interesting...which philosophy is that? i don't mean to be coy as
i am not educated in philosophy, i am only asking questions and stating my opinion about the conclusions i have discovered for myself while being open to persuasion once the criteria that i have set for persuasion has been met...
Honestly, Im not really that educated in philosophy, in an academic sense that is(Im a math major). But one idea I've learned from my friends taking philosophy is that you cant prove or unprove anything in philosophy because no matter what you say there will always be a counter philosophical argument, and really no basis for determining which one is right.
As far as I'm aware, math is the only way you can "prove" things(Im taking a math proof class right now). But that being said, math is still a
man-made system, and you can only prove things that can fit within the system. And like I said, math only describes ideal conditions, but not realistic conditions since we cant measure things with 100% accuracy. So if you want to get super philosophical, technically math cant even prove anything about reality since math is a man-made system that exists outside of reality(it can only describe ideal conditions).
Okay so
technically you cant prove or unprove anything. But in a PRACTICAL sense, we obviously use math all the time to "prove" things, and I have a ton of trust in science and math. So its sort of irrelevant to me personally whether or not we can philosophically prove things, when the practical implications of math and science in our everyday life is so
USEFUL.
But I dont really want to debate about that anyways, the point I was trying to make is that philosophically you cant prove or disprove anything. Yes critical thinking requires evidence, but like I said, you've given me no reason to believe that faith does not require evidence or experience(yes I am aware illogical people exist who have faith with no evidence or experience but thats besides the point im trying to make).
waitasec said:
use my tylenol example.
now in order for a scientist to determine the pill is not poisonous the pill has to meet a certain criteria. it is my job (the use of my critical thinking under this "truth" that the FDA and the tylenol company has ensured i will not be poisoned) to determine if this pill is poisonous or not.
does that make sense?
Good example of critical thinking. But notice you did put "truth" in quotation marks because the criteria the FDA gives you is not perfect. I feel like very similar examples could apply to the relm of faith though.
We deal with an experience, concept, object, etc in life (pill). Then we try to determine something about that pill (such as a belief for example - whether or not its poisonous) and in doing so we critically use things we accept to be as "truths."
For example, I am a Jew and my people have thousands of years worth information and experience relating to God. So often when I deal with an experience, concept, object, issue, etc in life, I might read Torah, Talmud, commentaries, books on Jewish philosophy, living, etc and use them as "criteria" for forming a belief on the said issue. And philosophically speaking, the criteria I am using is no less or more provable than the FDA criteria you used in your example
So like I said, I see no reason why faith and critical thinking cant be intertwined. And you've certainly given me no reason to believe that faith doesnt require evidence or experience for a logical person.