Question for Lingo:

[Archaea]

What is your ontological and epistemological view of faith?

Do you take a generally literal interpretation of scripture?

Do you require that most of the details given to you be true and accurate in order to accept the representations of the authority?

Can you exercise faith in the face of doubt and contradiction?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hey Lingo. Arch gave a nicely detailed response to your question. Are you going to ignore his?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Hey Lingo. Arch gave a nicely detailed response to your question. Are you going to ignore his?

He's probably too busy trying to prove me a liar.

[RC Vikings]

This may help...

An ontological argument for the existence of God is one that attempts the method of a priori proof, which utilizes intuition and reason alone.[1] In the context of the Abrahamic religions, it was first proposed by the medieval philosopher Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogion, and important variations have been developed by philosophers such as René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, Alvin Plantinga, and Kurt Gödel.

A modal logic version of the argument was devised by mathematician Kurt Gödel. The ontological argument has been a controversial topic in philosophy. Many philosophers, including David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, have openly criticized the argument.

The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God, then God exists — it is thus self-contradictory to state that God does not exist.

The argument's different versions arise mainly from using different concepts of God as the starting point. For example, Anselm starts with the notion of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived, while Descartes starts with the notion of God as being maximally perfect (as having all perfections).

Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature, methods, limitations, and validity of knowledge and belief.

The term "epistemology" is based on the Greek words "επιστήμη or episteme" (knowledge or science) and "λόγος or logos" (account/explanation). It was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808-1864).[1]

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?".

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

This may help...

An ontological argument for the existence of God is one that attempts the method of a priori proof, which utilizes intuition and reason alone.[1] In the context of the Abrahamic religions, it was first proposed by the medieval philosopher Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogion, and important variations have been developed by philosophers such as René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, Alvin Plantinga, and Kurt Gödel.

A modal logic version of the argument was devised by mathematician Kurt Gödel. The ontological argument has been a controversial topic in philosophy. Many philosophers, including David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, have openly criticized the argument.

The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God, then God exists — it is thus self-contradictory to state that God does not exist.

The argument's different versions arise mainly from using different concepts of God as the starting point. For example, Anselm starts with the notion of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived, while Descartes starts with the notion of God as being maximally perfect (as having all perfections).

Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature, methods, limitations, and validity of knowledge and belief.

The term "epistemology" is based on the Greek words "επιστήμη or episteme" (knowledge or science) and "λόγος or logos" (account/explanation). It was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808-1864).[1]

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?".

If the church ever decided to do a purge of the intellectuals in the church, they would come to this site and start. I call you intellectuals because most of you use words I have never heard of let alone understand. Maybe if you spoke in regular words the rest of the folks wouldn't fear you.

[Indy Coug]

Sometimes, intellectualism consists of nothing more than having a desktop 'new word a day' calendar.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by BYU71

If the church ever decided to do a purge of the intellectuals in the church, they would come to this site and start. I call you intellectuals because most of you use words I have never heard of let alone understand. Maybe if you spoke in regular words the rest of the folks wouldn't fear you.

That was right out of Wikipedia because I had no idea what those two words meant. After reading through that I was still in the dark but I thought someone else could sort it out.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

That was right out of Wikipedia because I had no idea what those two words meant. After reading through that I was still in the dark but I thought someone else could sort it out.

Prepare for obligatory Cali Coug post mocking anyone who believes anything written on Wikipedia.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Prepare for obligatory Cali Coug post mocking anyone who believes anything written on Wikipedia.

Tex Corollary # 3

[Sleeping in EQ]

The concepts ontology, epistemology, and axiology are in common circulation in humanities circles. They might seem like dinner party words, but their precision makes them very useful. If more people understood and made a habit of applying them, many a fruitless argument would be avoided.

Ontological assumptions concern the nature of humankind (and by extension, of something like "God"). An assumption, for example, that human beings are base (and not good), is an ontological assumption. The doctrine of original sin is rife with ontological assumption.

Epistemological assumptions concern how we know what we know. The pre-Socratic split between empiricism and rationalism is an epistemological one. The differences between quantitative and qualitative methods, differences that play a big part in the distinction between say, science degrees and art degrees, are epistemological. Is knowledge grounded empirically, intuitively, experimentally, or some other way (like, say, spiritually)? This is an epistemological question.

Axiological assumptions deal with the values that are implied by, or are implicit in, a worldview, theory, or mode of thinking. Does this theory assume the goodness or evil of progress or technology? Does this line of thinking assume that Victorian gender roles are natural? Those are axiological questions.

Asking these questions is a great way to get a handle on someone's sense of her/his own perspective. I hope this little explanation has been helpful. My apologies to those of you who had this drilled into you in philosophy 101.