Let me ask you something...Have you ever had a brother or sister or friend that all evidence pointed to there guilt, and they came to you and pleaded with you as to their innocence? Perfectly clear by the evidence that they were guilty, yet the pleaded with you to believe them that they did not do it? Did you not once say to anyone "o.k.,... I believe you", or did you say "It requires the discipline of not accepting anything that cannot be confirmed, observed, repeated?" We're talking trust here, and how do you quantify trust? How can you every defend yourself in trusting in only the word of anyone if the "Scientific Method is not about excluding knowledge but sets out rules for what can be allowed as evidence, and it only allows observable, repeatable or otherwise verifiable evidence." How many times is the words "verify, verify" repeated by Jesus in the Bible?
We are getting back towards the topic of "Are spiritual matters exempt from rationality?" This is better, because I cannot compare Science with Christianity nor the Philosophies with the Christianities. If we are talking about trust it is qualitative. It is rational to trust people whom you deem trustworthy, or its as rational as is possible for human beings.
The Bible is not a textbook. Sure, it has synaposis as to the order of things, but it's not of "how I did it" book. It's a book of Jesus Christ relationship with man. And how do you quantify that? It's not that the bible will give scientific answers, but that's incorrect to assume the bible is a statement contrary to scientific answers.
I don't think that is an issue. Scientific answers are unrelated to Bible answers, specifically for the purpose of excluding ecclesiastic authority from the Scientific process. Science is like when you look at something green and you say "That is green." The modern scientific community arose partly because of Christians of many different kinds. They all saw the need for looking at things with a fresh eye and not beholden to how some authority said things ought to be. That includes Roman Catholics and Protestants, and the thing that greatly helped Scientific Method become a reality was the insistence that God's creation was good. At the same time the Scientific Method must be kept independent of the input from ministers, who are by no means innocent men and women. As you have noticed there are many who would try and make the Earth be under 10,000 years of age. I've read some of their bunk, and bunk it is. Their input cannot be trusted, but more generally ecclesiastic input should always be excluded no matter if it is right or wrong -- whether it appears to coincide with observational and rational discovery or not. No matter what is means by "Circle of the Earth" in the Bible, Scientists should proceed based upon observations alone. They must, because otherwise politicians and ecclesiastics of all kinds would destroy the process of discovery.
No one starts out with no Knowledge...philosophy is an analysis as to what is the Truth from already formulated opinions and observations. Your "tiny seed" of what you can know by yourself has already been corrupted by your circumstances and experiences. For example, Is capital punishment a good thing? How are you going to define the morality of capital punishment without bias? Even in philosophy, a person seeks the "truth" from outside sources.
Phillosophy is a large and branched subject. Some Philosophies are better than others. Philosophies (yes plural) interest many people and are full of gifts for those who are interested in studying them. The question of capital punishment is part of a branch called 'Ethics', and its is the least Philosophical branch (I think). A Philosophy student and a religious student are two very different things. The book
Proverbs in the Bible is philosophical in nature, making observations about nature and causing the reader to extract lessons from those, but it also applies the experiences of the author. In that it is not philosophic, since it is not referring you to your own experiences or conclusions. The Philosopher seeks to provide a method of questioning that enables all students to reach conclusions for themselves, and usually it is very different from Bible study. The Bible typically gives you conclusions (like in Paul's epistles), and then you seek to understand the conclusions. It gives you
Genesis, and then you try to understand
Genesis with exegesis.
Math in greek time was a religion like Pythagoras...numerology at its purist. But our modern numeral symbols basically comes from Hindu-Arabic culture because of the failure of Greek phylosophers to define a method of computation. How then in math do we distingush the abstract from the procedure? Is math viable in the abstract or only as a tool to measure? Does math define thought, or does thought define math. If math defines thought, then why did the greeks fail in their religion of numerology in explaining the purpose of life?
When you say "Pure Mathematics" you are talking about un-applied Math. There are many people who study what can be known through Math, and they are Pure Mathematicians. Often their materials never find any useful purpose in real life. Others work with Math that is already useful and try to extend it, and this is called "Applied Mathematics." The answer to your question is being pursued in both directions.
How then in math do we distingush the abstract from the procedure?
Numerology is unacceptable in what we call 'Math' today. Procedures are always questionable as are people. Mathematicians make models that try to make observations about the number line, and they refine their procedures. They submit their work to the opinions of others, publicly not in the secret way of the Pythagorean. They accept criticism, completely unlike the Pythagoreans. A Mathematician who does not accept criticism and will not allow others to see his or her work, that is no Mathematician.
