Every religion has so-called Holy Places-where the founder or other important individuals lived, died,were buried, etc. Places that are “Holy” to several religions are troublesome-frequently, such places are of disputed ownership, and wars have been fought over them. My question: suppose that an archaeologist finds that the Dome of the Rock is a place that is actually far from the Temple ruins, and thus of no significance? Many Christian sites are in places that have changed drastically in the last 2000 years-would people still visit them? Take the road that Jesus walked (while carrying the cross) -this is the “Via Dolorosa”-how to we know if this is the actual street? Tradition is one thing-but if someone were to find that it was in a totally different place, what would happen?
Nobody would care. There are lots of religious myths that have been shown inaccurate. When that happens you call them allegories and move on.
Believers believe no matter what the truth. Remember that one definition of faith is belief without proof.
People come to their religious beliefs through faith, not facts. Contradictory fact rarely have any effect.
To me it does not really matter nor diminish what is going on in the person’s heart. If they believe that’s the site, even if it’s not, it is holy by their reverence (as they are God’s children and they themselves are Holy and can designate things Holy).
However proving a site is not what it is thought to be can change things. That proof would be through God the Father (acting through whoever) wanting to redirect his children.
Everybody knows Christ’s birthday wasn’t December 25th, and have for a long time, and it hasn’t made a bit of difference to anyone.
So, I’m going with it wouldn’t matter to true believers at all.
This. Religious “facts” are, by definition, not provable or falsifiable by scientific research. If the “real” location of holy places or the existence of specific deities could be investigated scientifically, they would become a branch of science and you could e.g. publish your findings in the Journal of Holyometry and Deityistics. They wouldn’t be religion anymore.
Wouldn’t make a difference. Were I to visit the Holy Lands (Christian version) it would probably be two trips in one - one of sites that have been archeologically found and verified to some degree and one of traditional faith based sites. Just the various tombs purported to be “Christ’s” could use up a day; and all would have some meaning or impact on me based on how I approach my faith and belief.
Maybe this is true for some believers, but not for all.
True, and while it cannot be proved that God exists, it also cannot be proved that God does not exist. Believers have faith that God exists. Non believers, by their faith also, believe God does not exist because (at least in part) they have no proof of God’s existence.
You can certainly prove that capital-G God doesn’t exist.
As far as I know, there’s nothing in Christian doctrine—the things a Christian should believe or do in order to be a Christian, to please God, etc.—that involves any specific “holy place.”
How?
You can’t do that without first defining what you mean by “God”.
Um, no, non-believers by definition do not have any faith about god’s existence. They just don’t believe. They don’t need proof that god doesn’t exist, all they need is the current lack of evidence to not believe. Until those who believe in god can give actual evidence of his existence, non-believers don’t need to do anything.
Omnipotence is a logical impossibility, to start with. “Can God nuke a burrito so hot that even he can’t eat it?”
Then the problem of evil: God is either powerless to stop evil on Earth, and so not omnipotent, or has the power to stop it and doesn’t, and thus isn’t benevolent. And you can hand wave evil people away as “free will”, but how about tornadoes or polio?
I could go on. Of course this doesn’t disprove all gods, just the omnimax gods that most of the people on earth actually worship.
Places are made “holy” by belief, not by history. Rituals and myth are important; if they happen to align with objective reality then so much the better but they are no less important to given social groups for being entirely subjective.
The definition of Omnipotence is ‘unlimited or very great power’. Even the phrase ‘all powerful’ does not mean unlimited power, just all power that exists.
Or a 3rd, God has accounted for it for a better overall outcome, which arguably solves both of your objection here. So god does have the power, but is creating something better then ever was before. We do hear that God’s creations do take time and all
Actually it does no such thing, it disproves your limited view of what a onmimax god is. Sort of a strawgod argument if you will.
Proof like the OP described would actually strengthen a religion. Religions are generally based on legends. The only way to prove a legend is false is by supplanting it with a fact. Suppose, for example, that somebody finds Noah’s Ark - it clearly and indisputably is the same ark that was described in Genesis - but it’s not found on Mount Ararat; it’s a different mountain twenty miles away.
Which do you think will be the result? People saying “The Bible got the location wrong. This proves the Bible can’t be trusted.” Or people saying “They found Noah’s Ark. It really existed. The proves the Bible isn’t just a myth.”
I suspect it would be similar to how the Catholic Church treats early relics. Even though they’re almost certainly all fakes (albeit really old fakes) the church tends to think that doesn’t detract from their symbolic value as objects of veneration.
If you really think that, then do a search on posts by Der Trihs sometime.
There’s atheists: “I don’t believe in god.”
…and then, there’s atheists: “Occam’s Razor proves god can’t exist.” “Communism is a religion.” etc. <- These guys are the ones I’d term “religiously atheistic.”