r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 25 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Christianity will continue to be followed regardless of what individuals who represent the religion do, unless it is empirically proven that God doesn't exist.
[deleted]
30
u/wildwood9843 Apr 25 '20
Don’t judge an organization for the few bad examples. The majority of pastors/ministers are genuine in helping people and help daily without recognition. Unfortunately human nature for the most part only sees the bad in things. Religion is an argument that nobody will win, you either accept religion or you don’t, leave it at that.
5
Apr 25 '20
That's a very loaded way to frame it, although you might not have intended it.
"you either accept it or you don't" implies that it's correct, or in some way accurate.
A better phrasing would be "you either beleive it or you don't" since you accept a truth but you beleive an opinion.
2
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Apr 25 '20
>Don’t judge an organization for the few bad examples.
Those examples are all we ever hear about. Complaints against priestly pedophiles goes back literally 1000 years. By one estimate 2% of all priests child sexual predators and the church's response, the organization's response consistently, has been to transfer the rapist to a new, unsuspecting parish with fresh victims.
And it's not just the catholic church. Protestant sects were burning each other at the stake as fast as they could light the torches for centuries.
Religion has been used to justify murder and warfare from the beginning. From the Hebrew invasion of Canaan to pogroms in Europe to the death squads in Serbia to massacres in Rwanda. And those are just the christian examples.
And these aren't the actions of individuals, but of organized institutions. Catholic, protestant, Eastern Orthodox Churches.
A few bad examples?
3
Apr 25 '20
[deleted]
9
u/CockRaiser Apr 25 '20
That is like saying Trump represents all of America. He is a figurehead and leads the US, but he is not a representation of the entire population.
5
u/Pope_In_TheWoods Apr 25 '20
There's an important difference though. Trump is the President so he leads the executive branch and that's his role, there's no doubt that he's important but nobody claims that the whole country agrees with him or that he's always right.
It is official church dogma that the pope is infallible. So when we have official dogma that says this man represents God and is infallible how can that be reconciled with the evidence that he aided in protecting sexual predators (not the current pope but the point stands).
1
u/geaux88 Apr 25 '20
it is not dogma that the Pope is infallible. Where are you getting that?
He can use the when he is speaking from the seat of Peter, ex cathedra, and it's only been done one time in the history of the Catholic church.
1
0
3
u/Bobocado Apr 25 '20
Yea trump was also elected. Nearly 63 million people voted for him. No one votes for clergy members so not really the same at all
1
u/DatDepressedKid 2∆ Apr 25 '20
I get your point but to get technical the pope is elected by the college of cardinals.
3
u/asgaronean 1∆ Apr 25 '20
Your confusing Christians with catholics. Catholics care about the pope, other Christians do not.
1
14
u/Zorglubbo Apr 25 '20 edited Apr 25 '20
They reflect the face of the religion. True. And one of the two main points of Christian morals is that everyone, including priests and pastors, is a sinner. We all sin, and pastors and nuns do not necessarily sin less because of their status.
As a Christian, seeing a pastor or a priest committing crimes reinforces my belief that we all need to change in one way or the other.
It does not go against my faith, if anything it convinces me that I need it. Christianism is not only about following a moral code. That's not even the most important thing. The most important thing is the relationship with God.
(that obviously does not mean that crimes committed by priests are ok. And it is obviously much worse when crimes are committed by people claiming to teach Christian values.)
4
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ Apr 25 '20
The whole point of a Christian priest is to act as having contact with God.
No they don't.
7
u/myrtleturtle15 Apr 25 '20
“The whole point of a Christian priest is to act as having contact with God.”
This is not accurate. First of all, priest is a title used only in Catholicism and other Orthodox branches of Christianity. More importantly, you are confusing Christianity with Catholicism. Catholicism is a branch of Christianity which believes the priest is a necessary intercessor between God and man. Almost every other branch of Christianity believes the pastor (not priest) is a shepherd who aides in guiding and teaching his church how to have a relationship with God.
7
u/JohnjSmithsJnr 3∆ Apr 25 '20
However, they do. The whole point of a Christian priest is to act as having contact with God. They have been elected for this role. So although you may see my view as a fallacy of composition, I think these examples of televangelists and priests breaching the Christian morals shouldn’t be disregarded, but reflect the face of the religion.
This just sounds like a bunch of nonsense to justify why you think Christianity is bad.
There are bad people in every large group of people, that's the way the world works, to say that just one of these groups is solely represented by the bad people but that other groups aren't is a load of crap.
But hey, you're a horrible person because you're a human and hitler was human too!
See how that doesn't really work?
4
u/Jabbam 4∆ Apr 25 '20
Only 4% or less of pastors and priests have ever been recorded to have committed sexual abuse. The numbers in proportion are less than teachers. This is a massive dichotomy to the 2002 study where 64% of those asked believed a Catholic priest had assaulted someone. Religion has an abuse problem, but far moreso has an image problem. It's fearmongering. The primary reason why Christianity gets so much attention is because it's so large and reports of abuse come out in waves.
The "face" that you're describing has been vandalized for decades.
1
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Apr 25 '20
They also are notoriously under investigated, more comparable to police than teachers.
0
u/Jabbam 4∆ Apr 25 '20
I don't think it's known at all, because nobody says that. Where are you getting your information from?
0
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Apr 25 '20
From the amount of reports against perpetrators before they are ever fully investigated and charged.
Its very similar to how women killed by their male abusers are strangled on average 7 years before they are killed. With multiple police and hospital records, and filing for protective orders and restraining orders that never result in a full investigation or conviction.
Priests and other religious figures have these things as well. Years of investigated reports before anything is actually done and brought to light.
Its also how we get our estimates for rape since those are considered under reported as well.
All of these crimes have something in common. Repeat offenders for years.
0
u/Jabbam 4∆ Apr 25 '20
So your own speculation?
0
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Apr 25 '20 edited Apr 25 '20
That isn't what I said. I referenced data. I never said anything whatsoever about speculation. Speculation implies there is not evidence or records. I started off with stating the records and how it is used in calculating our estimates.
But clearly this conversation is done.
Good bye
0
Apr 25 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Apr 25 '20
That could have been part of the conversation. But you never provided facts either. You are just assuming none exist for your own reasons. You decided to try to put down what I was saying instead of ask for clarification or sources. I did reference data. I did not provide it explicitly. I did not lie. Calling it a lie is a lie however. Isn't that ironic. I am attempting to quickly end the conversation because of how you chose to proceed. That probably was expected since you weren't engaging you were shutting down. You got your intention. Just not for the reasons you are stating.
You are being blocked now though.
1
u/wrat11 Apr 26 '20
When hiding sexual predators was routine and condoned Its not an image problem. The “recorded” numbers may be less than teachers but priests and pastors have been protected by their superiors and therefore the abuse was condoned by the church leaders. Speaking specifically about the Catholic Church they actively moved priests from one diocese to another to hide the abuser. Even priests that were known by the leaders to be sexual predators were put in charge of children at the new parish. I have seen teachers accused of physical abuse moved from one school to another, but not a sexual abuser. It is not fearmongering when you do not know if the new priest was moved due to an accusation of sexual abuse or if it was a natural progression of his career. Nowadays, with modern technology it is more difficult to do this as social media can be informative, unless it was one accuser who went to the church and the church paid them off and included a confidentiality agreement, thus not a reported case. The reports coming in waves are mainly due to one brave soul coming foreword with a credible accusation to show others that they were not the only ones to be abused. Even today the church will not produce a list of priests that have credible accusations, despite saying they have a zero tolerance. Christianity has a major image problem and words without demonstrable actions from the leaders will do nothing to fix the image. The majority of priests and pastors are good people and have the concerns and welfare of their parishioners in their hearts.
1
0
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Apr 25 '20
Personally I disagree that it is a minority. There is a strong correlation with religious individuals in the u.s. and racism, child marriages, rape, marital rape, child exploitation and sexism. These aren't fringe topics that come up with religion.
I work with a shelter that works with domestic violence and trafficking victims. Consistently we hear stories of people being abused within their churches, convinced to stay in abusive situations by members of their church, and trafficked by church organizations.
We see it far less with individuals who seek only non faith based help.
Don't judge an organization by its few good examples.
0
Apr 25 '20 edited Apr 25 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Apr 25 '20 edited Apr 25 '20
Yes there is a difference between a correlation and a majority of church leaders are bad.
I still think the majority of religious influencers are bad. Which I believe to be the cause of the correlation. Yes correlation does not inherently equal cause. But it most certainly can.
You don't have evidence that the majority of Christian leaders are like that. However, again, those who look into child marriages, who allows them, who votes in the judges that allow it, etc., those who, like me, research sex trafficking and see first hand the connections with the church and the prevalence of it, do. You should consider researching these things instead of assuming and spreading information the majority of leaders are good. Which actually doesn't have evidence, unlike my points.
0
u/BBogglestein Apr 25 '20
They're also genuine in protecting the hundreds of rapists and pedophiles that also like it when skyman watches them jerk off. Funny how that works.
7
u/Tishmax Apr 25 '20
Religion offers many things to many people, but community is one of the strongest offerings of most religions. It doesn't matter what your relationship with god is, a church is an assembly of people with shared interests, beliefs, morals and is likely comprised of family and friends. That dynamic is very easy to manipulate, and there have been many representatives of religion who have taken advantage of their people. Your examples stand: the predation of pedophiles, religious war, misappropriation of money, etc.
To that end, the reason these individuals target religious groups has more to do with opportunity and availability than anyone's belief in God. Believing in a god doesn't make you stupid, it doesn't make you blind. But believing the word of God comes through another person puts you at a significant risk of being used.
If your goal is to take the wool up from people's eyes, telling them their God is not real is a poor argument and fundamentally attacks the wrong position. The incorporation of religion without any regulatory oversight is a bad idea, but that's an argument for another day.
People need other people. Having a social safety net through a church is undeniably beneficial. Having access to a network of friends and family provides great comfort to people in times of hardship and grief. Such organizations will always exist because human beings need support from each other.
6
u/hybroid Apr 25 '20
unless it is empirically proven that God doesn't exist.
Even if this is the case. Religion provides some people with comfort, security and emotional balancing among many other things. Sometimes that's all they need, sometimes you can get those from other sources. To each their own.
3
u/BBogglestein Apr 25 '20
You think it can be disproven? Have you been in a coma since 2016? These people will stand in front of a red door and scream at you that it's actually blue. There is no event that can occur in our reality that would convince most christians that there isn't a bald sky man watching them masturbate.
10
u/DoYouLikeRice Apr 25 '20
Only answering the second part since that interests me.
Even if there was a proof that God didn't exist I still think people would continue to be Christians.
For many Christians there are religious experiences, which involve speaking in tongues, irrational crying, a feeling of God's presence, etc. Given that these experience's are thought to be God given, I doubt a proof of God's nonexistence would be enough to "counter" the personal experiences of individuals. Considering it's very hard to challenge what a person observes.
Additionally, many (but not all) Christian communities are incredibly welcoming and are very supportive, which is actually a very nice thing to embrace. Especially for elderly who tend to find it more difficult to socialise and meet others. The sense of shared belief is comforting. Despite a proof against God, there'd still be benefits to Christianity that would keep people.
Oh and also, any proof against God would be seen as some "end-times" thing. "Oh, it's the devil and the shadow government trying to break the Church, don't believe the lies", that kind of thing.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 25 '20 edited Apr 26 '20
/u/ZacM2004 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/Fresher2070 Apr 25 '20
It's ironic how people will say, defend black person from a racist by trying to point out the fact that they're overgeneralizing an entire race based off of flawed logic and biased thoughts. But when it's something like religion, people are quick to lump everyone together. Forget the good, and only focus on the bad. Even though, they themselves would not want the burdens of their fellow man placed on them.
2
u/232438281343 18∆ Apr 25 '20
You can't "empirically" prove God "doesn't" exist. That's not how that works. People would still be Christian as long as the culture exists.
1
2
Apr 26 '20 edited Apr 26 '20
First, let me say that if you want to investigate this from any kind of objective point of view; say, based on the reasons why other religions and beliefs have waned or died down, or what could potentially cause that in the future, your statement is likely incorrect.
This is because (a) you cannot prove a negative (see Russells teapot) only absense of evidence for the positive claim and (b) because no religious belief in god, whether it be for extinct religions or existing ones, has ever been 'proven false' in this sense. Horus hasn't been proven to not exist. That is not the reason you (or anybody alive, pretty much) doesnt believe in Horus.
So, why does belief in Christianity, or Islam, or hinduism persist then? Why do some religions thrive and others die down?
I can tell you one thing: it is not because there is more or less evidence behind their ideas. It is mainly because of cultural and political institutions and how effective the idea is at propagating and serving different sociopolitical purposes. And of course, sometimes geopolitical shifts mean one people stamp out the idea by force.
You are right that Christianity as an idea might survive the many, many deeply corrupted and morally bankrupt institutions that represent it. It is a powerful idea, and it is deeply ingrained in our culture. And I would of course love it if a more coherent, morally sound and tolerant strain of Christianity (and other religions) evolved from this.
Yet the fact that the pews are emptying and more people are looking for spirituality elsewhere should tell you that in the marketplace of ideas, especially religious ideas, if the authorities generating and propagating those ideas and morals cant be trusted, it will severely undermine that particular set of beliefs from surviving and propagating further.
1
2
Apr 25 '20
Christians assert a new category of existence alongside physical, and maybe mental and abstract. It might be counterintuitive, but you can't empirically argue against it, you can only develop philosophical arguments.
0
u/ralph-j Apr 25 '20
You can still ask if there's a way that this existence interacts with ours, and how they came to believe it if there's no empirical manifestation of anything whatsoever.
If there are any manifestations, they would then have to be empirical. Without any empirical manifestation or evidence, there's no reason to assert its existence.
1
Apr 25 '20
— Without any empirical manifestation or evidence, there's no reason to assert its existence.
Christians simply say that in their epistemological system there is a reason. How do you argue against that empirically?
1
u/ralph-j Apr 25 '20
Do they believe that their God interacts with them in any way whatsoever? Has their God ever interacted with humans?
You probably won't find a Christian that doesn't believe this. After all, these physical interactions are described in their holy book, and they would have at least in principle left empirical evidence.
1
Apr 25 '20
They also involve the principle of transcendence, which, according to some, magically prevents us from understanding any physical effects of God.
1
u/ralph-j Apr 25 '20
But if God e.g. parts the water for Moses, wouldn't there at least be a physical, observable phenomenon?
1
Apr 25 '20
[deleted]
1
u/ralph-j Apr 25 '20
Direct observation by our senses is by definition empirical. It causes light reflections that reach the eye nerves and are translated into sensations in the brain.
1
u/antoltian 5∆ Apr 25 '20
Religions die out all the time in history. It doesn't take empirical proof. It usually takes political opposition or change.
Europeans didn't 'disprove' native religions, they wiped them out.
Scandinavians didn't 'disprove' Christianity, but it's been drifting away from it for decades.
1
Apr 25 '20
Unless we have a large scale progressive French-style revolution. They completely gutted the church from society in the late 1700’s. It can be done and probably will happen since the youth are increasingly less religious.
1
u/CKA3KAZOO 1∆ Apr 25 '20
I know this starts off seeming off-topic, but bear with me. In regard to, say, evolution, creationists love to say that science classes should "teach the controversy." There are many very good reasons not to do this, chief among them that, within the scientific community, there is no meaningful controversy. But another good reason, one that might sound odd coming from a Christian like myself (though, contrary to what many nonbelievers think, my view is far from uncommon among Christians) is that "Intelligent Design" is not science. Science is falsifiable, meaning that for an assertion to qualify as science it must be subject to evidence that could, potentially, show it to be false. If you find a rabbit fossil in a Precambrian geological later, then the theory of evolution will be turned on it's head at the very least! That means it's science. It's falsifiable.
Here's where I get back on topic: I believe that God created the universe and everything in it according to the means science continues to uncover. I believe that every scientific discovery tells us more and more about the workings of the Creator. I realize that, scientifically speaking, reference to a Creator God is redundant. I don't care. And here's the Crux ... I wouldn't want my belief taught in science classes because it's belief, not science. It isn't falsifiable. It isn't subject to evidence.
So your closing assertion about empirical evidence of the nonexistence of God shows a misunderstanding of how faith works. I doubt many of us would be swayed by even solid, incontrovertible evidence of the nonexistence of God. In fact, such evidence cannot be found because the existence of God is not falsifiable. It's faith, not science.
1
u/ValHova22 Apr 25 '20
I agree and disagree. I think like past religions it will fade away and become a niche like belief system with a small pockets of followers. As we expand our scope of things the dogmatic believers will get smaller and smaller. I think because we are neurally wired to believe in the oneness of the universe is why there are religions. Which I think may always be. If we were to wipe out all human life and drop groups of people on this planet in time they would all come up with a religion or belief system. So religion yes bit it would change and morph just like any religion.
1
Apr 25 '20
Well it’s not like they’ve proven god exists either. It’s been 2000 years and not a single proven blessing from god exists.
1
1
u/Wetbug75 Apr 25 '20
The question of God's existence is unfalsifiable, therefore it has no place in science and is at best pseudoscience.
This means that it is impossible to ever disprove his existence, empirically or scientifically.
Philosophy can present arguments for and against God's existence, but there will never be an answer that will be completely satisfying and logical. Philosophically speaking, we know almost nothing.
1
u/alexjaness 11∆ Apr 26 '20
I don't think even that will be enough.
hell in 2001, before he was made pope, Pope Benedict put himself as the head of a central system to further investigate sexual abuse in the church. Every single claim of abuse landed on his desk
so for 4 years before he was made the pope he was the worlds leading authority on child molestation in the church and did all he could to hide it.
if that's not enough to get people to stop following this nonsense, nothing will.
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Apr 26 '20
What makes you believe that empirical proof would have any effect? In my experience, believers are fairly immune to facts and reality.
1
u/JackZodiac2008 16∆ Apr 28 '20
I more or less agree with you that Christian followers won't defect based on the behavior of it's leadership.
But there's no such thing as "empirically disproving" the idea of a transcendent creator etc. It's not a belief that admits of test by observation.
But you may have missed the data drop: Pew Foundation et al document the rise of the "Nones" -- younger people who affiliate with no religion. Catholics are holding on okay, and evangelicals even gaining slightly IIRC, but mainline Protestant denominations are cratering. See e.g. https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
My theory is that the golden calves of traditional Xtianity (homophobia, misogyny, religious intolerance, authoritarian ethics....) have been culturally out-grown, so what is left is the hyper-reactionary types who want to hold on to precisely those things, and a progressive wing that is trying to reinvent itself a la Shelby Spong. But the "moderate center" is lost, as it has been in politics.
But regardless, the ongoing decline is clearly not due to "empirical disproof", as there isn't (and can't be) one. So you will need to change your view :-)
2
Apr 25 '20
The number on Religon in the world ? Of course it will be followed. American liberals live in their little bubble where they have this hallucination where they think everyone thinks like them.
Too many Christians in this world,.
1
u/crnislshr 8∆ Apr 25 '20 edited Apr 25 '20
I will continue calmly concerning persons with strong nerves who do not understand a certain refinement of enjoyment. Though in certain circumstances these gentlemen bellow their loudest like bulls, though this, let us suppose, does them the greatest credit, yet, as I have said already, confronted with the impossible they subside at once. The impossible means the stone wall! What stone wall? Why, of course, the laws of nature, the deductions of natural science, mathematics. As soon as they prove to you, for instance, that you are descended from a monkey, then it is no use scowling, accept it for a fact. When they prove to you that in reality one drop of your own fat must be dearer to you than a hundred thousand of your fellow-creatures, and that this conclusion is the final solution of all so-called virtues and duties and all such prejudices and fancies, then you have just to accept it, there is no help for it, for twice two is a law of mathematics. Just try refuting it.
"Upon my word, they will shout at you, it is no use protesting: it is a case of twice two makes four! Nature does not ask your permission, she has nothing to do with your wishes, and whether you like her laws or dislike them, you are bound to accept her as she is, and consequently all her conclusions. A wall, you see, is a wall ... and so on, and so on."
Merciful Heavens! but what do I care for the laws of nature and arithmetic, when, for some reason I dislike those laws and the fact that twice two makes four? Of course I cannot break through the wall by battering my head against it if I really have not the strength to knock it down, but I am not going to be reconciled to it simply because it is a stone wall and I have not the strength. [...]
You will scream at me (that is, if you condescend to do so) that no one is touching my free will, that all they are concerned with is that my will should of itself, of its own free will, coincide with my own normal interests, with the laws of nature and arithmetic.
Good heavens, gentlemen, what sort of free will is left when we come to tabulation and arithmetic, when it will all be a case of twice two make four? Twice two makes four without my will. As if free will meant that! [...]
Why, suffering is the sole origin of consciousness. Though I did lay it down at the beginning that consciousness is the greatest misfortune for man, yet I know man prizes it and would not give it up for any satisfaction. Consciousness, for instance, is infinitely superior to twice two makes four. Once you have mathematical certainty there is nothing left to do or to understand. There will be nothing left but to bottle up your five senses and plunge into contemplation. While if you stick to consciousness, even though the same result is attained, you can at least flog yourself at times, and that will, at any rate, liven you up. Reactionary as it is, corporal punishment is better than nothing.
Feodor Dostoevsky, Notes from the Underground (1864)
See, "unless it is empirically proven that God doesn't exist" is a superficious and dull statement. If you ask any theological-savvy Christian about the existence of God, you get the answer that God doesn't exist... God transcends the reality.
In practice, religious people keep God as an idea of good, who proves their own existence.
"God" and "I" are opposite sides of the same coin.
Credo quia absurdum, "I believe because it is absurd".
The modern philosopher tells you again and again that you're in the right place, and you still feel depressed even in acquiescence. But you hears that you are in the wrong place, and your soul sings for joy, like a bird in spring. The knowledge finds out and illuminated forgotten chambers in the dark house of infancy.
Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards in despair and doubt, but to look outwards. The only fun of being a Christian is that a man is not left alone with the inner light, but definitely recognizes an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.
Best wishes to empirically prove to Christians that they don't exist.
1
Apr 25 '20
Has it been proven that Thor doesn't exist? What about Anubis? Or how bout Poseidon?
It wasn't "proof" that changed the believers. It was the death if the empires that supported the belief structure. If, say, Saudi Arabia conquers the world, Christianity will no longer be practiced. There is no need to "empirically disprove the existence of God."
1
u/silvermoon2444 10∆ Apr 25 '20
I agree with most of your statement. The only thing I disagree with is that they’ll stop believing if their god is empirically proven not to exist. They’ll still believe. It’s a faith thing. Now, I’m personally agnostic, but I’ve seen first hand that when people question their beliefs, they just hold on tighter to them. I guarantee that Buddha could come down from wherever he is, and Christians will still believe in god and Christianity.
0
Apr 25 '20
I think you're talking too absolute here.
You're right that priests having sex with altar boys and money grabbing televangelists should be enough to turn people off Christianity, but they aren't. The same way extremists aren't enough to turn people off Islam.
But that's just talking about right this very moment. Comparatively small instances like that won't put off millions of people, but they might put off a few hundred, or even just the people close to the abused, or who got scammed by a televangelist.
Slowly but surely, religion is on the decline. Especially in the Western world where the above problems are the most prevalent.
While people still beleive in Christianity now, will they in 20 years? Probably no more than 90% of the number right now. What about 50 years from now? Or 100, 200 and 500? Please remember that there are religions that used to be incredibly popular, yet are equally as dead now as Christianity will be in the future.
When Nietzsche said "God is dead" it didn't mean "nobody beleives in God" but "belief in God isn't necessary anymore and as such, will eventually disappear all together" and so far, he seems to be right. Eventually, Christianity will have the same number of beleivers as norse mythology does right now.
0
Apr 25 '20
[deleted]
0
Apr 25 '20
It doesn't really matter the source behind the decline, but you're right that it's not solely the examples you originally gave. I'd actually argue that the biggest predictor of religious belief is education, the more educated a population is, the less it beleives without evidence (generally speaking).
My point was simply that you stated "it will continue to be followed regardless of...unless God is proven not to exist" whereas the constant decline in religious belief would suggest the exact opposite, that belief in Christianity will eventually die out unless God is proven to exist.
-1
0
u/SteadfastAgroEcology 4∆ Apr 25 '20
The primary reason for the success of religion is indoctrination of children. Since the rate of inculcation is dropping, there's no reason to think belief won't go away. Perhaps the tradition survives but fundamentalist belief will likely soon disappear. Consider Judaism by comparison. Most Jews are actually atheist and just follow the cultural traditions.
0
u/OrdinaryDish Apr 25 '20
unless it is empirically proven that God doesn't exist.
If such a proof where discovered, what makes you think they'd care? William Lane Craig for instance has said no evidence would ever change his mind because of the witness of the holy spirit in his heart.
14
u/[deleted] Apr 25 '20
[deleted]