Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all due respect, I think it is you the one who's been tricked into the ethereal realm of 'the religious', which you've used often in this thread to get out of the real discussion. The historical debate came about because of specific claims about the physical world. No one is, or was, discussing the derived value of 'the religious', that is not the point of contention most of the time. The heliocentric debate ref…
> With all due respect, I think it is you the one who's been tricked into the ethereal realm of 'the religious', which you've used often in this thread to get out of the real discussion. "real discussion" -- this is exactly the trick. you are laying claim to your domain being the "real discussion" > The historical debate came about because of specific claims about the physical world. No one is, or was, discussing the…
Says who? Most religious people do not say that. Most christians would claim Moses did in fact split the sea in two, literally, with 0 ambiguity. And just a couple of centuries ago all christians would have claimed that.
This is the trick you've fallen into, you've decoupled religion from the banalities of daily life in order to separate it from "observable" things and fit your narrative, as if nothing in those texts could be related to the mundane routine of for example looking at the objects in the sky. In that almost all religions would disagree with you.
So I say you are wrong not only because you've misrepresented the conflict between science and religion, but because to do so you had to construct a straw-man definition of religion with which almost no religious person in the history of the world would identify with.