[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views, dear BroJoeK!

But truly the two knowledge types are a false dichotomy as betty boop explains so well in her post just following yours.

And the point of the thread I linked is that most Freepers gain knowledge from a variety of methods and personally have varying degrees of confidence based on the methods for gaining knowledge.

Precious few Freepers exclude theological knowledge whether by direct or indirect revelation. Interestingly, the false dichotomy you claim only recognizes indirect theological knowledge.

[tacticalogic]

And the point of the thread I linked is that most Freepers gain knowledge from a variety of methods and personally have varying degrees of confidence based on the methods for gaining knowledge.

Precious few Freepers exclude theological knowledge whether by direct or indirect revelation. Interestingly, the false dichotomy you claim only recognizes indirect theological knowledge.

In science the coin of the realm is empirical evidence.

Theologcial knowlege may be useful in telling you where to look for that evidence, and what kind of evidence you're looking for. It's still up to you to find and present that evidence.

Bringing complaints of "heresy" into it appears to simply be an attempt to dictate what theological knowlege is allowed, and by extension what empirical evidence may or may not be admitted.

That is not an agreeable proposition.

[betty boop]

Interestingly, the false dichotomy you claim only recognizes indirect theological knowledge.

Great catch, dearest sister in Christ! I wonder why that is.

[BroJoeK]

Alamo-Girl to BJK: " the two knowledge types are a false dichotomy as betty boop explains so well in her post just following yours...
...the false dichotomy you claim only recognizes indirect theological knowledge."

Normally so perceptive, you've missed the target this time.
Your debate is not with me, but with St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom you should address your concerns about "false dichotomies".
I have merely pointed out that Aquinas was first to spell out the different forms of thinking relating to theology and "natural philosophy" -- aka "science".

So I'll say it again: Aquinas did not consider the two forms as in conflict, but he did define a method of thinking (based on inputs from senses) which we today call "science".

So, FRiend, don't accuse me of "false dichotomies".
See the Man about it.

[betty boop]

But truly the two knowledge types are a false dichotomy....

But here faith and reason are only false dichotomies on the basis that BroJoeK somehow found that what Saint Thomas propounded was the separability of faith and reason — which is exactly to invert what he was all about. Thomas sought to explicate the relations between faith and reason, not their severability, let alone their separability.

There is no sense of "dichotomy" implied in Thomas' work. I strongly doubt that awareness of such a "dichotomy" could even have existed before Rene Descartes (1596–1650).

As I sense you are well aware, dearest sister, "indirect" theological knowledge is mainly knowledge at "second hand," i.e., something "heard" from an "outside" source. It is not internal experience, which is the "direct" kind.

Thank you so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!