Oh BB, you did hit and interesting one. David Hume's questioning causality, John Locke's epistemology of reality being that as observe by God, but we can't fully know, Immanuel Kant's well, granted we can't know, but if we're to reason these assumptions need to be accepted. Of course very interesting since John Locke is rightly or wrongly connected with Unitariasm with not a few articles on the subject.Of course us Christian are in a little dilemma, while Locke's arguemnts are pretty and Kant seems to pave a way in science and faith - they are apposed to St. Paul in Romans 1:20-22"20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.]"You did pick an ironic question to post BB, not sure what you intended, but unwittingly haunting with the currently TEC's theology![For some fun, read Berger's arguement 'theological possiblities starting with man,' next to John Calvin's Intitutes of Relion, Chapter One. I have dyslexia, so reading is VERY difficult for me and I'm still saying it's worth the read].
BB! Now you REALLY have me confused, you start out with actualy issue of concern for eighteenth century philosopher, now you add some "Zen!" Have you been listening to too many ++KJS NPR interviews or something? I think it's effecting you.(If you do pre-Socratic, I'm ready for you, St. Paul answer them on Mars hill).
Post a Comment