Q&A #3: Question One

My first question based on this weeks reading we touched on briefly during the last class conversation: can science provide the human life with validation and purpose? We discussed briefly how evolutionary theory would suggest that our purpose is to further the species and ensure its survival, however I would like to suggest an alternative. Perhaps the methods of scientific inquiry and the fact that we are seemingly always trying to find answers, could be evidence that as conscious and sentient beings, our purpose is to keep looking for answers. As organisms with the ability to categorize, analyze, and interpret sensory data, perhaps it is the purpose of our being to eternally search for knowledge and the nature of the world in which we occupy. The obvious objection to my suggestion is what evidence am I using to base my claim off of, aside from the observable fact that there are many unanswered questions about our existence still. Personally the idea that I am purely here to procreate leaves many questions about the human experience, and so I am contemplating whether the pursuit of knowledge itself is enough to justy

Q&A #3: Question Two

My second question after reading this weeks article is about what the criteria for a faith based epistemology would look like? Obviously empirical evidence would not be a strict requirement, but how would we validate intuitions and feelings as being evidence of truth about the world? Is there a hierarchy in which some people's intuitions about human nature or the existence of the soul are more accurate? It seems that one aspect of this epistemology would be the claim that: since there is no scientifically explanation for phenomenon X, then X must be explainable by supernatural explanation. Ideas such as human consciousness are often used in this debate, as psychologists, neuroscientists, and biologists still cannot locate the anatomical processes which we label the conscious mind. Even if some phenomena are not explainable by scientific inquiry thus far, it does not mean that this will be thee case forever. My other speculation is that a theistic epistemology would be based on the Scriptures and the literature of clergymen and other faith workers. If this is so, then wouldn't their system of knowledge be based on human writings and thus be based in the natural world?

God without the supernatural?

The title of my blog comes from a book by a philosopher of religion named Peter Forrest who defends a position he calls scientific theism. One objection Forrest has with the notions ascribed to the supernatural is the model is outdated, thus the idea of God as an anthropomorphic entity resembling human beings. While I was intrigued by Forrest's position, later in the sample you can view by searching Google books and reading the first few pages, he decides to defend a God that created us not for our earthly lives but for an afterlife. I would suggest reading the first couple pages, including an introduction to the books overall themes, as some of his concepts are interesting and the argument to support them would be entertaining from a metaphysical perspective.