4 ms·

Take my example of the person who believes in Resurrection encountering the Scientific dissenter. Either they are having a fair debate and they are talking in

Take my example of the person who believes in Resurrection encountering the Scientific dissenter. Either they are having a fair debate and they are talking in the same domain or they are not. I say they are not. Yet they are still having the debate. Ergo, I say they are "tricked". What better word to use for two people fervently engaging in debate based on a senseless equivalency? I also point to history b/c it seems pretty clear to me that this wasn't always a dichotomy.

yarrel 7y ago
Someone has certainly been tricked in this example...
- wellpast 7y ago
  You have an ellipse to finish I think. Show us your brilliant thinking:
pvg 7y ago
You don't have to make up some hypothetical, you can just look at what actually happened with, say, heliocentrism or the beginnings of scientific geology. These were real, genuine cosmological disputes. In what way was this a 'trick'? What is the history you are pointing at that clarifies your position?
- wellpast 7y ago
  The trick was in both sides acting as if geo or helio-centrism from a scientific method pov had anything to do with the derived value to the religious. The religious derives value — perhaps — from the concept of centrism, perhaps the centrism of the soul/consciousness from a relational POV but whether or not the litmus paper proves an earth center matters two shits to the religious. The trick was that these two domains were confounded and a yes genuine dispute (based on a genuinely stupid equivalency) played out.
  - MRAutumn 7y ago
    With all due respect, I think it is you the one who's been tricked into the ethereal realm of 'the religious', which you've used often in this thread to get out of the real discussion. The historical debate came about because of specific claims about the physical world. No one is, or was, discussing the derived value of 'the religious', that is not the point of contention most of the time. The heliocentric debate refers specifically to a physical description of our shared universe. It is about an object, about many objects, objects that can be touched, smelled and seen. Religion is not some ambiguous collection of moral view points, it is and has been something concrete for many people for many centuries, something for which they've died and sadly something for which they've killed.
    - wellpast 7y ago
      > With all due respect, I think it is you the one who's been tricked into the ethereal realm of 'the religious', which you've used often in this thread to get out of the real discussion. "real discussion" -- this is exactly the trick. you are laying claim to your domain being the "real discussion" > The historical debate came about because of specific claims about the physical world. No one is, or was, discussing the derived value of 'the religious', that is not the point of contention most of the time. This is why I say "trick". Yes, the challenge to the religious was from Science/empiricalism that said "Look, I can explain phenomenon this way, now you don't need religion." The latter part "now you don't need religion" is the trick -- b/c it's assuming falsely that the value that the religious were getting from their faith was explanation for phenomenon which is not primarily what most humans are getting from their belief, now and then. > Religion is not some ambiguous collection of moral view points I'm afraid you're not able to see what I'm talking about, even when you shift your perspective to religion. Here you're misunderstanding the claim. The claim isn't that Religion = A Set of Moral Propositions. The value from "religion" is the resonance of a dynamic, mimetic process played out usually in narratives in historic texts/scriptures. To only be able to construe your "opponents" position as a static set of "view points" or "axioms" means you have been wholly inculcated by the domain of science etc. This is the trick, again: to try to drag the Religious person from their dynamic relationship to their faith into an on-paper axiom-, proof- oriented domain of symbol manipulation. (By the way, if I've taken liberty in explaining your position ^ here it is only to ask you to clarify yourself.)

yarrel 7y ago

Someone has certainly been tricked in this example...

wellpast 7y ago
You have an ellipse to finish I think. Show us your brilliant thinking:

pvg 7y ago

You don't have to make up some hypothetical, you can just look at what actually happened with, say, heliocentrism or the beginnings of scientific geology. These were real, genuine cosmological disputes. In what way was this a 'trick'? What is the history you are pointing at that clarifies your position?

wellpast 7y ago
The trick was in both sides acting as if geo or helio-centrism from a scientific method pov had anything to do with the derived value to the religious. The religious derives value — perhaps — from the concept of centrism, perhaps the centrism of the soul/consciousness from a relational POV but whether or not the litmus paper proves an earth center matters two shits to the religious. The trick was that these two domains were confounded and a yes genuine dispute (based on a genuinely stupid equivalency) played out.
- MRAutumn 7y ago
  With all due respect, I think it is you the one who's been tricked into the ethereal realm of 'the religious', which you've used often in this thread to get out of the real discussion. The historical debate came about because of specific claims about the physical world. No one is, or was, discussing the derived value of 'the religious', that is not the point of contention most of the time. The heliocentric debate refers specifically to a physical description of our shared universe. It is about an object, about many objects, objects that can be touched, smelled and seen. Religion is not some ambiguous collection of moral view points, it is and has been something concrete for many people for many centuries, something for which they've died and sadly something for which they've killed.
  - wellpast 7y ago
    > With all due respect, I think it is you the one who's been tricked into the ethereal realm of 'the religious', which you've used often in this thread to get out of the real discussion. "real discussion" -- this is exactly the trick. you are laying claim to your domain being the "real discussion" > The historical debate came about because of specific claims about the physical world. No one is, or was, discussing the derived value of 'the religious', that is not the point of contention most of the time. This is why I say "trick". Yes, the challenge to the religious was from Science/empiricalism that said "Look, I can explain phenomenon this way, now you don't need religion." The latter part "now you don't need religion" is the trick -- b/c it's assuming falsely that the value that the religious were getting from their faith was explanation for phenomenon which is not primarily what most humans are getting from their belief, now and then. > Religion is not some ambiguous collection of moral view points I'm afraid you're not able to see what I'm talking about, even when you shift your perspective to religion. Here you're misunderstanding the claim. The claim isn't that Religion = A Set of Moral Propositions. The value from "religion" is the resonance of a dynamic, mimetic process played out usually in narratives in historic texts/scriptures. To only be able to construe your "opponents" position as a static set of "view points" or "axioms" means you have been wholly inculcated by the domain of science etc. This is the trick, again: to try to drag the Religious person from their dynamic relationship to their faith into an on-paper axiom-, proof- oriented domain of symbol manipulation. (By the way, if I've taken liberty in explaining your position ^ here it is only to ask you to clarify yourself.)