Agnostic.com

22 16

Is science undermining religion ? This was debated on BBC "The Big Question" this morning.
I bloody well hope so.
The usual theists spokespersons and a couple of token scientists were wheeled out and as usual I sit with steam coming out of my ears and shouting at the TV
The religious woman who believes in the virgin birth was asked if half of Jesus's DNA was from Mary where did the other half come from. Of course she had no answer and just waffled on for ages.
The scientist asked the same question said of course the virgin birth story was added to the Jesus myth hundreds of years after his supposed birth and unless he was a komodo dragon he had a father.
God save us from religious nutters 😉

Moravian 8 Mar 14
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

22 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

5

It undermines bullshit

bobwjr Level 10 Mar 14, 2021
4

Poor choice of words. Science doesn't undermine anything. It debunks bs with evidence.

Even better.

4

Truth undermines religion, wherever it comes from.

The BBC's need to be inclusive undermines it remit to be balanced, but it tries its best.

In America, the "liberal" media, simply agrees with the "truth" of religion. At least you have some effort of exposing the ruse.

In fact it tries REALLY hard.

@Mcflewster It does, I have a lot of respect for the BBC, though I do think that in resent times, it has started to lose its way in a lot of domestic trivia, and low brow popular culture, loosing therefore, its once good global vision. The current dramatic events in S. America for example went unmentioned by the BBC, though they were well covered by Sky, Aljezera, and RT. PS. can't remember how you spell Aljezera, but you know who I mean.

3

Funny they never got around to talking about the way religions “undermine” each other. (Read undermine here as attack, denounce, persecute, slaughter...insert your favourite sanguinary adjective as you see fit.)

3

What is funny is the christians who think the virgin birth is something unique in mythology.

Global flooding too.

Gilgamesh told it better.

True enough. Anyone who was anybody was supposedly virgin born back then, as the secular historians on religion will tell you. Just don't tell believers; they don't want to know.

I'm a fan of Gilgamesh.

3

Of course science undermines religion and is has done so since the reformation and the European enlightenment and long may it continue to do so.

3

Virgin births are no big deal. I have read that in South America (heavy Catholic territory), about 4 or 5 virgin births happen every year. Young girls are in the habit of giving handjobs to their boyfriends so they can keep their virginity until marriage. But then many of those girls satisfy themselves afterward without washing their hands. Guess what happens. Some of those dedicated little swimmers make their way up into the promised land, and Presto! A new little baby Jesus comes along.

Footnote: "Any sexual activity that introduces sperm into — or around — the vagina could result in a sperm making its way to the egg." --Healthline

Not necessarily in every case a hand job. Could be hand holding or handshake.

Virgin births were rather common in the BC/AD time frame as well. Several Egyptians - real (as in Pharaohs) and imagined (their Gods and demi-gods) - Alexander the Great, and a number of others were said to have been born of a virgin.

@AnonySchmoose I like your little Jesus toon. To that, I would add "Good, keep it up."

3

Denotatvely yes, science is undermining religion. That said, most media using the term undermining are looking at the word connotatively, which is a negative. I do not believe science undermining religion is a negative thing, but unfortunately, many out there do see science ina bad light, which furthers the stupidity of peoplekind.

3

I'll be damned if I ever try AGAIN to talk to a fundamentalist Catholic about the virgin birth.

Banging ,head, and brick wall comes to mind. The fact that the first gospel of Mark has no mention of the nativity,it came very late to the Jesus story and countless gods which predate Jesus had a human mother and supernatural father has no effect on them ?

@Moravian
I had hoped to have a conversation about Mary being born a chimera, or being born intersex with ovotestes which could have produced sperm and eggs simultaneously. The Catholic fundamentalist would not consider those possibilities.

@Moravian
Most 'Christians' I've met will not admit that all the gospels written were not included in the Bible, thus leaving out some of the historical record. Also, it perplexes me why most Christians aren't interested in the history of their religion, such as all the mystery religions with similar characteristics that preceded Christianity.

@AnonySchmoose This possibility was mentioned in the debate but dismissed by the theists.

@AnonySchmoose All the so-called gospels not included were also written by stupendously ignorant superstitious 2000 year old sheep herders simply passing on their superstitions. Any written word by such people is simply nonsense and insanity. Why is this even part of a serious discussion??

n@Healthydoc70 Because millions of people have been indoctrinated with this mythology and it is Sunday and the BBC feel that they have to pander to those people.

Atheist: "Where's your evidence for this Virgin Birth thing?"

Catholic: "It says so in the Bible."

Atheist: "I said evidence, not unsubstantiated claim, you blithering idiot!"

@Healthydoc70
Doctors without Border _____

2

I think the anti science attitude of many religions shows exactly that: science has been undermining the basis of religions for centuries. Between cosmology, theoretical physics, evolutionary biology and other fields, the falsehoods of religion have been revealed. God is not needed to explain the universe or the creation of life. While not all fully known, more than enough exists to ignore religion. Also, it's not just the physical sciences, also the social sciences, like history, which has contextualised Christianity so much (another dead and rising God death cult), and Christology ( serious history of Jesus exposes the myth). Believers know about all this in the internet age and can't ignore it. Scratch many of them and resentment is what you will find. Of course, all the trimmings and gadgetry of science, like technology, they're happy to have, just not anything that dispatches their God into irrelevance.

I think that science has the capacity to do the undermining, but as they go on ignoring it, as a fellow I once knew who had to stop a conversation with me once I uttered the word "Evolution," because it was anathema to his church/religion, showed, they remain firm in their insistent ignorance.

2

"Is Evidence Undermining Religion?"

Here's the link to the program if anyone wants to see it.

Leelu Level 7 Mar 14, 2021

The old guy who insisted that the earth is under 10000 year old was fun. Pity they hadn't given him some more air time.

Imo, a perfect example of ' Faithfool Closed Mindedness ' and the epitome of the adage " You can lead a Faithfool to reason BUT you CANNOT make him/her THINK."
As to the ' Duffer' CLAIMING to have located the Mountain in the Sinai Peninsula where the mythical Moses received the equally mythical 10 Commandments, the Standing Stones and the Tabernacle as well.
To him, "I say SHOW the World, prove it to be True and undeniable and then answer WHY it was, as per Exodus that the mythical Moses CAUSED an Ark, a CRATE made from wood and decorated with 2 Golden Angels atop of it btw, to be made and carried with his Hebrew Refugees and simply LEFT this Holy Tabernacle behind?"
Where does it SHOW clearly that this mythical Exodus ACTUALLY occurred during the Reign of ANY Egyptian King named Rameses, was it Rameses the First, the Second, the Third, etc, WHICH King Rameses was it, WHY has there NEVER been ANY evidence found at the bottom of the RED Sea to SHOW that HUNDREDS of Egyptian Soldiers, Chariots, Horses, etc, WERE DROWNED ALL at EXACTLY the same time and in EXACTLY the same Place?
WHERE, exactly and Precisely IS this Tomb in which the mythical Jesus was laid to rest and from which he is ' CLAIMED' to have Risen AFTER being resurrected?

@Triphid Was Moses mythical or did he actually exist ?. I read a fascinating book on the development of religions (It;s on my Kindle which I have missplaced ). The author equates Moses to a modern day cult leader and if you study the old testament his actions certainly bear this out. He had total control over the tribe and through "god" he kept that absolute for the supposed forty years. Only when he died and Joshua take over did the tribe move on.

@Moravian Well that may well be he case, since the ONLY person mentioned in Ancient Egyptian History with a name similar was a Moseh, a Hebrew Mercenary in Goshen who got the boot, EXILE, with his 600+ fellow Mercenaries for Arson, Pillaging of Trade Caravans, Slave Trading, Rape and Extortion.
Since Egyptian Law stated that ONLY Egyptians and Foreign Enemies could be sentenced to Death then Moseh and his Criminals had to Exiled from ALL lands belonging to or governed by Egypt.
But that episode is recorded as happening in the reign of King Seti 1, father of Ramses the Great not, NOT in the reign of Ramses the Great.

2

In that truth undermines lies and delusions... yes.

Leelu Level 7 Mar 14, 2021
2
2

Mormons believe that since God was once a man having lived a worthy life on another earth-like world (perhaps on another planet, or perhaps in an alternate universe) he became a God with a perfected body. God therefore would possess DNA to pass onto Jesus (although they tend to stop short of saying God had actual sex with Mary; how DNA was transferred is a "mystery" ). Since DNA was known about for more than a millennium, the concept of virgin birth - especially of a male - was not a problem they could even conceive of.

To address the question of is science undermining religion, my answer would be that is does for the simple fact that increased knowledge of how our world works dispells the fantasy and made up portions of religious tradition. Religion can be very flexible in adapting to new discoveries and can incorporate new fact so long as it is less tied to documents recording and explaining certain events. The discussion above of the Mormon's adaptations above are an example. Humans seem to have the ability to rationalize anything so long as they don't need to be fully integrated together. It's kind of like the paradox drawings where at various point of the drawing, it appears reasonable and to make sense as one's eye follows the details, but it isn't until details are attempted to be integrated into an entire picture that the inconsistencies become evident. If one can compartmentalize the details away from one another, then they can be believe in and pretended to be consistent and congruent.

My personal view is that our minds work in this way understanding things in bits and pieces. It would be like learning math and learning to read. Each requires a different set of abilities or skills to understanding and translation of symbols into something that makes sense. (For some of us, language still poses a challenge to our understanding since there are so many exceptions to its rules - never mind the variety of language dialects or accents, much less whole other languages). The difference between science and religion in my understanding is science attempts through fact finding to resolve the incongruence between various details of concepts and representations - even within the same depictions - while religion attempts to continue applying its traditional explanations or bending or outright denying new discoveries in order preserve its traditions. They fear going to hell if the lose their religion without realizing the loss of their religion means the loss of their concept of hell as a place or a concept to be afraid of.

Mormons follow a religion founded by a con-man who had been recently released from jail, in upstate N.Y, who made some outlandish claims. It seems like it was a foreigner for Qanaon.

@BirdMan1 - Yep! That's the one. He was an 19th century cult leader in every sense of the word. It allowed him lots of property without working for it and some 36 wives, about a third of them concurrently married to other men. His claims were outlandish and verged on the occult.

2

Would Adam and Eve have had navels?

Of course they had navels. They were created in the image of God, and God was created in the image of men - who all had navels. 😉😉😉

2

According to the gospels the genealogy of Jesus is traced through Joseph. Some misguided people even claim at one point they use a genealogy of Mary, but this would never have been allowed. The person doing the recording simply got confused. If we are to assume a lineage through Joseph this would also solve parentage and DNA questions. There is no way to get DNA from the Invisible Man and we must conclude that the original kingdom of the person we call Jesus was meant to be an earthly kingdom. This is what the genealogy proves. Death and confusion kind of mess up that plan, so the bible took another direction.

It is my full belief that the Internet will prove to be the death of god. Modern apologists just keep making it all up and religious viewpoints change, but this will not stop real facts from being known quickly as they emerge. Archaeology has already proven most of the bible to be false and only the religious will disagree with that. This is why they keep setting up new "institutes" to spread their beliefs. Archaeology does not come from any new institute at all. It is entirely scientific and does not involve faith.

before Christianity totally separated from Judaism the Jews were still looking for their saviour who had to be of the house of David. I remember debating this with a church minister on another site and he insisted that Mary also was descended from David. As a tribal chief David probably had a few wives and concubines so he would have had many offspring and it was probably quite common for cousins to marry

The internet seems to have significantly increased the belief in conspiracy theories. Religion may not be as easily transmited via social media as conspiracy theories - it may require more space in the brain, I really don't know - so you may still be correct about religion and the internet. I would take a moe skeptical position on this subject, however. Perhaps it has more to do with our collective willingness to believe something we are told, or our lacck of being on guard against BS. Religions have been arguing amoung themselves for long enough that more people are less willing to believe what they hear about religion, but conspiracy theories haven't yet earned the same level of unreliability on a wide scale. A good question for someone to look into.

Ran across this article on FB just now. It alludes to what I was attempting to say.
"Pastors are leaving their congregation after losing their churchgoers to QAnon"
[yahoo.com]

1

IN THE closest thing to a human virgin birth that modern science has ever recorded, British geneticists last week described the remarkable case of a young boy whose body is derived in part from an unfertilised egg. The discovery has provided a rare glimpse into the control of human development and the evolutionary changes that made sex essential for mammalian reproduction.

Read more: [newscientist.com]

Word Level 8 Mar 14, 2021

Interesting.

1

SCIENCE - asks the Question first, then sets about FINDING the Answers BUT is ALWAYS open to revision, questioning, etc, etc but never ever simply closes the book on either the Questions nor the Answers.
Whereas, imo, on the OTHER hand,
RELIGION - STATES it has the Answers but flatly REFUSES to be Questioned or ITS Answers Examined.
Science is NOT, imo, 'undermining' Religion, it merely seeks out the Truth , the Facts and the Evidences that are at hand and present UNTIL further questions, etc, CAUSE it to seek further Information, Facts and Evidences that may or not not correlate or disagree with the first proposed Hypotheses.
For example, Christianity and ALL Abrahamic based beliefs STATE that Man was ' created ' by God from a handful of dust and dirt, then Eve was ' created ' from ' a bone ( rib) taken from Adam by God WHO could ONLY ' create man from dust and dirt.'
To my mind, this begs the questions,
Why could his God ONLY ' create ' a Male of the species from common dirt, etc, and NOT do exactly the same when ' creating ' the FEmale of the exact same species?
Was it ONLY a Human being that this God could manage to ' create ' from dust and dirt, How did the myriad of Fauna and Flora come into being then?
Genetically, Human Males carry within EVERY cell of their bodies the X and the Y Chromosomes, conversely, Human Females carry within EVERY cell of their bodies ONLY 2 (TWO) X Chromosomes, at conception either an X Chromosome combines with a Y Chromosome and produces a MALE Offspring or X combines with another X Chromosome and produces a Female Offspring.
Therefore, Adam ONLY carrying the X, Y Chromosome Combination COULD ONLY ever had lead, logically, to EVE becoming a Cloned Male of Adam thus making it ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the pair to breed and produce Off-spring.
UNLESS of course, and that is a Cosmos sized UNLESS btw, this Abrahamic God was the VERY FIRST GENETIC Scientist and Gene Manipulator.

It's all myth, though it is frustrating to hear people tell about how they "know" that the creation myth, that of Western European peoples, was the real thing. I do not know that science "undermines" religion, as the religious do not bother with science's thinking in a receptive manner. What may be undermining religion are the religious who are so easily seen to be hypocritical by some who have been raised with it.

@BirdMan1 As was reportedly to have been said, " You CAN Fool ALL of the People SOME of the time, Some of the People ALL of the time, BUT NEVER ALL of the People ALL of the time."

1

Damn! Missed it. Had a late night, followed by an all-morning lie-in.

0

Lots of interesting conversation here, I'll just look at your last sentence and say replace god with the words "We must" and I assume you misspelled religious, and I agree. 😁

Attempt at irony and thanks for pointing out the typo

0

Yes. but we need an un-blooded way of doing things in the meantime. The opposition [not In the Uk born communities thankfully] tend to rely on martyrdom and plan events that spill blood even though they say that they did not intend to. In America you think you can solve things with a gun which does more than draw blood. It really IS "Shimple."

Science is our version of the bible for approaching the truth.

0

Science never has been able to supply meaning to life in any way other than mechanical. It also chips away at hope that any meaning might be found. I think the truth of the matter is that science is also a faith - faith that it knows or can find the answers to big questions.

I think David Bohm was on the right track when he teamed up with Jiddu Krishnamurti so that science and philosophy might join forces to break the current impasse on knowledge development.

So that's your opinion which I totally disagree with.

Why do you expect science to supply the meaning of life for you? Ask yourself what it means to even posit the question. What does the concept of the meaning of life mean and why do you expect science or religion to supply that for you? Why do you seek an answer to a question that IMO has no meaning and no answer.

@Healthydoc70 The question was "Is science undermining religion" Nothing to do with the meaning of life which is what you want to make it.

@Healthydoc70 I don't expect science to supply the meaning of life. Many hoped it would replace religion but that didn't happen. The reason why I would like to know the meaning of life is the same reason as Socrates' when he said 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. He thought that way. So do I. Unlike Socrates, I don't think everybody has that need. But clearly many do or religions would not still a following. Your last sentence is a bit odd because it kind of says meaning has no meaning.

Moravian It has everything to do with meaning. It always has and it always will.

@brentan Science shows us the "how" not the "why". Surely it is up to each individual to give meaning to their own life.

@Moravian 'Meaning of life' and 'meaning to life' are related but not the same thing. Myth, religion and philosophy attempt to explain the meaning of life in a universal way while we give meaning to our live in an individual capacity. But we're going off-point. Religion is not being replaced by science.

@brentan This can be argued till the cows come home but a survey shows that scientists tend to be less religious than the general population. This is not surprising . What surprises me is that so many scientists are religious. Cognitive dissonance at work I think.
Chart showing church attendance in different countries

@Moravian We're not discussing the topic anymore. This could be a new topic.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:582112
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.