03 May '07 22:40>1 edit
Is philosophical reasoning regarding God meaningless?
I ask this because:
1) I do not see how people can accurately claim a connection with the supernatural if we consider all tangible aspects of the universe part of the natural world.
2) There is insufficient scientific and historical evidence to indicate that the God mentioned by the major monotheistic religions actually exists.
Thus, is it feasible for anybody, whether philosophers, scientists, theists or atheists, to make theories regarding the supernatural? Are all theories regarding the existence of a supernatural entity utterly unverifiable with no viable supportive reasoning?
More generally, is philosophical reasoning ever more practical than scientific reasoning? Kant implies that “no metaphysical axiom can be proven to be necessary.” (1)
Then why should people care about philosophy? I presume that meaning is a human construct, but if scientific reasoning is more viable than philosophical reasoning, then scientific reasoning would concordantly be more meaningful.
Philosophy, as with science, may be applicable in all fields. Perhaps I am confused on the purpose of philosophy and how its purpose differs from that of science.
I suppose people primarily exploit science for monetary gain and philosophy for metaphysical or unscientific (?) discussion.
Philosophical reasoning is “related to the rational investigation of the principles and truths of being, knowledge or conduct. (2)
Whereas scientific reasoning refers to the methodology used to acquire “systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.” (3)
(1) http://users.aristotle.net/~diogenes/intellec.htm
(2)http://lib.ucr.edu/depts/acquisitions/YBP%20NSP%20GLOSSARY%20EXTERNAL%20revised6-02.php
(3) www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm
I ask this because:
1) I do not see how people can accurately claim a connection with the supernatural if we consider all tangible aspects of the universe part of the natural world.
2) There is insufficient scientific and historical evidence to indicate that the God mentioned by the major monotheistic religions actually exists.
Thus, is it feasible for anybody, whether philosophers, scientists, theists or atheists, to make theories regarding the supernatural? Are all theories regarding the existence of a supernatural entity utterly unverifiable with no viable supportive reasoning?
More generally, is philosophical reasoning ever more practical than scientific reasoning? Kant implies that “no metaphysical axiom can be proven to be necessary.” (1)
Then why should people care about philosophy? I presume that meaning is a human construct, but if scientific reasoning is more viable than philosophical reasoning, then scientific reasoning would concordantly be more meaningful.
Philosophy, as with science, may be applicable in all fields. Perhaps I am confused on the purpose of philosophy and how its purpose differs from that of science.
I suppose people primarily exploit science for monetary gain and philosophy for metaphysical or unscientific (?) discussion.
Philosophical reasoning is “related to the rational investigation of the principles and truths of being, knowledge or conduct. (2)
Whereas scientific reasoning refers to the methodology used to acquire “systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.” (3)
(1) http://users.aristotle.net/~diogenes/intellec.htm
(2)http://lib.ucr.edu/depts/acquisitions/YBP%20NSP%20GLOSSARY%20EXTERNAL%20revised6-02.php
(3) www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm