3 ms·

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 rel

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.)
  - MRAutumn 7y ago
    > "The value from "religion" is the resonance of a dynamic, mimetic process played out usually in narratives in historic texts/scriptures." Says who? Most religious people do not say that. Most christians would claim Moses did in fact split the sea in two, literally, with 0 ambiguity. And just a couple of centuries ago all christians would have claimed that. This is the trick you've fallen into, you've decoupled religion from the banalities of daily life in order to separate it from "observable" things and fit your narrative, as if nothing in those texts could be related to the mundane routine of for example looking at the objects in the sky. In that almost all religions would disagree with you. So I say you are wrong not only because you've misrepresented the conflict between science and religion, but because to do so you had to construct a straw-man definition of religion with which almost no religious person in the history of the world would identify with.

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.)
- MRAutumn 7y ago
  > "The value from "religion" is the resonance of a dynamic, mimetic process played out usually in narratives in historic texts/scriptures." Says who? Most religious people do not say that. Most christians would claim Moses did in fact split the sea in two, literally, with 0 ambiguity. And just a couple of centuries ago all christians would have claimed that. This is the trick you've fallen into, you've decoupled religion from the banalities of daily life in order to separate it from "observable" things and fit your narrative, as if nothing in those texts could be related to the mundane routine of for example looking at the objects in the sky. In that almost all religions would disagree with you. So I say you are wrong not only because you've misrepresented the conflict between science and religion, but because to do so you had to construct a straw-man definition of religion with which almost no religious person in the history of the world would identify with.