You could have a religion where everyone receives revelation but then that raises the issue of who’s revelation trumps who’s if they disagree. And how does anyone confirm that any of the revelations, to self or other, are true? In the case of centralized revelation (real or not) only going to the prophet then that opens the door for corruption and fabrication of whatever the prophet chooses. Back to your point in 1) science or philosophy could be engaged in but only within the confines of consistency with religion. I’m not saying Christianity is wholly to blame but due to their reactionary and more literalistic interpretation of doctrine to counter the reformation they moved away from the openness to metaphorical interpretation of scripture and thus taking their concrete claims about the physical universe too seriously (like the earth being stationary and at the center), claims that were later shown to be untrue. A more flexible Church could have said, “Okay, maybe the earth isn’t at the center but it’s the center of God’s attention.” 2) Yes, philosophy was religion’s bitch, used to examine and refute all possible arguments against the Church. However, this did keep philosophy and scholarly skills alive (reason), just waiting for the shift to occur that started viewing the physical world as a good creation of God, worthy of study (performing experiments and comparing it with the theories). 3) I agree that philosophy wants to examine things that work. My point was more from a survival and perpetuation point of view. From history we can see that some falsehoods are compatible with and perhaps even beneficial to societal prosperity. https://usa-girls.startentree.nl/ https://usa-girls.brabantmotorverhuur.nl/ https://usa-girls.vakantiestartpagina.net/ https://usa-girls.start-casino.nl/ https://usa-girls.hetmooistedorp.be/ https://usa-girls.jobcenters.nl/ https://usa-girls.sexybegin.be/ https://usa-girls.champion.be/