It would be more accurate to say: "We have evidence that religion and science came into conflict over time." No assumptions are needed.
-
@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. -
@owenphelps@Metamagician Cool! Thanks. It's an interesting and (suprisingly) complex issue.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@PhilosophyExp some holy book or other? I think that under those circumstances it would start to seem silly to say that they were in /2 -
@PhilosophyExp in conflict. It would look as if (a particular) religion was doing something epistemically legit all along. /3
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.