Ah okay, I thought not. ;)
Firstly, where did you get the idea that all philosophy prior to, say, the 18th century was predicated on nothing but philosophers' "intuition?"
Secondly, modern science didn't just historically "evolve from" philosophy. Science itself is a brand of philosophy...
It's not clear to me whether you're engaging in it or not. Are you?
...you're aware science is predicated on philosophy, yes?
Without logic, the "institution of inquiry" you're referencing collapses in incoherence. The one needs the other.
I didn't accuse you of scientism. I asked if you wanted to defend it. You can always say no.
I don't want to derail the current thread.
Science, too, is prone to human error, yet those humans errors don't stop us from recognizing its value to help us arrive at accurate views. Logic, done...
Logic or reason is another tool that enables us to challenge cognitive biases and arrive at beliefs that are true. I thought I had said that a discussion of scientism would be for another thread...did you want to start a thread defending the proposition that science is the only means by which we...
This interaction started because you challenged what I said and implied that it was somehow offensive to you. Despite the fact that I actually said it to defend religious people against the usual facile atheist "religious people don't think critically" criticisms. And you proceeded to make a...
Science is one useful tool. Of course, we veer into scientism if we argue it's the only useful tool. But that's a topic for another thread. Point being, religious people aren't uniquely irrational or averse to critical thinking. We are all prone to the cognitive biases that cloud our thinking...
I get that sense from lots of people. Religious people are people, so they tend to follow suit, no doubt.
And of course, many religious people would say (and routinely do) that atheists reject or ignore the evidence that would falsify their views about the world. Thus all the debates on these...
A creed is a statement of beliefs shared by a group. There's nothing inherently unthoughtful about creeds - on the contrary, creeds are usually hotly debated before they're codified.
I don't see religious worldviews as qualitatively different in that regard from non-religious ones. Everyone thinks their worldview is right and others that contradict them are wrong.
Anyone can read the thread and see I didn't.
I take it this means you won't take me up on mine? I can't control your impressions. If you have something new to contribute, out with it. Otherwise it's a waste of my time. If I don't reply further, understand that is the reason why.
Toodles.
I haven't done a deep dive on the topic, but my gut impression is that the Buddha was probably originally a real person but then myths grew up after his death that canonized him.
Interestingly, unlike Judaism and Christianity which depend heavily on the historicity of their religion's claims...