[kellychaos]

While having a firm stake in empiricism, I do tend to question whether it is the end all. I do believe in the scientific method and discovery to the point where it becomes a bit too theoretical for my tastes and too heavily reliant on models and technology that we, ourselves, developed the further the investigation goes along. In the way that a tangential angle, while first coming close to the topic, moves farther away as more assumptions based on previous discoveries are made. Who really reads the fine print for the early acceptable margins of error?

I believe, and I'm paraphrasing in a large way here, in Kant's theory that there is sort of a matrix that governs our view of the world and which largely governs most of what we can sense empirically (with a little a priory knowledge like mathematics, morality, ect thrown in). What ultimately controls us that we cannot perceive, and probably won't be able to conceive being, pretty much, a closed system? I don't know. Call it theology. Call it the metaphysical. I believe that there is a force behind life with a direction and a purpose. We are largely beings that move along by sensation but what provides the direction and purpose ... call it "will" or whatever. I refuse to believe that we are static models. At the same time, I refuse to believe in fairy tales half-based on pagan ritual and theological dogma which largely smack of common sense, altruism, humanism and the Golden Rule while giving too much credit to deities based on our own arrogance which we've cleverly managed to hide from ourselves.