You yourself called it “outdated science”, so please do not play the semantics game.
You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gets boiled down to, “skydaddy says so”. That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule…
My mistake. My second pass at it was much more accurate.
You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gefs boiled down to, “skydaddy says so”
Nope, I’m deliberately alluding to that fact and how it makes religion inherently unscientific. Sorry for being too subtle.
That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule
We don’t have any proof that scientific experiments were conducted and thoroughly studied to reach the conclusion either. Science is as much about the methods as the result.
Nobody disagrees that religion is not up to modern scientific standards.
That wasn’t the point. At all. The point is that modern science still says they were on to something. The premise is right answer, wrong reason, so if religion isn’t science … you’re simply agreeing with the whole reason those rules were mentioned in this discussion: (sortof) right answer, wrong reasons.
I’m positive it wasn’t simply, “god says so”, but probably because everyone noticed people who ate them got sick more often, and attributed ills befalling them as a message from God. It happens all the time in religion. It still stems from something real, just misattributed to God, as usual.
In either case, the rules are still valid examples of, “something modern science (sort of) agrees with”.
The point is that modern science still says they were on to something
Nope. Modern science explains things that they didn’t know.
They arrived at something that wasn’t completely incorrect in the same way as they arrived at “that burning bush talking must be sky daddy rather than my imagination”.
That’s not “being on to something”. That’s “blind hen can also find corn” territory.
Hi! I think your misunderstanding comes from the fact that religion, is not a mechanism for creating new knowledge, it is a collection of shared beliefs between people.
A better comparison would be faith VS science, or religion VS scientific understanding.
While most religious beliefs are faith based at their core, it’s easy to speculate that certain religious and cultural stigma arose after repeated observation of the natural world (Alice ate shrimp, Alice falls ill -> eating shrimp is against the will of God). Not as efficient as controlled scientific testing, but it ultimately lands you on the true statement “Eating shrimp is unwise and likely to get you sick”.
You yourself called it “outdated science”, so please do not play the semantics game.
You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gets boiled down to, “skydaddy says so”. That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule…
My mistake. My second pass at it was much more accurate.
Nope, I’m deliberately alluding to that fact and how it makes religion inherently unscientific. Sorry for being too subtle.
We don’t have any proof that scientific experiments were conducted and thoroughly studied to reach the conclusion either. Science is as much about the methods as the result.
Nobody disagrees that religion is not up to modern scientific standards.
That wasn’t the point. At all. The point is that modern science still says they were on to something. The premise is right answer, wrong reason, so if religion isn’t science … you’re simply agreeing with the whole reason those rules were mentioned in this discussion: (sortof) right answer, wrong reasons.
I’m positive it wasn’t simply, “god says so”, but probably because everyone noticed people who ate them got sick more often, and attributed ills befalling them as a message from God. It happens all the time in religion. It still stems from something real, just misattributed to God, as usual.
In either case, the rules are still valid examples of, “something modern science (sort of) agrees with”.
Not even that, no. Rotten seafood ≠ all seafood.
Nope. Modern science explains things that they didn’t know.
They arrived at something that wasn’t completely incorrect in the same way as they arrived at “that burning bush talking must be sky daddy rather than my imagination”.
That’s not “being on to something”. That’s “blind hen can also find corn” territory.
Hi! I think your misunderstanding comes from the fact that religion, is not a mechanism for creating new knowledge, it is a collection of shared beliefs between people.
A better comparison would be faith VS science, or religion VS scientific understanding.
While most religious beliefs are faith based at their core, it’s easy to speculate that certain religious and cultural stigma arose after repeated observation of the natural world (Alice ate shrimp, Alice falls ill -> eating shrimp is against the will of God). Not as efficient as controlled scientific testing, but it ultimately lands you on the true statement “Eating shrimp is unwise and likely to get you sick”.