Scientific Points for Religion—The Switch

Consensus between religion and science is happening, but it’s a one way street.

One of the interesting developments of religion is the attachment to scientific theory and advancement to suit their purposes. Evolution being the largest swing in recent memory, but also shoehorning bits and bobs of the Big Bang—calling out “god did it” and the insistence there had to be a first-cause to set it all in motion. It didn’t, and most likely there never was nothing.

Simple reason can point that out better than a god, and if anyone can display the ultimate in proving a negative—prove there was ever nothing… we obviously have these materials in front of us—more than you could ever say about a god. There’s no magicians trick here. The universe is a brute fact. Myth, however, is the true basis of religion, now making scientific claims using secular reasoning.

Even if per chance the world is a 3D simulation, there also then has to be a supreme all righteous omnipotent god at the helm, right? Pure bias is religion staking claims on what they had denied forever. When the curtain is pulled back we would most likely see a fossilized crazy scientist dead in his chair after working himself to the bone trying to fix his experiment that got away. Whatever discoveries man seems to find, religion has god in all his power drip-feeding advances to share his love.

The idea that a god has to be supremely infallible of perfect righteousness is a pipe dream of runaway human imagination. And imagine, is what we do quite well. Simply reading the scriptures shows us through unbelief—their construct of god is a prick—unless you imagine otherwise.

Which brings us to consensus. How many religious points do the atheist agree? None. How many points of science do the religious adopt hijack? Nearly all of them. Its not that hard when you have an actual model that produces results. Creationism Origins is the last puzzle to solve. What then will the believers do with their god? Another claim as part of the masters plan?


Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

23 thoughts on “Scientific Points for Religion—The Switch”

    1. Yes, under the guidance of god. I wonder if the theory’s author had something to do with the partial acceptance? Let’s say Lemark and Mendel weren’t both Catholics, I wonder what then? Or I just may have to give them some atheist kudos.

      Liked by 3 people

  1. My dream: walk into a room full of fundamentalists from many religions. Fart. Mumble, “there are no gods;” nod, grin sheepishly, walk out, and go home. I can’t win, but I can get their attention.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. For at least two or three millenia Judaic Monotheism then the step-children of that (Greco-Roman Christology & Arabic-Persian Islam) have retro-actively tried (by force or indoctrination of illiterates) to seize “consensus,” world consensus. Isn’t it very, VERY odd that an omnipotent, omniscient “God” still — after so so many atrocities, diseases, wars, suffering — has NOT just stepped in and solved the wild, convoluted controversy? Not even raised an eyebrow?

    Does this at least explain non-consensus? 🤔

    Liked by 3 people

  3. One cannot be satisfied to base one’s life on the rejection of nothing. Atheists often base their identity around the rejection of a non-existent god. However, humans have the natural inclination to believe in something. Some people make division their god. They go around bashing all of the myths and false ideas in religion. They put in god’s place their own ego, and attempt to destroy others’ egos and others’ beliefs. And they often put science in place of religion. But what have science and its child, engineering, brought us? We are on the edge of destroying the earth and its species with all kinds of pollution—chemical, physical, and electromagnetic.

    While it is probably true that religion has created more problems and divisions than solutions and unity, that is our problem, and it doesn’t disprove the existence of God. Our minds and hearts long to believe and trust in something. If science and religion have failed us, what can we do? My choice is to believe in a God of oneness and unity. If we all really believed in such a God, and adhered to love and unity, conditions on earth would improve. (You might say that we can have love and unity without God, but I would say that the unity of love is what my God is. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.) Conditions won’t improve if we continually attack each other like Yahoos. Discussion is okay, but blind and defensive attacks don’t get us anywhere. In addition, we cannot change others’ minds if they are not yet ready to change.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. And they often put science in place of religion. But what have science and its child, engineering, brought us? We are on the edge of destroying the earth and its species with all kinds of pollution—chemical, physical, and electromagnetic.

      Whenever I see people say things like this I often wonder how much history they know or whether or not is just pure bias skewing their view of science in one direction.

      It is first of all myth that man has at anytime lived in balance with nature. It’s part of the reason we were nomadic. We had to move because we tend to go through all the resources at any one location even beyond the fact that we might have been forced to migrate seasonally. No animal lives in ultimate balance with their environment. Simply population dynamics shows us that when wolf populations are high they will go through too many rabbits leaving many wolves to starve which will allow rabbit populations to rebound. Human populations have had to move because of environmental difficulties and a failure to conserve resources many times in the past, and many civilizations simply collapsed for several reasons. Are we to blame science for this, or perhaps it’s an inability to understand the long term consequences of our actions. Maybe the short-term is just how we were wired by evolution to think. And as much as I worry about what climate change will do, I don’t feel it’s likely it will extinguish all life on this planet, the Earth will march on, and hopefully what’s left in it’s wake will learn from our mistakes today. That sustainable future we need to move towards is not obvious, and it’s not part of our nature. What I can guarantee you is that science and technology will be part of making that sustainable future a reality.

      To focus on the gloom of environmental issues is to miss all the lives that have been saved through things like vaccines and medicines. The lives that have been saved through our increased ability to forecast severe weather and other disasters. The increased number of people who are fed through better farming practices to produce higher yields. Our ability to transport food and resources greater distances has also saved lives. There are many more things I can name. Yes there are probably downsides to all of it, but to suggest that we aren’t better off than we were several thousand years ago, when we understood practically nothing about how nature worked and most people lived in great uncertainty and fear would be a laughable hypothesis. Humans have been trying to understand their world and creating technology to survive it since we first descended from the trees, that is our nature. The answer isn’t to return to some level of ignorance in our past, but to move forward and learn from the past. Science is the only way out.

      Maybe ignorance is bliss, but if that’s the only solution to human survival, science will even determine that to be our best option.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I’m not against knowledge, but science and technology, at this point, can only see part of the picture, and furthermore, technology is often derived, at least in the US, from the desire to create a better war machine. If we could see the big picture, and if our emotions were as “advanced” as our technology, then we wouldn’t have so many problems. But as long as we have negative emotions, such as fear, hate, greed, and the desire for revenge, our technology will be used to destroy as well as to improve things. You might be interested in reading my short story about the future on my website. It is possible that our mental powers of the future will be sufficient for us to live in harmony with nature without technology.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. What is the part of the picture that science misses? Science also investigates things like fear, hate, greed and desire. I also take Pinker’s stance in his latest two books about the general improvement of both morality and reduced violence, and that there is a fairly strong correlation between this and the enlightenment, where we started separating church from state and started to focus on things like education, and data driven policy solutions. It’s not to say that things don’t still suck for a lot of people and that there are a lot of powerful people keeping it that way. And I agree that there has been a pace to our technological development which has perhaps outpaced our ability to use it responsibly. We do tend to rush into things, but I am also not sure that it hasn’t always been that way to a certain degree.

          I see technology as the tools we use that are derived from science. These tools aren’t just pieces of machinery. Social Science, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, these are telling us important things about how we work and the results from such studies can be applied to our everyday lives to make things better. In a way that is a kind of technology when we apply what scientific investigation tells us to improving our own lives and society. We can adjust laws, be more progressive in how we reform criminals, increase support of mental health, etc. These are also important products of science.

          I would be interested in reading your short story.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. One of the larger reasons we have to battle these environmental-issues is the religious fertility doctrines. More and more births by divine inspiration has science tackling issues on a global scale. Just to feed everyone requires science based farming, water management, genetic improvements, and on and on. Keeping up over the next two centuries will be a challenge that simply more god inspired births, will counter any advances science has to offer.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Be fruitful and multiply is problematic. Agriculture itself was a technological advancement…whether that line is present or now…the ability to produce more food would naturally lead to greater populations, and then it becomes a trap you can’t really get out of unless you think about sustainability. But there must have been a strong drive in the early days to grow and expand, to claim more territory, to have more people to fight wars, and to make sure you overcame the loss of people due to things like influenza. I don’t know as much about other religions but I know many Christians who espouse the idea that nature is there for our benefit to use as we want as a gift from God and that we should multiply at will. That’s not how hunter-gatherers tend to think and it is detrimental to have such an attitude.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. That belief in god is only the power we hold in ourselves. Religion has promised bliss and through the majority of its existence, at the tip of a sword. What actually happens through belief is passion, which leads to fanaticism, which leads to intolerance. Christianity still behaves with this self righteous discrimination. The history is propped up at every turn.
      People seek truth. It is evident it is not found in religion, hence the search and grasp at real truth outside of faith, even against the warnings of doctrine.


  4. Meh! The disclosure that the bird “kind” had evolved into ravens and doves during Noah’s year-long voyage on the ark is a clear indication the biblical authors supported evolution. Checkmate, athiest!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. On one hand some claim that faith needs no evidence, in fact evidence would lead to proof and faith would not be necessary, so faith abides. Then, the next thing is someone is crowing about some Biblical tidbit that shows up in archeology, without acknowledging all of the myriad failures to verify Biblical claims elsewhere.

    They don’ need no stinkin’ evidence … but hey, that Big Bang, only God could have done that, right?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: