P. 1
Seven Thinking Points

Seven Thinking Points

|Views: 24|Likes:
Published by Abu-Isa Webb
Here are seven simple meditations, most of them are based on recent reading I've been doing on empiricism, some of them come from nowhere.
Here are seven simple meditations, most of them are based on recent reading I've been doing on empiricism, some of them come from nowhere.

More info:

Published by: Abu-Isa Webb on Aug 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Seven Thinking Points

´One should only believe that which is supported by empirical evidenceµ ²what empirical evidence is there to support this claim? If one trusts science because its effects are evident in this world he is engaging in a deeply circular faith. He is trusting the evidence of this world based on a system that he believes in that relies first on trusting the evidence that this world provides. No intelligent believer would argue to a scientists about how the universe appears to have come into being, for the scientists surely knows much about the empirical world. The debate, rather, is between an obstinate and unfounded belief that empirical evidence relates to fact, and a different conception of truth, knowledge, and fact all together. It is uncommon, if it ever does occur, that one should truly accept another person·s point of view. Far more common is the adaptation of another·s view into something that makes sense to the listener but is mostly alien to the other, an agreement on semantics, and an ultimately illusionary reconciliation that is hiding, for the time being, the divide that has always been there. It can be said that the ultimate conflict between science and religion is not in the shared goal of searching always for the truth, but in the deeply divided sense of reality. A scientist cures a cancer that the believer sees as illusionary, a believer saves a soul that the scientist sees as illusionary. We do not need both. Theologians will admit into their theories an innate knowledge within Man. They construct logic and empiricism along with this innate knowledge to create a functional system of understanding truth and reality. Scientific knowledge also relies on overcoming nihilism. This is done easily, in a method often ignorant of the need to overcome nihilism, and then the scientist finds himself in a construction of truth and knowledge based only on logic and empiricism with no internally coherent explanation for his rejection of nihilism. Where is the divide between circularity and internal coherence?

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->