3 ms·
Sure, if you define religion as literal interpretation of the Bible, stuck in the 9th century, while allowing science the full benefit of modern understanding.
by deogeo 7y ago
Sure, if you define religion as literal interpretation of the Bible, stuck in the 9th century, while allowing science the full benefit of modern understanding.
For example, you probably didn't have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism in mind when you said religion.
> Even when "natural laws" were discovered, those laws were divine in origin, and thus could conceivably be arbitrarily suspended or changed under divine will.
We still don't know the origin of natural laws. It's very probable that such knowledge is unattainable.
- skissane 7y ago> literal interpretation of the Bible, stuck in the 9th century I have to speak up in defence of people who lived in the 9th century. In the Middle Ages, allegorical approaches to Bible interpretation were popular, and they weren't wedded to literal readings of it – e.g. Augustine of Hippo (4th/5th century) argued that the six days in Genesis 1 were not meant to be understood as six literal days – and Augustine's views on this were very influential in the centuries that followed. People sometimes seem to back-project 19th/20th/21st century American fundamentalism on to the Middle Ages, when that sort of wooden literalism was very alien to the mediaeval spirit.
- deogeo 7y agoI'll admit, I picked "9th century" at random, without knowing much about it.