“Faith is an extrapolation from available sensory data.”

I really do not want to sound snotty here, please believe me, but you would do well to consult a dictionary. Faith is the diametric opposite of what you have just suggested: faith is the choice and the compulsion to assert something in the TOTAL ABSENCE of any data, especially of the sensory kind, otherwise it’s not faith, it’s just common sense in something corporeally evident:

“faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things NOT seen.” (emphasis added”

Maybe, now, instead of simply asking me questions and challenging me, you’d care to flesh out your position, and why its tenable?

Faith is not a tool of investigation, rather it is an extrapolation from available sensory data.

Faith is not to be confused with “wishing” or “hoping” for things. It is not a separate way of knowing.

“Requiring someone to go out there and attempt a back-door entry to the noumena (because you have suggested the insufficiency of the phenomena) through means not yet made clear in your writing appears to suggest that scripture alone is not sufficient.”

Back door…you mean using some other means apart from the sensory… like faith?

I’m saying in fact that senses and the rational processing of sensory data, will not get us there. Science, though, think that this is the only path to truth.

Christ seems to assert otherwise. My point is that the sensory (and, even the rational) doesn’t lead to salvation or knowledge in God?

Do you believe otherwise?

I’m using the terms to modify each other:

empiricist: knowledge through sensual observability, testing, validation, and method

positivist: that rigorous empiricism is the only path to truth

Positivism is the natural end destination of empiricism when humanism get enters the mix, and man sees himself a perfect apparatus.

Do you mean “empiricist” or “positivist” in this case, from your prior post it would appear that you mean “positivist.”

“This is bulls$#t. So Dan can produce an article that says exactly what you’re saying, only shorter and more clear and go at your stuff..

1) As I said, the article Dan posted talked about Kant. So did I in part. So? It was only a preface. Background. Not my argument, and so, whether the article summarized something better than me or not is irrelevant… I’m moving on to something else the article doesn’t even hint at, and the upcoming arguments, I’ve never read anywhere else.

2)”and no “where’s the fruit?” “Whats behind this?”. Boourns!!!”

We’ve been over this: Dan’s just disagreeing, giving an alternate view, recommending other sources. But for some reason, they’re not upsetting me, I’m not taking them personally, and I’m able to respond in kind, with other ideas, minus the emotional content. Disagreement doesn’t bother me… I thought I explained this.

Have you read Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature? He lays out a defense of empiricism against 18th Century rationalism. It’s an interesting and intricate argument that I’ve no space to lay out here. I recommend it as required reading though before declaring this position presumptuous.

P.S.: Who is Dana?