Science isn’t out there making rules for owning slaves.
Okay, I just said science and religion do not overlap so saying religion does something science does not just further supports my argument.
And so that line about philosophy is utter bs
Philosophy is not science
Philosophy also doesn’t lay out rules for owning slaves
Depends in the philosopher:
Aristotle, in the first book of his Politics defends slavery …
“Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and
animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing
better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that
they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another’s and he
who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a
slave by nature.”
The fact that people can have a religious book that has rules for owning slaves, while they themselves are opposed to owning slaves, indicates they are taking the “philosophy” they find useful from the book and not strictly adhering to everything in it.
Okay, I just said science and religion do not overlap so saying religion does something science does not just further supports my argument.
Philosophy is not science
Depends in the philosopher:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-01-classics-of-western-philosophy-spring-2016/f74c1209194de820935eaaee72c8ec94_MIT24_01S16_SES23.pdf
The fact that people can have a religious book that has rules for owning slaves, while they themselves are opposed to owning slaves, indicates they are taking the “philosophy” they find useful from the book and not strictly adhering to everything in it.