/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15053324
>The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy makes it incompatible with science
>You still don't understand
I understand that YOU don't understand.
> The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy
I didn't say that it was 'allowed in'. Religion is one of the subjects that can be studied philosophically, as is the natural/physical world. You don't have to 'admit' as you said or 'affirm' anything about it. You can consider it's claims in terms in terms of epistemic justification and empirically testable assertions or in terms of logical deductivity.
>The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy makes it incompatible with science
What do you mean 'allowed'? You can consider, philosophically, the content and claims of religion just as you can consider any testable claims with the scientific method. So, does the fact that you can apply the scientific method to religious claims mean that science 'allows in' religion or necessarily 'admits' or affirms anything about religion. The scientific pursuit and scientific knowledge ARE both under the branch of philosophy called epistemology. There IS a separate meta-category called the philosophy of science, but science in general is a for of epistemic justification related to empiricism and induction/abduction of the content of the data/information stream appearing in minds, called the physical world. The picrel and link might be a good start for understanding.
http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf