Explain:
2007-05-11 01:52:59 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ah...Philosophy 101, I love it!
The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used in philosophy to distinguish between the two different types of propositional knowledge. Thus, attempts to define clearly or explain a priori and a posteriori knowledge are part of a central thread in epistemology, the study of knowledge. Since the definitions and usage of the terms are disputed and have evolved in the history of philosophy, it is difficult to provide proper definitions of them. Rough and oversimplified explanations are as follows: a priori knowledge is independent of experience, while a posteriori knowledge is dependent on experience. Lawyers sometimes use "a priori" to describe a step in an argument the truth of which can be deduced entirely from the truth of the premises. "A posteriori", on the other hand, requires a bit more evidence.
Now that the definitions are in place, consider this...
We all learn about religion initially (usually) through a priori knowledge. We are taught about it, but do not have any real "hands on" experiences.
As we grow in our faith journey, we experience some a posteriori knowledge. For example, when I prayed about adoption, it turns out my son was born the day my husband agreed to adopt a child rather go any other route. To me, personally, that was a posteriori experience of the living God.
2007-05-11 02:06:48 · answer #1 · answered by guppy137 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if you're into epistemology, any acquisition of knowledge is good. Knowledge is one of the spiritual gifts in Christianity.
Knowledge is the area where truth and belief overlap. The search for truth is of prime importance to a Christian. I can't say that I prefer either a priori or a posteriori as far as the acquisition of knowledge goes.
However, I do enjoy using my reasoning skills and deducing answers to complex problems based upon my experiences and evidence (a posteriori). Christians are exhorted to "test the spirits" so application of deductive reasoning to evidence is perfectly acceptable and good.
God did give us the ability to reason. The disciples often reasoned with Greek philosophers during their mission trips.
I have no problem accepting knowledge acquired independently of experience, using reason alone (a priori).
Faith is a vital part of Christianity, but mostly, just these three things:
Love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength
Love your neighbor as yourself
Love one another as Jesus loved us.
An interesting question. God bless you.
2007-05-11 09:15:50 · answer #2 · answered by danny_boy_jones 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Compelling? It would undoubtably be posteriori. Personal experiences and knowledge are irrefutable on a personal level and stand to affect a person in a deeper way. When discussing God - it is nearly impossible to assert priori knowledge, since priori knowledge is more scientific in nature. You can't prove the existence of God through either types of knowledge. That's where faith and spirituality come into play.
2007-05-11 08:58:51 · answer #3 · answered by wigginsray 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A posteriori because that was the knowledge God allowed Moses to have of him.
Exodus 33:12-23
2007-05-11 09:06:43 · answer #4 · answered by U-98 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In fact, I find posteriori knowledge more compelling evidence of his absence (at least the Christian God). The problem of evil ruins Christianity for me.
2007-05-11 09:00:38 · answer #5 · answered by eckzl 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe both are equally compelling. Knowledge without experience is useless. I can tell you what the Bible says about God all day, but if I don't feel it or have my own personal knowledge that comes from experience and a relationship with God, what good is that?
There are many Bible scholars that can quote to you chapter and verse, but have no real use for it.
2007-05-11 12:02:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The most compelling knowledge of God is in his magnificant creation. You need only to look into the heavens to see His majesty.
2007-05-11 09:12:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Somebody found the dictionary, I see. LOL
Since most of us have only a priori knowledge of God, the question seems irrelevant.
2007-05-11 09:05:52 · answer #8 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have been told the sight of my posteriori is almost a religious experience
2007-05-11 08:59:04 · answer #9 · answered by SvetlanaFunGirl 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
LG mumbles: Both- a good faith begins with one and.... ...the understanding of them requires... ...artificial constructs.... Foucault.....
Oh, nevermind, not a Christian.
Eh. I'm an old school decon, anyway.
2007-05-11 09:43:55 · answer #10 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋