A comparison of perspectives of descartes and locke regarding epistemology

Empirical method A central concept in science and the scientific method is that it must be empirically based on the evidence of the senses. Both natural and social sciences use working hypotheses that are testable by observation and experiment. The term semi-empirical is sometimes used to describe theoretical methods that make use of basic axiomsestablished scientific laws, and previous experimental results in order to engage in reasoned model building and theoretical inquiry.

A comparison of perspectives of descartes and locke regarding epistemology

Does it aid or support Christian convictions, or do its principles and methodology intrinsically tend to work like an acid, slowly eroding the intellectual foundations of Christian theism as a viable worldview? Has historical criticism benefited the lay faithful by improving their understanding of the text and thereby strengthening a living Christian faith, or has the method become associated with technical expertise and specialization such that the average believer avoids the text due to fear of interpretive inadequacy?

From a Catholic point of view, has a magisterium of the academic elite been erected to compete with the Magisterium of the Church? Must historical criticism necessarily give rise to oppositions: Nor is the question limited to the relation of professional historical criticism to the wider Christian world.

A comparison of perspectives of descartes and locke regarding epistemology

For within the academy itself the debate concerning which principles and presuppositions should underwrite historical-critical methodology is often contested. One cause of such contentiousness is the increasingly apparent fact that the particular conclusions generated by the historical-critical method often differ dramatically depending upon which set of broader philosophical presuppositions guide the practitioner in plying his craft.

It is precisely such background commitments and their relation to the practice of the historical-critical method that have given rise to trenchant disagreements in the areas of both Old and New Testament studies.

Minimalist scholars, citing lack of direct explicit evidence for various biblical claims concerning early Israelite history are often skeptical about the reliability of key epochal features of the biblical account such as the lives of the patriarchs, the existence of Israel in Egypt, the Exodus and wilderness wanderings, the conquest of the Canaanites, the stories of the Judges, and even the existence of a united kingdom under David and Solomon.

Examples of such scholarship might include Thomas L. Maximalist scholars, on the other hand, citing the correspondence between the chronological and factual claims of the biblical narrative with the known archaeological, linguistic, and cultural conventions of the Ancient Near East, tend to embrace the essential reliability of the Old Testament.

With respect to New Testament Scholarship, one finds a similar divergence. On the one hand, there are scholars who are skeptical concerning the historical veracity of large portions of the Gospel narrative, especially where the text touches upon claims of supernatural intervention, including the central event of the Christian story — the resurrection of Christ.

The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. On the other hand, there is a host of New Testament scholars who, while also trained and practiced in the tools and techniques of historical critical methodology, find the evidence for the essential reliability of the New Testament accounts quite compelling.

The Gospels as Eyewitness TestimonyN.

Mind–body dualism - Wikipedia

What is at Stake? It is important to recognize just how high the stakes really are with respect to a proper assessment of historical criticism.

A comparison of perspectives of descartes and locke regarding epistemology

For although some practitioners are more cognizant than others concerning the impact of presuppositions upon the probative force of their conclusions, many scholars conduct their work without sufficient critical reflection upon the implicit commitments that shape their research and findings.

In some cases the conclusions of historical-critical scholars are antithetical to Christian theism at a fundamental level.

It is not simply a question of better or worse exegetical results, or even the impact of the historical-critical method upon questions of biblical inspiration or inerrancy. When situated within an anti-theistic or at least anti-supernaturalist philosophical context, historical criticism can represent a direct threat to the rational foundations of Christianity and the authority of the Church per se precisely because it challenges the basic reliability of the biblical text.

In challenging the basic reliability of the texts, this form of historical criticism undermines the traditional apologetic which renders Christian theism and the authority of the Church rationally credible as a cosmic-cultural vision of reality.

That is because the traditional apologetic that establishes the fact of a divine revelation, and therefore a specifically Christian notion of theism, depends upon establishing the basic reliability of the biblical corpus as essentially truthful human testimony, including where that testimony touches upon claims to both the prophetic and the miraculous.

Accordingly, by calling the basic historical reliability of the text into question, historical criticism can be toxic to Christian faith at a deeper level than some orthodox observers perhaps recognize. It is not enough simply to point out that in an effort to maintain objectivity, academic historical criticism often proceeds with an a priori indifference to Christian philosophical and theological claims.

That manner of proceeding is often a condition arising from a deeper conviction. The deeper conviction held by a number of historical critical practitioners both past and present is the belief that what they have discovered about the text via critical tools and methodology has actually undermined the substantial human reliability of the biblical text, which if that were true in turn vitiates the fundamental apologetic that underwrites a Christian worldview.

In fact, to claim that some historical-critical scholars are operating with an a priori indifference to a Christian worldview is not quite right.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Precisely because such scholars think that a traditional Christian cosmology has itself been discredited through the discoveries of the critical method, their refusal to recognize a limiting or supervening confessionalist framework Catholic, Protestant or otherwise from within which to conduct their trade is, for them, a matter of intellectual integrity.

For all of these reasons, the subject at hand should be of great interest and concern to all Christians. The Catholic Response What then is one to make of the value of historical criticism when it seems capable of yielding such divergent results?

One stance might be simply to reject the value of historical criticism altogether. This approach is sometimes associated with biblical fundamentalism. Another approach on the other end of the spectrum might be to accept the conclusions of historical critical scholars uncritically, overlooking altogether the impact of presuppositions upon conclusions.

In fact, operating with a presuppositional blind spot seems to characterize some historical critical scholars themselves, a weakness in no way unique to the field of biblical studies, but rather a common hazard of modern academic specialization wherein islands of intra-guild peer interaction, isolated from inter-disciplinary influences, too often breeds an unhealthy academic parochialism.

For her part, the Catholic Church has taken the path of cautious assessment and distinction, followed by conditional acceptance of the historical critical enterprise. As the practice of the historical critical method gained ascendancy within the Protestant world during the past few centuries, both its merits and weaknesses became more apparent, as well as its capacity to influence Catholic scholarship for better or worse.

Accordingly, the Magisterium of the Church was compelled to take stock of the developing situation in biblical studies and render guidance. While each document is worthy of careful study in itself, it is sufficient here to point out three general themes which emerge from the encyclicals.

First and foremost comes a warning that biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum, that its tools and techniques, principles and methods presuppose a cognitive framework.

Moreover, the popes have pointed out that the presuppositions underwriting the work of many biblical critics were and in many cases still are inimical to Christian faith.

A second theme is the recognition that great advances have been made in archaeology, linguistics and many other specialized disciplines relevant to a better material understanding of Sacred Scripture, and further, that such advances in tools and techniques ought to be welcomed and appropriated by scholars for the benefit of the Church.

Thirdly, though perhaps more implicit than explicit, is the conviction that there is a crucial distinction between the philosophical presuppositions which undergird biblical scholarship on the one hand, and the legitimate use of modern tools and techniques on the other.Mind–body dualism, or mind–body duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable.

Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the.

Aug 28,  · The intention of this article herein is to explore St.

Augustine's purpose, motive, and desires in writing the thirteen books of his famous vetconnexx.com write about his own life, his own sins, his own coming to grace, and what sort of a message is St. Augustine trying to . Descartes had his fair share of opposing philosophers, but one of his main critiques was in the person of John Locke.

I do not totally agree with his proposition that only the mind can produce certain knowledge and that our senses are always under the attack of the devil that deceives us.

DYOH The chief difference between Descartes and Locke is that Descartes was a rationalist, one who holds that knowledge of the world can be gained by exercise of pure reason, while Locke was an empiricist, one who believes that knowledge of the world comes only through the senses.

Accordingly, Descartes in his Meditations attempts to . In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and vetconnexx.comcism emphasises the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions.

Niccolò Machiavelli (—) Machiavelli was a 16th century Florentine philosopher known primarily for his political ideas. His two most famous philosophical books, The Prince and the Discourses on Livy, were published after his vetconnexx.com philosophical legacy remains enigmatic, but that result should not be surprising for a thinker who understood the necessity to work sometimes from the.

» Simple Essay: A Critical Comparison: Locke and Descartes'