Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
The argument is old, but I find they are arguing in the wrong manner.
I don't believe one should ever attribute "episteme" to religion. There are "events" which cause a believer to act, but they do not and will never rise to the level of empirical knowledge. It is a conviction, not even an Aristotelean "mythos" as it were.
To me, it's the wrong question.
Why does religion seek to assert the structure of events, when it's purpose is to divine a purpose, not a physical explanation of the cosmos?
The question is not whether I can determine whether an event took place, but whether I can divine value from an ethos.
My association with religion is not with its falsifiability of events, but whether its value is true and valid, or false and invalid.
I find cultural anthropology fascinating, but too many of its proponents are willing to go out on limbs making religious type predictions of knowledge.
In physics or math, approximations are shown in a fast fourier transform or a finite fourier transform, where a precise number may not be possible.
Cultural anthropology will never be able to make even that level of approximation.
|
Yea I generally find it counterproductive to go after religion specifically. I'm all for following the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads to slaughtering sacred cows, but I've heard of cultural guys making it a point to refute religion. It's not something I have to deal with (other than evolution vs. creationism, which I do have strong feelings about), and perhaps that's for the best.