|
irateplatypus -- I'm a bit confused. You say that "it's ex nihilo or nothing these days" (ala Descartes, I assume), but in your next post, you say, "nearly all philosophies assume things". Maybe it's just early and I'm not quite thinking straight yet, but this seems like a contradiction?
In any case, we all have assumptions that we tailor our philosophies around. Our epistemic state is never that of someone building a system up from a foundation. Rather, its more like someone in a boat on the open seas, replacing one board at a time. We use some of our beliefs to critique other beliefs. So I don't know why belief in the inerrancy of scripture would be in a different category than the belief that only empirically verifiable claims are true or false (other than that the second has been proven incoherent).
Further, I don't know why we're not allowed to use scripture to defend our moral and/or metaphysical beliefs and/or choices. If you ask me why I chose to give money to charity, and I answer "Because the Bible says that's a good thing", why isn't that a good answer? Similarly, if you ask why I believe in angels, and I say, "Because the Bible says that there are angels", why is that a bad answer? Surely it's, at the worst, no worse than believing in the existence of Australia because your Uncle Joe says it's there.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|