Religion: Evolution Of The Perfect Lie

[TheTrendyCynic]

I realised after I'd gotten going that this got quite long. Hopefully there are a few interested people who'll give this a go. Regardless, I've posted my main point first so you can decide if you're interested in reading more:

THESIS: The concept of religion shares many characteristics we would expect of a perfect lie and few of the characteristics we would expect of the truth.

As an atheist, I've spent a lot of my time debating the merits of God. I'm very familiar with the arguments both for and against, with me vigorously defending the latter against the former. There's always been a problem, though, with defending a negative claim -- it's inherently unprovable. Intellectually dishonest theists can always say "well, I can't prove the existence of God, but you can't prove he doesn't exist," and use that to affirm their own belief.

Yes, I'm aware that such a line of attack is logically untenable. I know it can't hold ground in formal, philosophical debate. But what about more casual discussions, where it can be difficult to convince your opponent on a deep, logical level that the burden of proof rests on them? I needed something else to discuss, and so I started looking for positive claims in defense of atheism: Claims that I could support with evidence (both empirical and logical).

My negative claim is that religion isn't true, that God doesn't exist. The flip-side of that, the positive claim, is that religion is a lie. The existance of a grand deception that has clouded the collective intellect of our civilization and lured us into believing, with certainty, in a preposterous fantasy is, itself, a claim -- and a fairly remarkable one, at that. If I can't defend the idea that God doesn't exist, at least, maybe, I can defend the idea that religion is a lie.

So let's forget, for the moment, the objective existence or non-existence of God and focus instead on the concept of God. Obviously we can all agree on the objective existence of belief in God, so that's something we can work with. We aren't talking about God now, we're talking about the idea of God. I claim that the idea of God is a lie, and I have to support that claim. How?

The Natural Selection Of Ideas

Within the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest is well understood. Whether or not you believe in evolution is a moot point; the mechanism of natural selection is inarguable. Natural selection is a logical process by which order emerges out of chaos, and it can be described by this simple law:

1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
3. IF there is variability of traits, and
4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

- Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin
​

Again let me stress that I am not supporting evolution here. Evolution is a theory of which natural selection is only a small part, and even among zealous Creationists the law of natural selection is accepted. It has been witnessed and is clearly logically sound.

What if we make a logical leap, then, and attempt to apply the theory of natural selection to ideas? Can that work? For natural selection to apply to ideas, the four 'IF' statements in the above list of characteristics must all be true. Let's look at them one by one:

1) IF there are organisms that reproduce: Ideas do not reproduce in the same fashion as organisms, but they do reproduce -- they spread as others believe in them. Just as natural selection would apply to the sexual procreation of animal life, then, this tenet can easily and logically be modified to apply to the propagation of ideas.

2) IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitors: The implicit assumption here is that organisms are mortal. Organisms pass from progenitor to offspring and so on in a clear progression of life and death. Ideas, on the other hand, are much more fluid, yet this tenet does apply. Any idea that isn't entirely unique has borrowed traits from ideas that came before; 'progenitor ideas,' if you will. Entirely unique ideas are rare, and natural selection would not apply to them.

3) IF there is a variability of traits: Easy. There are many different ideas, and ideas change all the time. They are more fluid than organisms. There is much more variability. This tenet doesn't even need to be reworded.

4) IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population: Let's break this down. Our society is the environment in which ideas are conceived, spread and are eventually lost. The population of ideas is certainly growing, as our species has yet to stop thinking. Can our society support all of the ideas we as humans have conceived? Of course not. Ideas have been lost to time, and many ideas are never given a chance because they are unable to spread. This tenet holds true.

And there we go; natural selection clearly applies to ideas as well as organisms. Let's look at the conclusion of natural selection and see how we can interpret that as applying to ideas:

5) THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
6) THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive: Let's adapt these statements to ideas. Most of it is fairly clear; environment is our society, the traits refer to characteristics of the ideas, and 'members of the population' refers to the ideas themselves. What about 'die out' and 'thrive?' An idea lives as long as it is believed, and so forgetting or rejecting an idea is the only way that one can die. Conversely, an idea that is widely accepted is one that thrives.

Here's the law of Natural Selection again, modified slightly to apply to ideas:

1) IF there are ideas that propagate.
2) IF these ideas inherited traits from progenitor ideas.
3) IF there is a variability of traits.
4) IF our society cannot support all ideas.
5) THEN those ideas with less-adaptive traits (determined by society) will be forgotten or rejected, and
6) THEN those ideas with more-adaptive traits (determined by society) will be accepted

We see, upon applying natural selection to ideas, a conclusion that naturally and inarguably leads to two different types of ideas with different characteristics. There are ideas with less-adaptive traits, and ideas with more-adaptive traits.

**Continued**

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

What Are Adaptive Traits?

In the animal kingdom, an 'adaptive trait' is a trait that helps an organism adapt to its environment. A porcupine developed quills to adapt to an environment filled with predators. Amphibians developed air-breathing lungs to adapt to an environment out of the water. For those of you who are skeptical of evolution, the peppered moth is a great example of natural selection that has been observed, but that is not sufficient evidence for evolution (I'm trying to find common ground without sparking an evolution debate). The black peppered moth survived better in polluted environments where its coloring made it better able to camouflage itself against soot-covered trees and buildings. In cleaner environments, the gray peppered moth is better camouflaged. The population of these moths adheres to natural selection, ensuring black moths are more prevalent in polluted environments, and vice versa in cleaner cities.

What are some adaptive traits that might help ideas survive in a society? Well, first of all, we need to decide what it is about society that ideas will have to adapt to in order to survive:

1. Ignored: If an idea isn't listened to, then it won't spread. If an idea can't spread, then it can't thrive. Ideas must adapt to resist apathy and immediate dismissal. They need to be difficult to ignore.
2. Forgetting: Ideas are easy to kill. They're very fragile; you just need to forget it. Ideas need to adapt some means of resisting being forgotten.
3. Skepticism: Even if an idea isn't forgotten, it can still be killed through reason. If an idea can't defend itself against intellectual attack, then it's going to be proven false. Skepticism is the most important "environmental stimulus" on a long-standing idea, because it is the only stimulus that raises in severity over time. As humans develop, they gain tools that make them better skeptics; we 've become better able to uncover the truth. Ignoring and forgetting ideas are static stimuli that haven't changed much since the cave men -- people still ignore and forget today much as they did then. But skepticism is tightening its grip as we progress, and skepticism quickly becomes the primary agent of natural selection for any idea whose age is measured in centuries or more.

Any adaptive trait must benefit the idea as it resists the above threats. Let's list some adaptive traits and see how they do that:

• Interest: Interesting ideas are discussed more than uninteresting ideas, and so they spread better. Few people haven't heard of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, but I'm sure even fewer remember the Canadian dollar's performance on the same day. An interesting idea resists being ignored and forgotten, but is still vulnerable to skepticism.
• Simplicity: Simple ideas are like fast animals; they need less natural defenses to survive, because they can rely on their simplicity and ease of propagation. Everyone knows that 2+2=4, but far fewer understand advanced calculus. Simple ideas resist being forgotten, but can still be ignored and are vulnerable to skepticism.
• Usefulness: An idea that is more applicable to general society is going to be referenced far more often than an obscure concept. 2+2=4, mentioned above, represents a basic concept used daily by everyone. Advanced calculus, on the other hand, is much more situational. Useful ideas avoid being forgotten, and can resist being ignored as well as skepticism to a limited degree -- people who use an idea every day are going to be less likely to doubt it, and someone who realises the applicability of a useful idea is less likely to ignore it.
• Objective Support: An idea with logical or evidentiary support clearly resists skepticism, though it can still be ignored or forgotten.
• Threat of Danger: An idea that carries with it an ominous threat of danger to come if it isn't heeded does an excellent job of resisting being ignored or forgotten, but is still vulnerable to skepticism.
• Unquestionable: An idea that cannot be questioned establishes an innate resistance to skepticism, which relies on questions. Unquestionable ideas, however, can still be ignored or forgotten.
• Flexible/Adaptable: An idea that is flexible is one that can change as it needs to resist any attack on its integrity. Flexible ideas resist skepticism, but are vulnerable to being ignored or forgotten.
• Inherent Propagation: These ideas carry within themselves a push to spread faster than if left alone; a warning of imminent danger, for example, will spread very quickly because that idea carries within it an inherent push to spread the idea -- to warn others of the danger to come. Ideas that inherently propagate are resistant to being ignored or forgotten, but are still vulnerable to skepticism.

The above characteristics are an incomplete list of adaptive traits we can expect to see in ideas that thrive. Ideas that do not thrive are those that are lacking in the above traits. How can we make use of these characteristics to determine what ideas are true and what ideas are lies?

The Anchor Of Truth

The concept of natural selection, as has been shown, only apples to ideas where there exists variation. The idea must be able to change itself to acquire those adaptive traits that will give it better odds of survival. Let's now look at lies versus truth, and see what we can say about ideas in each category.

Truth: Ideas that are based on truth must flow from that truth. The law of gravity, an idea that is accepted as being true, was not freely concocted in the mind of a human being. It came from the objective truth of gravitation and the observed effects of falling objects. The idea of gravity is anchored in truth; truth prevents it from changing. Can the 'gravity' idea adopt a threat of danger to resist being ignored, or make itself more interesting to facilitate spreading? Can quantum physics simplify itself, or adapt an armor plating of unquestionability? Ideas based on truth are anchored by that truth. The fact that an idea is true carries with it an inherent resistance to the mechanism of natural selection and the free adoption of those adaptive traits listed above.

Lies: Lies have it rough; they are clearly more vulnerable to skepticism than true ideas. But a lie has an ace up its sleeve; it isn't anchored by truth. Lies can change. Lies can adapt. Natural selection can apply itself to a lie with a freedom that is not true of truth.

What can we learn from the above analysis of truth vs. lie? Well, we can make a few assertions with regard to those two types of ideas.

True ideas will resist change; they tend to be static over time, holding at their core a set of facts that anchors the idea in a form that explains and affirms those facts. While truth is vulnerable to being ignored and being forgotten, truth is much less vulnerable to skepticism. This makes true ideas innately better at surviving, because the most important stimulus (skepticism) is much less important.

Lies, on the other hand, can change fluidly. That in itself isn't helpful; the fact that they can change doesn't mean that they will. Natural selection, however, forces lies to change over time -- they are forced to compete with other lies, lies that are equally flexible and equally capable of adopting adaptive traits. For a lie to endure, it must adapt or it will die. Additionally, while lies are as vulnerable as truth to being forgotten and being ignored, lies are much more vulnerable to skepticism. Both of these are facts we can use to spot lies when we see them.

Spotting Lies

The above analysis comes down to this -- what are some things we can look for in an idea that might reveal it to be a lie, if we're unable to outright disprove it?

• Adaptation to Society: We can expect a lie to have adapted better than a truth because it's better able to change itself. If a lie has been around for some time, we can look at the history of that concept for evidence of adaptation to society. A truth, if based on facts, will be unable to adapt to society -- it has to stick with its truth, after all! Lies, on the other hand, will vigorously adapt to society, unfettered by any connection to an anchor of truth.
• Resisting Skepticism: Lies are particularly vulnerable to skepticism. Just as organisms in the animal kingdom have adopted defenses against their greatest vulnerabilities, we can expect a successful, long-lasting lie to have adopted defenses against skepticism far more vigorously than a truth, which doesn't need them as much.

So let's look at religion and see what we can see.

**Continued**

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

The Greatest Lie Ever Told

Religion has been around in one form or another since the dawn of human civilization. That's one overarching idea of a higher power feeding many thousands of sub-ideas branching outwards to form the various religions of the world. The idea of a higher power is among the oldest concepts we're aware of. Religion is akin to the insects and sharks of the ideological kingdom: Perfectly evolved over an overwhelming length of time. Religion should be an excellent opportunity to test my thesis of evolving lies, as one would expect it to represent nearly perfect evolution.

I've established my thesis, and now I'm going to apply it scientifically with the following statement:

1) IF religion is a lie
2) THEN it has evolved and survived as such for thousands of years
3) IF religion has evolved and survived as a lie for thousands of years
4) THEN religion should be very well evolved
5) IF religion is very well evolved
6) THEN religion should exhibit all of the expected adaptive traits of a lie with overwhelming efficiency

I've made a prediction, and the prediction is falsifiable: If religion doesn't exhibit the expected adaptive traits of a lie to overwhelming efficiency, then I cannot conclude that religion is a lie.

Read over my claim again, because I'm not just saying that religion merely shows some traits of an evolved lie; that's a fairly weak point to waste three pages of posts on. I'm saying that religion must overwhelmingly demonstrate all of the expected traits of a perfectly evolved lie -- anything short of that won't be sufficient, because there will have to be something to explain what anchored religion from changing so freely. That's a fairly strong statement to make, one that I feel is supported, one that I challenge you to refute and one that has heavy implications on the credibility of faith if it's accepted.

Evidence of Evolution

Were religion based on some absolute truth, we could expect it to share characteristics of truth. We would expect to see religion exhibiting some sense of ideological stability, as in this case it would be anchored to a fundamental truth. If religion were a lie, then we would expect to see natural selection taking hold and guiding it towards those adaptive traits that would best help it survive. We would especially see a focus on resisting skepticism, for a lie is more vulnerable to skepticism than the truth. Do we see these things to an overwhelming degree? A resounding yes!

Let's look at each of those defenses to skepticism and see how religion has adapted them:

• Usefulness: Religion has proven infinitely useful; it posits answers to all of life's difficult questions and has positioned itself as the ultimate arbiter of morality, which we look to on a daily basis. Usefulness only weakly applies to skepticism, and yet religion has evolved to so critically adhere to adaptive trait -- over time, it has struggled to adapt in any way it can.
• Objective Support: The one defense of skepticism we would expect of the truth is decidedly lacking in religion -- other than ancient texts (and each religion has its own, often contradictory text), logical fallacies (argument from complexity/design) and historical accuracies (the Titanic sank, but that doesn't mean Jack and Rose fell in love), there is no objective support of the fundamental claims made by religion. Religion must have adapted its defense against skepticism somewhere else...
• Threat of Danger: Almost laughably juvenile here, but expected from a perfectly evolved lie -- you won't merely risk harm if you disbelieve religion. You won't merely be punished. No, no -- you'll spend an eternity in absolute, unimaginable suffering. Normally, the threat of danger is not a defense against skepticism (yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre doesn't stop people from seeing that there isn't one). But religion has taken this trait and turned it inward, circularly claiming a threat of eternal, unimaginable suffering if you allow the idea of religion to die. Does it get any plainer?
• Unquestionable: The Lord works in mysterious ways. He is beyond our comprehension. Don't be a doubting Thomas. Have faith. The very core of religion resists questioning, and it carries with it the threat mentioned above. Religion is perfectly unquestionable; not only does it have evasive or dismissive tenets to avoid answering questions, but it also comes with an absolute threat to prevent pondering those questions in the first place.
• Flexible/Adaptable: This is even more telling, as a truth shouldn't be able to adapt as freely as a lie. Look at religion's history; for all of recorded history, religion has answered all of the questions we don't know yet has avoided stepping on the toes of the answers we do know. We used to have no idea how fire worked, and so spirits caused the flames. Then we figured that out, and religion adapted, unfettered by truth or fact, to explain the angry seas and bolts of lightning. We figured that out, and religion adapted again, backing off of the skies. Religion backed away from space when we figured out how the Earth moved around the Sun. Its own evolution, too, is evidence of its flexibility: Christmas was set to coincide with the Pagan Winter Solstice to lure in pagan converts, adapting to better propagate. Elements of Zoroastrianism were employed to make Hell even scarier, bolstering the threat of eternal suffering and further armoring religion against skepticism. Religion has proven infinitely flexible, as it would have to be if it were a lie.
  

But religion has evolved another defense against skepticism, one as unique as it is overwhelmingly potent: Faith. Imagine: A lack of trust in objective evidence is hardwired into the concept of religion as a virtue! Faith, the most powerful driving force behind religion, is effortlessly defined as belief without evidence -- belief without confirmation of truth. It's yet another perfectly evolved defense against skepticism, and one that is singularly rare (restricted to religion, and maybe a few political movements that are almost religions themselves).

Clearly religion has evolved an array of weapons and defenses to bring to bear against its greatest environmental enemy: Skepticism. Were I intellectually dishonest, I'd stop here and claim that I'd proven religion is a lie. But that wasn't my only claim; I also claimed, as a necessary consequence to my argument, that religion would have to be overwhelmingly evolved given its time and infinite flexibility. Those traits that prevent it from being ignored or forgotten must also be highly evolved:

• Interest: The concept of religion is inherently interesting; the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being who created you and the world carries with it innate fascination. No one will forget the idea that a super-powerful being holds ultimate dominion over the fate of his or her immortal soul -- eternal bliss, or eternal damnation.
• Simplicity: Religion offers the simple answers to the difficult questions. Everything is black and white. Everything is cut and dry. Morality is impractically clear -- "Turn the other cheek. Always." "Always forgive." "Love everyone." The infinite scientific complexity of the birth of our universe is reduced, effortlessly, to six days of snapped fingers and seeing it was good. The reduction to simplicity is, again as expected, perfect. Those of you who agree that the Genesis story is a parable can clearly see the natural consequence of my theory in action -- simplicity is an adaptive trait, and religion adapted it without care for the truth. I agree that this isn't inherently bad -- the real truth would have been inaccessible at the time, and an idea that provides half-truths but spreads well is better than one that provides the truth but is incapable of propagation.
• Inherent Propagation: At the heart of an idea is a desire to spread, and at the heart of religion is a command to spread the word. To preach. To convert others. Name one other idea with such an immediate drive to spread -- there isn't one. Why? Because only religion has had the time and flexibility (what with it being unanchored by truth) to evolve this trait so perfectly.

**Continued**

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

So there you have it -- evidence, clearly presented, of how ideas evolve like organisms, how lies will evolve differently from truth, and how religion has evolved like a lie and not like the truth. It has displayed infinite flexibility, not to a changing truth, but to a changing society. It has adapted almost flawless defenses against skepticism because it needs them to survive.

Look at what religion is. Look at its history. See how it flows like water to suit the needs of a changing society, unfettered by truth, guided by nothing other than a desire to spread and endure. It is a virus; a virus of ideological perfection. It's flawless. It's beautiful in its evolutionary supremacy. It is a paragon of efficient order that emerged out of the chaos of disparate, imperfect ideas, cobbled together over thousands of years by following the principles of Darwinian natural selection.

It is perfect, but its perfection will be its downfall. It has spent so much time surviving as a lie that it now looks like one: The perfect lie.

The greatest lie ever told.

 

[Sunstone]

Does it follow from your thesis that the future of religion is to wither and die out?

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Does it follow from your thesis that the future of religion is to wither and die out?

Religion has been following a steady trend of lost relevance; it's constantly adapting itself into a smaller and smaller corner framed by those few questions we've yet to answer. Given the increased intellectual awareness of modern generations, I can't imagine the more traditional religions like Catholicism will survive another 'reimagining' such as the one caused by Galileo's findings (perhaps, this time, it'll be a better understanding of death, or a breakthrough relating to the creation of life on Earth).

I don't think religion will ever completely vanish until we truly know everything, and I don't think that'll ever happen. I see religions becoming more secular in the coming centuries, or perhaps gravitating more towards Earth-based (Wiccan) or Buddhist beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

How would your thesis be modified if it were discovered that there was a genetic basis for religiosity? i.e. a complex of genes that predisposed people to be religious?

 

[Scott1]

I can't imagine the more traditional religions like Catholicism will survive another 'reimagining' such as the one caused by Galileo's findings

If the faith is based on the perfect lie.... why would additional evidence of the lie (ie a scientific breakthrough as you describe) do anything to weaken it?

 

[HelpMe]

religion:existence of a perfect truth.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well then... I guess I should convert from one lie to a bigger one then?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is, in my opinion, a remarkable (and remarkably long) sophistry which suffers from the reification of ideas and the false counterposition of 'truth' and "lies".

 

[t3gah]

You have some very interesting and valid points with your comments.


How can the bible be proven?

The bible has many a thing that says this or that. History of those who profess to believe in the bible have done atrocious things in the name of a religion associated with the bible. Wars, etc.

The only thing I can recall that validates the bible, is the account in some historians notes that someone the caused a disturbance in bible times around the time when Jesus was reportedly walking the earth was arrested and killed the same way Jesus was killed in the scriptures. With over 31,000 verses in the bible and the fact that one who wants to be a follower also has to become a historian to understand the scriptures, God sure hasn't made it easy to be with him.

Is religion a lie?

A group of people went around with sandwich boards, megaphones, phonographs and speakers on the vehicles stating the "Religion is a racket". That group later became what the world knows today as the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. (reference? Proclaimers of God's Kingdom - published by WTB&TS)

Hypocrites. Another example of "turn the other cheek" and "love for neighbor" or lack of same, you may say to oneself.


What about God. Where is he?

Well lets ask him. God? God? Hello, is this thing on? Hello? God?
Oh, I know. I know where He is. He's away from the earth now. Star cluster. Eagle of creation is where he is if I remember correctly.


Does God exist?

He does in the scriptures.


Historically speaking.

Many a people have stated that the scriptures don't lie, etc. As a student of The Way, I keep my eyes open just like a scripture says. The accounts and such in the scriptures sound convincing tothose in need of spiritual help sometimes. However I have a difficult time convincing people as to the validity of what's contained within it. That's not to say that it, the scriptures are a lie. It could all be fact as far as anyone today knows. The problem with that statement though is history itself. Religion has been a nasty example or rather a nasty excuse for peoples behaviour the world over in the past and now in the present, Iraq. Then what must one say about this whole "perfect lie" business? From you comments, lie it is. From the scriptures, lie it isn't. What about those scriptures then? Well, the scriptures are old, but scholars have found that they, the scriptures aren't the originals. So now we are back to your comments. How do those who believe in them justify their validity to others if they, the scriptures aren't the first hand documents? The stories sound too real to be fake many say. But then someone recently pointed out to me that the bible could be just like that book, War of the Worlds. Who's to say it's not?

The only answer I have is Josephus the Jewish historian. Check out what he wrote down for history in the years that Herod and King Agrippa were in power. Also check on Porcius Festus.

Other than the accounts in the bible versus what the historians have written there is no proof that the bible is actual fact in my opinion. Unless someone else has more proof. Well?

 

[jewscout]

I can't imagine the more traditional religions like Catholicism will survive another 'reimagining' such as the one caused by Galileo's findings

wow i wonder where that puts judaism?

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

How would your thesis be modified if it were discovered that there was a genetic basis for religiosity? i.e. a complex of genes that predisposed people to be religious?

I've heard this theory before; Time magazine ran a feature article on it recently, I believe? The 'God' gene and how faith in a higher power affects our brain in a way that is either pleasing or affirming of that faith?

The thesis itself would be largely unchanged, as I'm focusing on the characteristics of the idea as opposed to the characteristics of the people who believed the idea. Genetic predisposition, however, would certainly give religion an edge over other, non-religious ideas, and would relax some of the restrictions on how perfectly evolved it would have to be -- genetic predisposition could explain why it managed to beat out the competition without being the best evolved.

Regardless, the core of the thesis would remain intact: That religion, because it is a lie, is free to adapt to society through natural selection (though, in this case, only among competing religious ideas) and evidence of this adaptation can be used as evidence in favour of religion being a lie.

 

[jewscout]

I will agree with you that religion grows and changes over time as we as human beings better understand the universe around us. However i don't think it makes religion a "lie", and as Deut. has pointed out on more threads than i can count, what do we then define as "truth".

I personally see religion as an organized and (more often than not) overly complicated structure around spirituality. I don't see religion as necessary for a relationship with the Divine but if it works for you all the better. Religion has caused many horrible things throughout human history but i don't think it makes every religion wrong or "a lie". Many things that we have had as a species to structure or organize our own lives have changed/adapted or have fallen to the way side as we as a people have changed, not just the instituitons of religion.

 

[Mister Emu]

not only does it have evasive or dismissive tenets to avoid answering questions, but it also comes with an absolute threat to prevent pondering those questions in the first place.

1 Thess. 5:21

Prove all things

Does this seem like it is denouncing questions. No.

avoided stepping on the toes of the answers we do know.

If it went against what we know, then how would it be true?

Religion backed away from space when we figured out how the Earth moved around the Sun.

Religious leaders backed away, my religion never said anything that went against heliocentricity.

Elements of Zoroastrianism were employed to make Hell even scarier

This is your personal opinion, if you wish to "prove" that religion is a lie these are best left behind.

A lack of trust in objective evidence

How do you equate faith with a lack of trust in objective evidence?

belief without confirmation of truth

My belief is not un-confirmed. I doubt you would accept my evidence though, and I doubt I could adequatley convey it to you.

The reduction to simplicity is, again as expected, perfect.

Would not it be more simple for God to have done it in one day?

an idea that provides half-truths but spreads well is better than one that provides the truth but is incapable of propagation

I disagree truth is always better than a lie. Truth will always propagate, because it cannot be disproven, it is truth.

It has adapted almost flawless defenses against skepticism because it needs them to survive

The defenses against skepticism have always been in place, people(how many depends on what is truth is being told) like to deny the truth, as is easily seen by the Flat Earth Society. That Christ is the savior has been the known to man truth for ~2000 years, that YHWH is the Lord God Almighty has been the truth since the begining of creation.

Look at what religion is. Look at its history. See how it flows like water to suit the needs of a changing society, unfettered by truth, guided by nothing other than a desire to spread and endure.

My faith is the same as those ~2000 years before me. Yes some people have changed it, you can easily see that in the liberal churches, but there are still(the majority of Christians) who practice pretty much the same as our predecessors.

It has spent so much time surviving as a lie that it now looks like one: The perfect lie.

To you. To myself, as well as quite a few others, religion is the truth.

The greatest lie ever told.

Or God's honest truth

Religion has been following a steady trend of lost relevance; it's constantly adapting itself into a smaller and smaller corner framed by those few questions we've yet to answer.

Your assumption that religion is losing its relevance is false, it is just as relevent today. It does not need to answer any questions about the physical universe.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

If the faith is based on the perfect lie.... why would additional evidence of the lie (ie a scientific breakthrough as you describe) do anything to weaken it?

Mainly for the reason I cited: The increased intellectual maturity of today's believers. Back in the day, when the Church went 'woops, the Earth rotates around the Sun,' its believers were quite willing to smile and go 'alright, well, let's keep praying.' Today, if science made a truly shattering discovery about life after death (say, by returning someone to life who'd been dead for a year), I don't think Catholicism would survive such a blow.

Also, I said that religion was the perfect lie because it is so evolved at existing as a lie. You can still defeat a lie by proving it wrong, as the kind of breakthrough I'm talking about would do. Just as a cockroach is incredibly well evolved, it can still be stepped on.

religion:existence of a perfect truth.

Sure.

Well then... I guess I should convert from one lie to a bigger one then?

Yes. Yes you should. It's all part of Our agenda.

It is, in my opinion, a remarkable (and remarkably long) sophistry which suffers from the reification of ideas and the false counterposition of 'truth' and "lies".

Thank you for showing me how I can reduce the length of my posts: By avoiding the effort of making a point.

I'm confident that, if I perused your most recent posts, I'd find a great deal of this sort of destructive, closed-minded rhetoric. The cynical dismissal of reasoned arguments out of knee-jerk fanaticism instead of intellectual integrity.

Prove me wrong. Pick the one point I made where you truly felt I'm incorrect -- I think I have a very solid argument here, and I'm interested in hearing where it can be improved if you'll pull your head out of your *censored* and post like an intelligent, thoughtful individual.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Thanks everyone for your interest -- I appreciate how you all waded through the wordiness to get to my point.

I'm leaving work now, but will get back on here tonight and answer those posts I've yet to get to; please, tear this argument to pieces, because I want it to be as strong as possible (or I want to drop it and focus my attention elsewhere if it's truly untenable).

Thanks again!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm confident that, if I perused your most recent posts, I'd find a great deal of this sort of destructive, closed-minded rhetoric. The cynical dismissal of reasoned arguments out of knee-jerk fanaticism instead of intellectual integrity.

Oh, my: knee-jerk fanaticism! :biglaugh: Just what type of fanatic am I suppose to be?

Do you maintain that you are not guilty of the reification of ideas and a false counterposition?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Today, if science made a truly shattering discovery about life after death (say, by returning someone to life who'd been dead for a year), I don't think Catholicism would survive such a blow.

I don't see how this would cause the end of Catholicism, or any religion for that matter. "Just because he doesn't remember the afterlife doesn't mean it is nonexistent," believers would argue of the resurrected man. Religious leaders would question the integrity of the discovery, attack those who supported it or took part in it, and rail about how this is yet another example of science trying to 'play God'. No, religions don't die because of one scientific discovery--hell, a huge number of people in this country won't even accept that evolution happens, much less consider it reason to doubt their faith.

I think improved education, rather than a profound scientific discovery, is the only thing that can cause a decrease in religion/superstition.