Doxa

Metacrock said recently:

Because you are only looking at the bits that are on the surface, that's the natural it's empirical. This is what Tillich means when he links atheism with "surface level of being." You are only thinking of what you can see. If you want to deal with morality or meaning or anything below the surface then you do need SN.

Can anyone give any example of looking below the surface, or deeper thinking?

Why should we think this deeper thinking matches reality?

The Pixie wrote:Metacrock said recently:

Because you are only looking at the bits that are on the surface, that's the natural it's empirical. This is what Tillich means when he links atheism with "surface level of being." You are only thinking of what you can see. If you want to deal with morality or meaning or anything below the surface then you do need SN.

Can anyone give any example of looking below the surface, or deeper thinking?

Why should we think this deeper thinking matches reality?

Ethics, meta-ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, consciousness. None of these appear to be resolvable through empirical means. Before we can begin to wonder whether something "matches reality" we first have to have a grasp on what 'reality' might be. Before we can apply empirical methods to grasp reality, we have to tacitly accept the assumptions that empiricism is premised on.

Jim B. wrote:Ethics, meta-ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, consciousness. None of these appear to be resolvable through empirical means.

In what sense are these "deeper" or "below the surface"?

Jim B. wrote:Before we can begin to wonder whether something "matches reality" we first have to have a grasp on what 'reality' might be. Before we can apply empirical methods to grasp reality, we have to tacitly accept the assumptions that empiricism is premised on.

Say that that is so, what does theology (or anything else other than science) bring to the table?

The Pixie wrote:

Jim B. wrote:Ethics, meta-ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, consciousness. None of these appear to be resolvable through empirical means.

In what sense are these "deeper" or "below the surface"?

Jim B. wrote:Before we can begin to wonder whether something "matches reality" we first have to have a grasp on what 'reality' might be. Before we can apply empirical methods to grasp reality, we have to tacitly accept the assumptions that empiricism is premised on.

Say that that is so, what does theology (or anything else other than science) bring to the table?

"Deeper" or "below the surface" by greater generality and explanatory power, and also by possibly providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for empiricism. If we're trying t understand the falling of objects to the ground, an understanding of gravity is at a "deeper" level than just looking at individual phenomena, which is pure empiricism.

Jim B. wrote:"Deeper" or "below the surface" by greater generality and explanatory power, and also by possibly providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for empiricism. If we're trying t understand the falling of objects to the ground, an understanding of gravity is at a "deeper" level than just looking at individual phenomena, which is pure empiricism.

Okay.

So sticking with the gravity example, what is the deeper explanation that science has not (and presumably cannot) find?

And why should we suppose it is true?