Religion is another way of knowing
(Difference between revisions)
Mikesamuel (Talk | contribs) m (fixes to grammar and capitalization) |
BunniRabbi (Talk | contribs) (removed "knowing what?" section, as the suggested approach is too easily opposed without extensive biblical knowledge) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Stating "religion is another way of knowing" is an appeal to an egalitarian impulse for equity. It constitutes an argument by pathos. It also constitutes a support of [[relativism]]. | Stating "religion is another way of knowing" is an appeal to an egalitarian impulse for equity. It constitutes an argument by pathos. It also constitutes a support of [[relativism]]. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
This argument claims the [[God of the gaps]] argument is true, and that they know that it is true. | This argument claims the [[God of the gaps]] argument is true, and that they know that it is true. | ||
The argument is a God of the gaps argument because they say that god did everything, and they know it. | The argument is a God of the gaps argument because they say that god did everything, and they know it. | ||
This is odd as it is commonly raised that you can't know everything by both sides. | This is odd as it is commonly raised that you can't know everything by both sides. | ||
Revision as of 20:26, 24 January 2011
Stating "religion is another way of knowing" is an appeal to an egalitarian impulse for equity. It constitutes an argument by pathos. It also constitutes a support of relativism.
This argument claims the God of the gaps argument is true, and that they know that it is true. The argument is a God of the gaps argument because they say that god did everything, and they know it. This is odd as it is commonly raised that you can't know everything by both sides.
