It would be more accurate to say: "We have evidence that religion and science came into conflict over time." No assumptions are needed.
-
@PhilosophyExp that their methods were complementary. Part of the prob is that religion was not really using such methods - so it seems! /3
@Metamagician Sorry, bit hopeless coz of twitter limitation. Good to see you arguing "accommodationist" postion, though. ;)
-
-
@PhilosophyExp lol, I hope that's not what I'm doing. I actually think it's very telling against religion that science didn't confirm it. /1Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@PhilosophyExp So, my position is that science actually does (speaking tenselessly) undermine religion. But it's a contingent fact. /2 -
@Metamagician Right. Whereas I think I'd want to argue that there would always be a tension (or conflict, or potential conflict) between 1/
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@PhilosophyExp In some other logically possible world, science might have confirmed some religion or other as probably the true one. -
@Metamagician Ibn Sina were attacked (it's the threat, the recognition that if push came to shove, a choice would need to be made, etc). 3/ -
@PhilosophyExp Sure - different methods, hence potential for different results. But again, what if we had 400 years of science confirming /1 -
@Metamagician the extent to which given the situation you describe "religious" belief is religious at all, but, well, twitter limitations!) -
@PhilosophyExp Yes, true - i.e.,about the Twitter constraints. -
@Metamagician I'm now going to be referring to you as "The accommodationist, philosopher, Russell Blackford..." . :) Gotta run. Bye! -
@PhilosophyExp You'd better run quickly! -
@Metamagician@PhilosophyExp Just wanted to say: loved this discussion. - 1 more reply
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.