> The epistemological method in use in the class, so for instance in theology appeals to faith or words written thousands of years ago would be acceptable, while you'd probably want to reject appeals to logic/rationality.
Theology, while its foundational principles may be established on the basis of revelation such as scripture, often proceeds from foundational principles by logic.
"Please explain how you proceed logically from the position that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin?"
This doesn't seem hard. Apologist hat on.
It wasn't the knowledge that was bad, it's that the knowledge was attained by doing what God said not to. Certainly, we can condemn things done in pursuit of knowledge - Mengele being probably the easiest example.
Personally? I've no idea if it's the correct one. Not subscribing to a school of thought that admits supernatural origin of these stories, I'm not really sure what "the correct one" would mean for me.
I interpreted fleitz (in the bit I quoted) as saying "if knowledge is bad, then we shouldn't be using logic to get us more knowledge, so the whole exercise is absurd." I was pointing out that there's at least one out.
Theology, while its foundational principles may be established on the basis of revelation such as scripture, often proceeds from foundational principles by logic.