand what you are saying,
I'd like to ask, is it possible to have a domain of knowledge that is not
dependent upon natural methodology?
Thanks,
Dave C (ASA)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 16 15:14:11 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 16 2007 - 15:14:11 EDT