Evolution of Religion

Religion and Secularism
41

@flacus

Any religion in particular? Christianity!
Okay, thanks.

Any Christianity in particular?

The Christianity of Ken Ham? Or Frank J. Tipler? Or of Francis Collins? Or Robin Perry? Or…?

It doesn’t really matter to me. But it should matter to you.

Here is a big difference between science and religion:

Despite some Christians’ claims to the contrary, science isn’t an arrogant enterprise. It’s actually pretty humble. Scientists KNOW humans are infallible. They KNOW they aren’t gods. That’s why they have “The Scientific Method.”

In ordinary parlance, scientists speak of “proof,” but the thing about science is, it’s always being tested and retested by other scientists. Scientific discoveries are built upon other scientific discoveries. If they are valid, this works. When a hypothesis is proven wrong, it is replaced. Some examples of superceded theories:

Spontaneous generation
Vitalism
Mendelian genetics
Emission theory of vision
Luminiferous aether
Balance of nature
Electron cloud model
Geocentric universe
Steady state theory
Phrenology

In science, this is considered “progress.”

Yes, egos are involved. People have spent their lives and fortunes on a discovery and are VERY competitive. BTW, I saw “The Current War” last night, about Edison, Tesla & Westinghouse and the “war” over the electric light. Check out the trailer:

But this is science.

As Ethan Siegal says:

 

Our best theories, like the aforementioned theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, and Einstein’s General Relativity, cover all of these bases. They have an underlying quantitative framework, enabling us to predict what will happen under a variety of situations, and to then go out and test those predictions empirically. So far, these theories have demonstrated themselves to be eminently valid. Where their predictions can be described by mathematical expressions, we can tell not only what should happen, but by how much. For these theories in particular, among many others, measurements and observations that have been performed to test these theories have been supremely successful.

But as validating as that is — and as powerful as it is to falsify alternatives — it’s completely impossible to prove anything in science.

…you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe.

…And that’s why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary.*


Competition over trademarks, names and wealth in science doesn’t supercede science’s overall goal of discovering truth wherever it may lead.

In religion, though, it’s the exact reverse. Looking at just Christianity: over the last 2,000 years, some 50,000 denominations have developed, many with mutually exclusive ideas about really important things like the Trinity, Original Sin, atonement and salvation.

And when “new” Christian ideas have popped up, there has been torture, imprisonment and murder on a grand scale.

When this happens in religion, it is considered heresy.

As for “scientifically proving” anything in Christianity, the people I have listed above claim they have done it. But check. Each claims the other is heretical. Literally evil. Multiply that by thousands.

 

 

 

*https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/amp/

 

42

@flacus

 

Why does skepticism despise religion? why is skepticism against religion?
Actually, the above is an anthropomorphism:
an·thro·po·mor·phism noun the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.
"Skepticism" can't despise anything, because it isn't a being that thinks or feels. And it isn't a coherent belief system.

Skepticism is simply:

a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief or dogma. It is often directed at domains, such as the supernatural, morality, theism, or knowledge.
So, the literal point of skepticism is to doubt...anything.

Doubting is skepticism’s job.

You can be skeptical about pretty much everything, but it’s logical to be skeptical of religion…given that there are an estimated 4,200 religions worldwide with VERY different, mutually-exclusive truth claims (and broken down into individual denominations and groups, there are hundreds of thousands).

800×514 187 KB

Is it really so hard to understand?

 

43

@Tee Bryan Peneguy:

You are a woman ? His explanation was brilliant. Thank you very much

44

@Flacus

You are a woman?
Oh, no....

This is the second time today that someone has questioned my gender. An hour ago on Twitter someone referred to me as a “brother.”

I realize my middle name (Bryan) is masculine, and “Tee” could be either, but this has happened to me even when my first name, Teresa, is spelled out.

1080×1047 99.8 KB

Do I really look male…?

Because I’m actually a damn feminine cis female. I’m a girly-girl. I’m in my 50s but I don’t have a beard or anything. I literally have lipstick and nail polish on every day.

Is my profile photo ambiguous? What the fuck is going on??

Anyway…

His explanation was brilliant. Thank you very much
Whose explanation?

Ethan Siegal’s?

If so, then I think you totally missed my point. Siegal isn’t saying what you think he’s saying.

Siegal is not a Christian. He is an atheist. He isn’t discrediting science by saying it doesn’t “prove” things.

Creationists like to point to the fact that scientific theories change with new evidence to say, “See, science is often wrong! Evolution is just a theory!” But that is a fundamental misconception of what science IS. Change isn’t proof “science was wrong,” it’s proof that the scientific method works, and that science doesn’t make claims of “absolute truth that cannot be questioned.” Religion does.

That is the point.

If you mistook this idea that badly, then I guess I wasted my time on everything else I said to you. Pity, because you seem intelligent.

 

 

45

@Tee Bryan Peneguy

Religious Dogmatism is the suicide of religion.

46

we must fight religious dogmatism

47

Tee, I take you at your word that you are one hot mama. But you must admit, you are in a minority of women who advocate as effectively and intensively with ideas, info, and logic as you in online forums such as this.

48

All doctrines claiming to be the only expression of the truth, by what signs can one recognize the one who has the right to stand as such? “” The one who makes more good men and less hypocritical, that is, law-abiding. of love and charity in its highest purity and broadest application. By this sign you will recognize that a doctrine is good, because every doctrine which has the consequence of sowing disunity and establishing a demarcation among the children of God, can only be false and pernicious.

49

“By this sign you will recognize that a doctrine is good, because every doctrine which has the consequence of sowing disunity and establishing a demarcation among the children of God, can only be false and pernicious.”

Dude, that statement is, in itself, DOGMA, presented in religious language. Which seems to counter your immediately previous statement “we must fight religious dogmatism”.

 

 

50

@Timb

 

Tee, I take you at your word that you are one hot mama.
But what about my photo? I do look like a woman in my photo, right!? Am I even just a tiny bit hot in my photo??!!
But you must admit, you are in a minority of women who advocate as effectively and intensively with ideas, info, and logic as you in online forums such as this.
Are you suggesting that the reason people keep assuming I'm a dude is because of sexist assumptions that women are illogical? And that because I come across as intelligent and logical, they default to thinking I'm a dude?

(The answers to these, by the way, are “yes,” I hope. I mean, I would not be offended as a woman.)

 

 

51

@flacus

  1. The 18th Century called. It wants its syntax back

  2. If “Every doctrine which has the consequence of sowing disunity and establishing a demarcation among the children of God, can only be false and pernicious” … then Christianity is false and pernicious. I mean, duh

  3. I’m done with you, because I’m no longer wasting my time “communicating” with people who just keep throwing words out and don’t appear to respond to direct questions and comments. Ciao

52

I’m done with you, because I’m no longer wasting my time “communicating” with people who just keep throwing words out and don’t appear to respond to direct questions and comments. Ciao

ask me questions?

I will communicate with you.

53

Tee, If I were somewhat younger I might use that picture for personal reasons in private. But in the me-too age I should probably keep such info to myself.

54

I suspect, but do not know, that women and men are roughly equal on the scale of logic v. illogic. On these forums, the regular participating members seem to be good on the logical side of the scale. But the % of women who participate regularly is relatively small. I also suspect that the often adversarial nature of the discourse is not particularly enticing to women in general as it is to men.

55

@flacus

ask me questions?

I will communicate with you


I will rephrase:

It is not clear whether you are really reading my comments for comprehension.

56

@Timb

Tee, If I were somewhat younger I might use that picture for personal reasons in private. But in the me-too age I should probably keep such info to myself.
LOL, fair enuff!!
57

@Timb

 

I suspect, but do not know, that women and men are roughly equal on the scale of logic v. illogic. On these forums, the regular participating members seem to be good on the logical side of the scale. But the % of women who participate regularly is relatively small. I also suspect that the often adversarial nature of the discourse is not particularly enticing to women in general as it is to men.
I suspect you are right about all this. And I'm mainly here because I'm not ready to get back into real life yet, because real life is far too scary.

At any rate, if I had an inflated ego for a few moments because of what you said to me here, it’s gone now because of what “Ian” just said to me on Quora! ???

1080×670 79.9 KB

58

Trolls are probably not the best social source to consider in terms of one’s self esteem.

Now stop fishing for compliments and continue with what you do so well - confronting the world of liars and the mislead with your entertaining and sound information and opinions.

59

@timb:
two questions
are you skeptical or agnostic?
and what does it take to not be a pseudo-skeptic or a pseudo-skepticist?

60

@timb

Now stop fishing for compliments and continue with what you do so well – confronting the world of liars and the mislead with your entertaining and sound information and opinions.
LOL, Thank you!

 

@Flacus

I’m not interested in responding to personal communication. We will converse here.

I’m curious: Is English your first language?

In response to your question:

are you skeptical or agnostic?
This is a false choice, because they are not opposites. It is not an "either/or" question. In fact, most people who are one are also the other.

What do the words mean to you?

Also, yesterday I posted an expert from an article. It appeared that you may have misinterpreted its meaning. I took the time to explain.

Do you understand what I was saying to you?

You are obviously intelligent and well-read. But I suspect there is some sort of break down in language, which is why I think you aren’t a native speaker.