My Reply to MctravellerDarwin didn't kill Christianity or Theism; Darwin put an end to a very specific view of Creationism. Not even all types of Creationism mind you; there are many Christians who believe that evolution, quantum mechanics, and even the Big Bang are compatible with Theism. God really is unfalsifiable at that level - "God could have initiated the big bang, and all of science as we know it flows from that." It's just a detail, not a strong argument.
As part of my previous oversimplification, I said that a reasonable and scientifically minded person would inevitably discover evidence that contradicted the existence of God. That's not really true. Due to the fact that God is in many ways outside of science, you won't find any evidence that directly refutes His existence. What you will find though is evidence against a given church's Dogma or interpretation of God.
*snip*
That's not the most important thing though. As science has progressed, we've relied less and less on religion to answer our common everyday questions. We now know where the rain comes from, why people get sick, the mundane origins for awe-inspiring events like earthquakes and hurricanes, and we even figured out most of the stuff involving the origin of life, our planet, and the universe. God may still be real but the truth is that we don't need him as much as we used to. And as a result, more and more people are choosing to go without him.
When I said "That's not the most important thing though", my implication was that the next thing I said
was the important thing and the crux of my argument. Re-reading it again, I see that I was too subtle and wish I could have phrased it a bit differently.
So as you can see, I already agreed with everything you said in that quote. God cannot be falsified, and the falsification of specific church beliefs are just details I added for completion's sake. I am well aware of the ways in which God can exist alongside modern science, but
my point is that modern science has taken over many of religion's original functions. You can still believe in him, but it is a fact that God does not play as strong of a role in people's lives than it did for our ancestors. God's grasp on people's faith is weaker as a result now, and that's why less people will believe even if the Church hadn't been repeatedly shooting itself in the foot. You used to be able to see God's work all around you, but now you can just see chemistry and physics.
Those who reject science don't have to deal with these kinds of issues as much.
I would also argue that very few people actually live like they are true atheists because most people believe evil exists. It's not possible to derive evil from physical principles; it has to come from something outside physics and social pragmatism. In the words of some religious texts, "God is written on people's hearts" - we have that sense of good and evil.
You can't make statements like "humanity should survive" or "we should protect the planet" from a moral stance without God in my opinion; you can make it from a practical stance, but not a moral one. Put harshly: there is no existential reason why "humanity should survive" if there is no God, same as there is no reason why a given atom of hydrogen should survive instead of being turned into helium in the core of a star.
Oh, and Marx just replaced one kind of religion with another for a broad enough definition of religion.
An entire book has been written to refute this argument and it is a text as important to science and evolution as the
Origin of Species. Though many don't like Richard Dawkins (I personally think he takes his religious hate boner way to far, plus his twitter stuff is cringe), he was a real scientist and his book
The Selfish Gene is adored by the scientific community. Since I don't believe I can do an entire book justice with a mere forum post, I will do my best to summarize the important points once and then drop the subject if I don't convince you.
"Where does Right and Wrong come from" has been an important philosophical question for a very long time. This is because the answer to it has many implications on how humans should structure their systems of morality and behavior. Dawkins argues (and the scientific community agrees) that a sense of morality is a product of evolution just like every other feature an organism has.
The purpose of this sense of morality is create behaviors that help propagate genes responsible for creating that specific sense of morality. The most basic form of this are genes that discourage parents from performing cannibalism on their vulnerable offspring (not every organism has this btw), more advanced than that are genes that make parents actively take care of their offspring. All of this helps the gene propagate itself since it is likely to be present in the offspring.
Moral codes are the most complex in societies of animals, and I don't just mean humans, but bees and wolf packs and other creatures that don't believe in god. Species that socialize do so because organizing into groups makes them more likely to successfully reproduce and therefore propagate the genes that enable socializing in the first place. An interesting implication of this is that it makes perfect sense for an animal to sacrifice itself for the benefit of its social group since the gene responsible for this sacrifice is likely present in most of the group's members (their willingness to socialize is a likely signal for its presence). This gene for self-sacrifice throws its host organism (and all of the other genes present in it) under the bus in order to selfishly propagate the continued existence (and eventual reproduction) of its own clones in other organisms. That's why they're called "Selfish" genes.
Moral codes vary from species to species. For humans, living in a society where every single member dedicates their entire lives to serving the needs of a single dictator is an unthinkable horror, but it is the modus operandi for bees. The reason why it works for them is because the queen is the most important reproducing member of the hive. Any genes that hurt the queen will grant a reproductive disadvantage to the entire colony and thus will inevitably perish in the long-run. "Worker's rights" genes could theoretically be propagated through male drones, but it is all for naught if the queens that are eventually spawned by it govern less cohesive hives than ones that don't have this "Worker's rights" gene. Instead, genes that encourage devoted servitude propagate instead. That is why bees in a hive are actually happy with their way of living. They evolved not to desire things like leisure time for such ambitions are ultimately detrimental to the hive.
Long story short, morality in humans is something we evolved to strengthen our societies and to strengthen the ability for most of its members to reproduce. Murder is bad because if we get murdered, we won't be able to reproduce. Monarchs hoarding wealth is bad because it deprives most of the population of resources that can help them reproduce. Enlisting in the army is good, because those invading Romans are going to rape our women and sell us into slavery if we don't oppose them. etc.
If you want to learn more, I recommend reading the book yourself. Though it is an important scientific text, Dawkins focused heavily on making sure it was accessible for most laypeople. I don't come close to doing it any justice.
EDIT: Some people would argue that real morality does not exist as a result. Nietzsche certainly held that position. But regardless, most humans feel a desire in our hearts to do "good", whatever their definition of that may be. As you say:
"'God is written on people's hearts' - we have that sense of good and evil."
In his book, though Dawkins did argue that this feeling was just something implanted in us by selfish genes to help
them reproduce, he dedicated the last chapter of his book to saying that our advanced minds have given us the potential to strive for an even higher good and argued that we
should pursue it. Though he was an atheist, he believed in something beyond his own biology which I find really interesting.
My Reply to Max the Foxsnip
That is still not an argument for or against Christianity, just against fundamentalism. Yes, churches are losing followers, but haven't you thought that it's because of the pandemic physically preventing people from going? Cause and effect. And in any case, why would I succumb to peer pressure? A small fraction of people leaving isn't an argument.
It's a fact that churches have been losing followers and many of them have shut down as a result. Buildings that have lasted centuries are now being demolished to build condominiums. This has been happening since before the Pandemic. The fundamentalist churches have been more resilient to this trend...
Yes, I did think about it.
You don't have to succumb to peer pressure. My argument has never been about why you
should leave the church. It has just been an explanation for why more and more people
are leaving the church and why less people are leaving fundamentalist ones. If you believe God plays enough of a role in your life to be worth worshiping, then fair enough. There are many benefits to religion and the nihilism most atheists fall into hasn't been good for them.
Darwin didn't kill Christianity or Theism;
*snip*
Sums up my argument. Religion and science are only exclusive if you're a fundie... in either direction. And I feel a world without all religion would be a much worse one and honestly a borderline dystopia if everything else is the same.
See my reply to McTraveller.
Other repliesI feel like there has to be something inherently good about religion[...]
Agreed. I've already written too much as it is though to elaborate further.
*snip*
Islam on the other hand is actually growing last time I checked. This growth is happening in the middle east though, but that's due to a combination of political instability and the efforts of theocratic governments. Over there, there are more important things to worry about than the question of whether God exists or not. Plus, the people really need the hope religion provides.
*snip*
@heydude6: Thanks for the more detailed explanation. Makes sense to me.
As for the Middle East, I'd argue information isn't as widely disseminated and technology isn't as prevalent. Plus governments mandating religion tend to get the numbers up. But I've never been there, so I'd like to avoid stereotyping based upon inaccurate information.
Agreed. I sort of meant to reference that when I was talking about political instability, but I didn't elaborate enough.
Author
Topic: Things that made you mildly upset today thread (Read 859034 times)