Sunday, June 13, 2010

Ontological Naturalism

How do we gain knowledge? Are there supernatural or paranormal methods of gaining knowledge? Can faith make for knowledge?
As a skeptic, I find that some matters are probably false like creationism, others provisional knowledge until something better comes along and still others like the origin of language are up for grabs.
As a naturalist, I find that the paranormal and the supernatural probably don't exist as no evidence comes forth for them.
As a rationalist, I find reason to be the arbiter of knowledge.
As an empiricist, I find that revelations, unfounded intuitions and faith can never lead to knowledge.
And as a humanist, I find no need for divine grounding of morality.
What do you maintain, ma'am or sir?
Do you find solace in God? Do you feel there are guardian angels? Is there the Devil? Why is there evil when Heaven could be on Earth?
Is there a true holy book, and how can that be?
Do you rely on religious experience, faith and / or arguments for knowing Him? Are you in a relationship with Him. Is Yeshua God? Is Isa just a prophet? Is he just another rabbi?
Are you a fundamentalist or some other kind of believer?
Will all be saved or just some?
Is there a future state or reincarnation?
And are there any grounds to believe in the paranormal?
These matters just might intrigue you to post here!
Whilst my style is tough, I 'm nevertheless faillibilistic: I just might err!

1 comment:

  1. Had Europe followed the atomists and other naturalists, surely we'd be so further advanced in technology and science. They all recognized that the presumption of naturalism that not only are causes and explanations necessary and efficient, they are also primary and sufficient; Leibniz notwithstanding they are the sufficient reason.This neither begs nor sandbags supernaturalists but is the mere demand for evidence of that supernatural causation as the Necessary and Primary Cause.
    The atomists anticipated the quantum fields and the Metaverse.
    Aristotle with his five failed arguments knew the presumption implicitly, and that it was like the presumptin of innocence in the law.
    Before his dementia Antony Flew defended this presumption, but his dementia and his lack of knowledge of developments in biology cause him to become some sort of a deist, like Aristitle.