3 ms·
>But the aim of all religion is to be outside rational discussion That's pretty revisionist. Religion certainly was not like that in the past. People 100% trul
by MichaelGG 11y ago
>But the aim of all religion is to be outside rational discussion
That's pretty revisionist. Religion certainly was not like that in the past. People 100% truly believed things were literal fact. Religion was an actual thing that "happened" in day-to-day life. It's only in more modern times, with more investigatory powers that people claim that all of religion is out of reach, and that if you try to claim it to be literal, then you're interpreting it wrong.
- gonvaled 11y ago> That's pretty revisionist. Religion certainly was not like that in the past. "There is a teapot orbiting the sun, between Venus and Mercury". That is a very concrete fact, and in principle verifiable. I am anyway making a claim outside of rational discussion, because I know that with out current knowledge and technology, it is impossible to discuss this fact. That's how religious facts work: they make concrete claims, but unverifiable with the knowledge and technology of the period when the claim is made. That those claims are unmasked by the progress in human knowledge is just a design flaw of religion, not a prove that they anyhow want to take part in the rational discourse.