5 ms·

>It is etymologically correct though: condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown. The etymology is not even close to being relevant.

>It is etymologically correct though: condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown. The etymology is not even close to being relevant. Conflating two different meanings of the word "worship" and implying their equivalence is dishonest and deeply unsound. That is true even if it is the definition of worship fits in both cases.

memling 6y ago
> The etymology is not even close to being relevant. Conflating two different meanings of the word "worship" and implying their equivalence is dishonest and deeply unsound. That is true even if it is the definition of worship fits in both cases. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship. Now one can argue, of course, that idols only exist if God exists, and if (or since) God does not, Wallace is ipso facto wrong. On the other hand, one might also make the argument that the polytheistic impulse is really a transfer of worship of a particular thing to a properly-named deity with some window dressing, and that all moderns have really done is to disown the deities and ritual while maintaining an attachment to their blessings. Is that fair? I don't know. But I would wager that Wallace isn't being disingenuous here, even if he's being provocative. I was under the impression he was at least nominally an atheist.
- benchaney 6y ago
  > Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship. It is perfectly fine for him to argue that they are equivalent (though I disagree). The issue is relying on the etymology of the word worship to argue that point. I'd also like to clarify that while I disagree with Wallace, the accusation of dishonestly was directed at throw0101a, who made an absurd etymology based argument after it had already been pointed out that such arguments are flawed.

memling 6y ago

> The etymology is not even close to being relevant. Conflating two different meanings of the word "worship" and implying their equivalence is dishonest and deeply unsound. That is true even if it is the definition of worship fits in both cases. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship. Now one can argue, of course, that idols only exist if God exists, and if (or since) God does not, Wallace is ipso facto wrong. On the other hand, one might also make the argument that the polytheistic impulse is really a transfer of worship of a particular thing to a properly-named deity with some window dressing, and that all moderns have really done is to disown the deities and ritual while maintaining an attachment to their blessings. Is that fair? I don't know. But I would wager that Wallace isn't being disingenuous here, even if he's being provocative. I was under the impression he was at least nominally an atheist.

benchaney 6y ago
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship. It is perfectly fine for him to argue that they are equivalent (though I disagree). The issue is relying on the etymology of the word worship to argue that point. I'd also like to clarify that while I disagree with Wallace, the accusation of dishonestly was directed at throw0101a, who made an absurd etymology based argument after it had already been pointed out that such arguments are flawed.