> I wouldn't count that as "discovering science." Maybe it would be more accurate to say you found it?
This is just semantics.
> Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness.
It'snot as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference.
> I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically.
The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant.
> Not really, because the difference is rather significant here.
No, it really isn't. It's 100% semantics. The context makes the meaning clear.
But how about you explain what you think the rather significant difference is to progress the discussion? So it isn't just is too/is not which it seems to be becoming.
> There's that little mental game I was referring to.
Sure, an accusation without basis.
> There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it.
No, I get it, and my reply made that clear. It seemed to have passed you by, possibly because you seem hyper-focused on semantics.
As an aside, are you religious yourself? I typically only see these lines of argument from people that are and feel defensive.
This is just semantics.
> Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness.
It'snot as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference.
> I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically.
The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant.