Replies

I said, "If you just argue about what a couple of thousand year old text has to say, whether it is the Bible, or the Koran or the Epic of Gilgamesh, you’re going to be stuck with 2000 year old world views."

You replied, "That is untrue. Arguing, in the classical-logic sense is a good way to gain understanding, and to convey that actual knowledge."

My rebuttal is as follows:

Ancient Aristotle, the "founder" of classical logic, had people convinced (and quite reasonably so) that the world around them was made from 4 elements, Earth, Wind, Fire and Water, I believe. His arguments were sound, with the information available to him at the time. "Arguing, in the classical-logic sense" can only take you so far. The advancement of knowledge requires the continued testing of the environment around us, re-applying what we have learned earlier. If we only studied Aristotle's texts today, we would be arguing about how much more "Air" a feather contains than a stick of wood. Of course that sounds silly to us today with our better understanding of the nature of matter, but that knowledge was gained from thousands of years of human effort.

As a concrete example, I offer the strict Koran based Muslim cultures around the world. Their "scientists" publish articles "proving" that Mecca is the center of the world, and other foolish claptrap.