At the risk of sounding naive, we have one big advantage, which is that our core dogma doesn’t sound batshit ridiculous on its face.
When you’re competing to get people to believe in (and fund) your invisible goblin over the other guy’s invisible dragon, you’re going to need to rely on violence, intimidation, social pressure and anti-epistemology.
When you’re just trying to convince people that the sky is in fact blue, and then go on to show them that you can build rockets and Internets out of such simple facts, and that goblins and dragons don’t actually fit anywhere in the web of understanding, it just seems like you shouldn’t have nearly as much trouble making your case.
It’s like, “My God is the God of Israel and He will smite the Unbeliever, now battle my transforming snake-staff,” versus, “My God is the God of Physics, now hold this Cesium-137 while I go get my snake staff.”
At the risk of sounding Deeply Wise, I’m unconvinced that having a core dogma that doesn’t sound batshit ridiculous is an advantage.
Getting money for the invisible goblin doesn’t need violence or intimidation. You tell your followers that the goblin commands we help those less fortunate, and they open up their wallets. You tell them that the goblin must have churches, and they vote to set aside land and exempt you from taxes. You may call this social pressure or anti-epistemology if you want, but they want a goblinist present when they die, and they want to be buried on the goblin’s soil.
It isn’t about proving that the sky is blue. The goblin doesn’t dispute that. Rockets and Internets probably won’t kill religion any more than boats and telephones did. The man in the lab coat can invent as much stuff as he wants, and the people will buy it and use it and go to the man in the goblin outfit every Holy Day to hold their snake sticks aloft. They don’t see a contradiction. (For the most part. Obviously their are a few dragons whose priests forbid modern technology to their followers, but they are not usually your competition).
Atheist says The God Of Physics can tell you everything about the world. He’ll be exactly as forgiving of anything you do regardless of what you believe. Theist says The God of Physics ++ delegates all questions about the world to the God Of Physics, and when you die he judges you based on your deeds and you get to live forever in bliss and be reunited with your loved ones if you obeyed him in life, otherwise you burn eternally in a lake of fire.
I don’t think the debate that is happening is the one that you think is happening. Atheism vs. Theism does not reduce to Science Vs. Religion. Atheism and Science aren’t close friends, rather Atheism is Science’s fan. Science is a rock star, giving iphones and new cars to Theists and Atheists alike. Atheism is the guy in the back of the video, screaming out “You Got Served!”, but he’s never made a single thing of his own.
Well I’m sure it must be true on average that it’s easier to convince people of true things. After all, here we all are; believing a bunch of true things.
At the risk of sounding naive, we have one big advantage, which is that our core dogma doesn’t sound batshit ridiculous on its face.
When you’re competing to get people to believe in (and fund) your invisible goblin over the other guy’s invisible dragon, you’re going to need to rely on violence, intimidation, social pressure and anti-epistemology.
When you’re just trying to convince people that the sky is in fact blue, and then go on to show them that you can build rockets and Internets out of such simple facts, and that goblins and dragons don’t actually fit anywhere in the web of understanding, it just seems like you shouldn’t have nearly as much trouble making your case.
It’s like, “My God is the God of Israel and He will smite the Unbeliever, now battle my transforming snake-staff,” versus, “My God is the God of Physics, now hold this Cesium-137 while I go get my snake staff.”
At the risk of sounding Deeply Wise, I’m unconvinced that having a core dogma that doesn’t sound batshit ridiculous is an advantage.
Getting money for the invisible goblin doesn’t need violence or intimidation. You tell your followers that the goblin commands we help those less fortunate, and they open up their wallets. You tell them that the goblin must have churches, and they vote to set aside land and exempt you from taxes. You may call this social pressure or anti-epistemology if you want, but they want a goblinist present when they die, and they want to be buried on the goblin’s soil.
It isn’t about proving that the sky is blue. The goblin doesn’t dispute that. Rockets and Internets probably won’t kill religion any more than boats and telephones did. The man in the lab coat can invent as much stuff as he wants, and the people will buy it and use it and go to the man in the goblin outfit every Holy Day to hold their snake sticks aloft. They don’t see a contradiction. (For the most part. Obviously their are a few dragons whose priests forbid modern technology to their followers, but they are not usually your competition).
Atheist says The God Of Physics can tell you everything about the world. He’ll be exactly as forgiving of anything you do regardless of what you believe. Theist says The God of Physics ++ delegates all questions about the world to the God Of Physics, and when you die he judges you based on your deeds and you get to live forever in bliss and be reunited with your loved ones if you obeyed him in life, otherwise you burn eternally in a lake of fire.
I don’t think the debate that is happening is the one that you think is happening. Atheism vs. Theism does not reduce to Science Vs. Religion. Atheism and Science aren’t close friends, rather Atheism is Science’s fan. Science is a rock star, giving iphones and new cars to Theists and Atheists alike. Atheism is the guy in the back of the video, screaming out “You Got Served!”, but he’s never made a single thing of his own.
Given that historically that has never been so I don’t see why do you think the future will be any different.
As an aside, “rockets and Internets” look pretty pale in comparison to the unconditional love of a god and the promise of eternal life :-D
Well I’m sure it must be true on average that it’s easier to convince people of true things. After all, here we all are; believing a bunch of true things.
No, it’s easier to convince people of false things. After all, here we are, believing a bunch of false things.
How would you tell?
So, which percentage of the world population is religious and which is atheist..?