It would be more accurate to say: "We have evidence that religion and science came into conflict over time." No assumptions are needed.
-
@PhilosophyExp Potential conflict, I'd say. For actual conflict, you need some actual findings that religious authorities can't stomach.
@Metamagician I think I'd want to argue that ideas, philosophies, methods, etc., can be in conflict (depends on meaning of "conflict", obv!)
-
-
@PhilosophyExp At one level, I think the bit in brackets says it all. It does depend on the meaning of "conflict". But ... /1Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@PhilosophyExp We can avoid semantic issues by looking at what happened. E.g. for all that was known at the dawn of science the different /2Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@PhilosophyExp methods MIGHT have produced complementary or mutually reinforcing results. But of course, it didn't turn out that way! /3 -
@Metamagician that their "results" were consistent with each other. But yes, it is a semantic point. :) -
@PhilosophyExp Mmm, but what if science had confirmed Noah's flood, found the earth is 6000 years old, etc., giving the impression that /1
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.