= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jayson_Virissimo comments on Rationality quotes January 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (462)
Summa Theologica is a good example of what happens when you have an excellent deductive system (Aquinas was great at syllogisms) and flawed axioms (a literal interpretation of the Bible).
Aquinas probably meant something different by "literal interpretation" than you think. For instance, I'm pretty sure he agreed with Augustine that the six days of creation were not literally six periods of 24 hours.
Out of curiosity, where did Augustine say that? It's interesting that anyone bothered doubting that the six days were literal before the literal interpretation became embarrassingly inconsistent with established science.
The first three "days" happened before the sun and moon were created, so a literal interpretation was problematic even then.
Eh, there's an easy hack around that: God already knew what the length of a day was before it created the sun and the moon.
The literalness or otherwise of the description wasn't really a issue of major debate one way or the other until there was a strong alternative hypothesis. Theres no political or signalling benefit to supporting a bizarre position when you have nothing to compare it too.
Yes. So, the question is, Which alternative hypotheses were on the table before Darwin, and why were they considered compelling?