RE: Literal and Not Literal
September 3, 2019 at 10:45 pm
(This post was last modified: September 3, 2019 at 10:50 pm by Acrobat.)
(September 3, 2019 at 10:39 pm)Grandizer Wrote:(September 3, 2019 at 10:33 pm)Acrobat Wrote: What would be the purpose of telling people that God put a rock there? Why would anyone care to believe it one way or the other?
Most people don’t care about the science of rock formations, why do you think civilizations with lot more pressing things going on would care just because someone said God formed the useless rock sitting over there?
Most of what is taught in school regarding science, is primarily because we see that knowledge as usual to possess, and to churn scientific curiosity and reasoning in others? Clearly it’s not this sort of purpose religious stories were attempting to mimic. They werent trying to get people to think historically or scientifically, so what purpose would this quasi-science have served, in such a context?
You have your mind set up already, though I don't quite understand this level of unwarranted certainty you possess. There's no point arguing with you.
Sure, I have a naturalistic alternative view of how and why religions developed, that I find better able to account for its development, than the one you’re trying to convey. Because the one you’re trying to say makes little sense, hence why i pointed out the flaw in your rock example.
What purpose would anyone have trying to sell their community on some divinely formed rock? Why would such a thing be so important that they would want their children and subsequent generations to know this as well?
Regarding certainty, my certainty develops in any particular conclusion, based on explanatory power, the ability of a conclusion to resolve more questions than it creates. That if you could poke reasonable holes in my conclusions like the way I do yours, I might have to rethink them.
