3 ms·

>Their domains are mutually exclusive and yet the conversation continues stupidly (on both sides) as if they were. This may be true in principle, but your whol

>Their domains are mutually exclusive and yet the conversation continues stupidly (on both sides) as if they were. This may be true in principle, but your whole argument falls apart because religion does make assertions about the real physical world. They (taking here the example of Christianity) they postulate miracles, divine intervention, life after death, an unlikely and unsubstantiated cosmology, not to mention of course stories about the creation of the universe or biblical floods which have conveniently become "metaphorical" after it became plain enough that they were nothing but fabrication. So your premise is not true, and that is where the whole friction comes from. EDIT: Engagement rather than downvotes would be appreciated :)

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
I agree with your central thesis, but I doubt one of your other points: > not to mention of course stories about the creation of the universe or biblical floods which have conveniently become "metaphorical" after it became plain enough that they were nothing but fabrication. People hold (and have held) various beliefs about Christian theology and proper interpretation of scripture. E.g., you rightly point out problems with a literal 6-day interpretation of creation, but St. Augustine and others [0] were skeptical of that interpretation well before modern archaeological methods and/or carbon dating. So I think it's helpful to look closely at just a handful of testable claims, that cut across many different theologies, denominations, and interpretations. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of...
wellpast 7y ago
> This may be true in principle, but your whole argument falls apart because religion does make assertions about the real physical world. They (taking here the example of Christianity) they postulate miracles, divine intervention, life after death, an unlikely and unsubstantiated cosmology, not to mention of course stories about the creation of the universe or biblical floods... I don't think you could have articulated my point any better. The so-called "assertions"[1] you're talking about are narratives that came well before the scientific method, including presumably your conceptual understanding of the whole model of a "real physical world". So, therefore, at least for your examples here, there is no way that religion could have been making these "assertions"[1] in the way that you're talking about. [1] Also this word "assertions" is so grounded in this narrow (but extremely useful at times) scientific/propositional/static worldview. Science derives value from "assertions", "axioms" etc. The religious derive no value from static "assertions"; for the religious the value is in a dynamic mimetic process to the characters and narratives of their long-evolved spiritual texts & scriptures. We are so deeply entrenched in this "static" view of "assertions" that for many, many people it is the only way to "see" the world. But it is a narrow, severely incomplete picture of the world -- and, of course, extremely useful at times, but extremely narrow as well.
v64 7y ago
> religion does make assertions about the real physical world Even though religion makes those assertions, that doesn't mean the physical world is now in its domain. Religion is just making false assertions about subjects outside its domain, regardless of what their believers believe. I believe this is what the parent means by: > What a Religious person derives from their beliefs has nothing -- zero, nothing -- to do with the measurable/observable particle interactions of the material world

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

I agree with your central thesis, but I doubt one of your other points: > not to mention of course stories about the creation of the universe or biblical floods which have conveniently become "metaphorical" after it became plain enough that they were nothing but fabrication. People hold (and have held) various beliefs about Christian theology and proper interpretation of scripture. E.g., you rightly point out problems with a literal 6-day interpretation of creation, but St. Augustine and others [0] were skeptical of that interpretation well before modern archaeological methods and/or carbon dating. So I think it's helpful to look closely at just a handful of testable claims, that cut across many different theologies, denominations, and interpretations. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of...

wellpast 7y ago

> This may be true in principle, but your whole argument falls apart because religion does make assertions about the real physical world. They (taking here the example of Christianity) they postulate miracles, divine intervention, life after death, an unlikely and unsubstantiated cosmology, not to mention of course stories about the creation of the universe or biblical floods... I don't think you could have articulated my point any better. The so-called "assertions"[1] you're talking about are narratives that came well before the scientific method, including presumably your conceptual understanding of the whole model of a "real physical world". So, therefore, at least for your examples here, there is no way that religion could have been making these "assertions"[1] in the way that you're talking about. [1] Also this word "assertions" is so grounded in this narrow (but extremely useful at times) scientific/propositional/static worldview. Science derives value from "assertions", "axioms" etc. The religious derive no value from static "assertions"; for the religious the value is in a dynamic mimetic process to the characters and narratives of their long-evolved spiritual texts & scriptures. We are so deeply entrenched in this "static" view of "assertions" that for many, many people it is the only way to "see" the world. But it is a narrow, severely incomplete picture of the world -- and, of course, extremely useful at times, but extremely narrow as well.

v64 7y ago

> religion does make assertions about the real physical world Even though religion makes those assertions, that doesn't mean the physical world is now in its domain. Religion is just making false assertions about subjects outside its domain, regardless of what their believers believe. I believe this is what the parent means by: > What a Religious person derives from their beliefs has nothing -- zero, nothing -- to do with the measurable/observable particle interactions of the material world