<<The evidence for a Creator has to addressed in the field of epistemology
and philosophy, not in the world of the material, just as the rules for
scientific knowledge are debated in epistemology.>>
Jfreddy, you are close, very close...but, yet, so far away. The above
statement reveals precisely the obstacle that prohibits you from any
possibility of further intellectual growth. John Galt, in his infinite
charity, shall assist you, once again.
The basic flaw can be found in the statement "The evidence for a
Creator...". It is 'evidence' that epistomology debates and its definition
that makes science possible. It is science, then, with the further task of
defining what is and what is not that is based on the 'evidence'. The
question, then, of whether a creator exists or does exist must fall within
the domain of science. Epistomology can only debate what constitutes
'evidence'. The statement, "The evidence for a Creator..." has the result
of effectively blurring the critical distinction of science and philosophy.
By imposing a question of science into the philosophy that makes science,
then science, itself, stands imperiled...and precisely because then
anything can be described as science.
Jfreddy, John Galt has stressed to you on many prior occassions that
epistomology cannot be employed to questions that are the domain of
science. Epistomology is an on-going debate over what constitutes the
'evidence' that provides science then the tool to define what is and what
is not. In the social and political arena of science, these lines are
drawn clearly, but, in reality, it is you, the individual, in the end, that
must discern truth from fiction. And, too often, these 'necessary'
demarkations are not so clearly drawn.
John Galt, however, does see possibilites in you, JFreddy. Keep on with
your struggle and perhaps, you, too, may one day enter into the Kingdom of
Galt.
John Galt |
