Quote from stu:
'A way of knowing' is deliberately formed and generally intended to mean A way of not knowing. No sound basis to attack science.
It's not only science that is irrelevant and inapplicable to that metaphysical. Everything is. Purposely placing imaginary concepts permanently beyond and outside the range of knowable scientific experience and understanding, and rationality, is called make-believe.
Notice though how it's always necessary for religious belief to use understanding, but only up to the very point where it suddenly conveniently, subjectively and irrationally dumps it all, to claim things like God.
Theists are just wronger.
OK, Stu - let's work together to pinpoint exactly where it is you're going wrong..
Apparently you can't accept the metaphysical as a meaningful concept. The metaphysical is, at the very least, Kant's world of things-in-themselves. It's that which is subvenient to our idiosyncratic phenomenalities - being that is absolute rather than merely one interpretation or another. Being non-interpretational it must also be uninterpretable and therefore unknowable since the only way to worldly knowing is by way of interpretation. This, however, does not preclude divine knowing since divine knowing is knowing without interpretation; divine knowing is immediate but non-representational - for instance as in the immediate experience of the presence of God or Godness in the world. The divine may be metaphysical or even transmetaphysical; we can't know which.
Yes, we must use understanding but must accept a limit to our understanding - especially understanding based on modelling since modelling is but a faint shadow of mere phenomenalisms and can't be more than that. Scienctific understanding is exclusively understanding through modelling.
The knowing of God must, then, occur in an unscientific manner.
There - that wasn't so hard now, was it?
