How lamentable it is that this is parricide. — Agent Smith

You don't really enjoy tight corners...right?

As far as what I wrote is concerned, I'm serving in the capacity of a conscientious reporter. — Agent Smith

-Well that is more of a biased report. As an honest reporter you need to dig up the reasons why Science and Philosophy NEEDS to keep theologians and pseudo philosophers out from their body of knowledge and wisdom.
It took us thousands of years to construct and test our logical and empirical methods of evaluations and your argument now is " lets jeopardise the purity of our epistemology by being kind to magical thinkers and pseudo intellectuals?"...when we already know the extent they went to keep our knowledge within their superstitious beliefs.

You don't really enjoy tight corners...right? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't think anybody does/should. Why, do you enjoy 'em? Why

-Well that is more of a biased report. As an honest reporter you need to dig up the reasons why Science and Philosophy NEEDS to keep theologians and pseudo philosophers out from their body of knowledge and wisdom.
It took us thousands of years to construct and test our logical and empirical methods of evaluations and your argument now is " lets jeopardise the purity of our epistemology by being kind to magical thinkers and pseudo intellectuals?"...when we already know the extent they went to keep our knowledge within their superstitious beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

You're putting words in my mouth, Nickolasgaspar. I never said religion, science, and philosophy should be organized into some kinda Epistemic Trinity/Threesome ( :wink: ) - the purveyor of all knowledge. I meant only to regurgitate what my eyes saw and my ears heard - some scientists have a dim view of philosophy, as dim a view as some philosophers have of religion/theology. My intent was to make that public on this forum.