Until then, I'll continue to be skeptical that iron-age mystics, who were necessarily ignorant of modern physics, astronomy, medicine, etc, somehow managed to get metaphysics right, even though their explanations were similar to so many other god-centered stories of primitive humans.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/01/bluffing-death.html#1073865283935070964
Hi. I'm a time-traveler from the 29C. I study ancient history. I'm skeptical that digital-age infidels, who were necessarily ignorant of modern physics, astronomy, medicine, etc, somehow managed to get metaphysics right, even though their explanations were similar to so many other godless-centered stories of primitive 21C humans.
How does this rejoinder advance the respectability of the metaphysics of those 'iron-age mystics'? Doesn't it imply that both the iron-age mystics and the 21st Century infidels were wide of the mark?
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, it seems to me that the main metaphysical options for explaining the world were already being debated in the pre-Socratic period, and that modern science is compatible with more than one metaphysical perspective. So ignorance of modern science does not really count against the metaphysics of those 'iron-age mystics', unless they prove unable to assimilate the findings of modern science.
It doesn't attempt to advance the respectability of biblical metaphysics. Rather, it simply answers a fool according to his folly. That's a perfectly legitimate riposte as far as it goes.
ReplyDeleteHe is, of course, alluding to stock, village atheist objections to the inerrancy of Scripture. I've already dealt with that issue on many different fronts at many different times.
BTW, now that I know about your Olympian pedigree, I'll have to be more careful what I say around you lest I find myself caught in freak lightning storms.
Mark Twain said: "Few things are herder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example."
ReplyDeleteBased upon someone else's logic, Steve example is a good one.