# How are myth based, supernatural belief systems like Chrstianity going to survive? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695 "2006-04-21T21:53:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/61 "2006-04-22T14:13:09Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In other words, they believe it because they believe it. It’s self-confirmed, _a priori_ and circular. While I have no doubt that these kinds of subjective and life-informing exoerience really do occur, I always have to wonder why they always occur only in a fashion that the believer would already expect. They occur in all cultures and all religions. People have subjectively persuasive, personal experiences of Hindu and African tribal deities just as often as they have experiences of Jesus. In ancient times, people had experiences of Zeus and Isis. I wonder why they never had experiences of Jesus if Christianity is really the true religion. Why is it that only people who have already heard of Jesus ever have Christian religious experiences? What has provided you with this information? Especially the Zeus and Isis part. I find this very interesting and relevant. I realized some time ago that it’s easy to emotionally attach a spiritual experience to the particular religion we’re around when it happens. Then people attach all the doctrine, mythology, and tradition of that religion to that experience when the two aren’t actually connected until we connect them. It makes sense to me that someone on a spiritual path would have experiences with the images they relate to. We have to be willing to surrender , to let down our mental and emotional barriers, to progress. It’s a choice, an act of will. If those barriers won’t allow a person to see beyond their particular religion then they won’t. It can happen though that the desire to know the truth is stronger than the emotional attachment to a certain doctrine. Then barriers will fall until we realize that religions are man made constructs that only provide some vehicle for spirituality, and within spirituality, there are no religions. > [@](#): > > “Souls” are superfluous and illogical concepts. It is a demonstrable fact that all consciousness, sensory perceptions, memory, emotions and even religious experiences are provably physiological phenomena. None of those things can continue to exist outside of the brain any more than the light of a lightbulb can continue to exist after the bulb is broken. The “mind” is created by the brain. No living brain = no “mind.” You might try to argue that the “soul” contains all those properties as well, but my question in that case would be why do we need a brain then? > > There is also the question of how a “soul” can exist without any material substance. What is it made of? Where is it located in the body? How does it move and perceive and think outside of the body? How do you know you don’t have 20 souls in your body instead of one? Can you prove that you don’t? Can you prove that you’re not in the Matrix? “You can’t prove it’s NOT true” is simply not a very persuasive line of argument. There are an infinite number of things which can’t be disproven. I think your post does a good job of answering the OP, though. As the saying goes, you can’t reason people out of beliefs they were never reasoned into. I object. Isn’t it true that even though experiences \*similar \*to described religious experiences have been duplicated it can’t accurately be described as \*proof \* that spiritual experiences are completely physiological. In my own case the question is, if the spiritual experience is merely a chemical reaction then where does the profound life changing insight come from? A chemical reaction might cause a feeling of peace and euphoria and I might have some sort of vision but where does the knowledge come from? The term soul is an expression of an unsolved mystery about our true nature. In that sense it is not illogical. Sure there are lots of questions, few of which can even be addressed by science. That only hints at the limits of our knowledge. It certainly isn’t conclusive. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/62 "2006-04-22T14:20:13Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > My answer to the OP is that people tend to preserve their religious beliefs in the face of empirical challenges in one of two ways: > > 1. They find a way to incorporate this new data into their belief system in a fashion which does not interfere with core conviction. Evolution would be a perfect example of this. If Biblical literalism or adherence to a literal belief in any other myth about the origin of humans is not central to their core beliefs then evolution presents no problem. There are lots of myths which can be adapted as allegorical, metaphorical or parabolic without threatening central convictions about the existence of God, etc. This is a method which works just fine and can even strengthen faith. There are lots of people who view evolution itself as a work of God (which isn’t to say that they necessarily believe that evolution is “guided,” only that God at least set it motion knowing where it would lead). > > 2. They deny it. They retreat into emotionally defensive and hostile positions and states of mind. They blame the messengers for news they don’t want to hear. They may believe that Satan is trying to trick them. They try to persuade others to take their side, oftentimes even if they have to lie to do it. Again, evolution is the perfect example of this. I think that this kind of response comes about when a core belief (like Biblical literalism) _is_ threatened. If they are emotionally invested in the perceived authority of a written book, and that perceived authority is threatened, they begin to feel groundless and unprotected and so react with anger, denial, etc. I don’t this kind of response is successful for very long. It may last awhile but eventually, over successive generations, reality becomes accepted. It occurs to me that the process might even be similar to the so-called “seven stages of grief.” First comes shock, then denial, then…let me check…hey, the third stage is bargaining. I think a case could be made for the ID movement fitting that stage. Or maybe not. I don’t know. I don’t want to get too up my ass with this analogy. I’m just tired. I think these are fair assessments and I also think that how progress is made. The mythological details of the religion become less important and hopefully people focus on the spiritual principles. How do we live together? How do we grow as individuals and in doing so contribute to our society? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/63 "2006-04-22T14:21:40Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > As long as there are mysteries in life their will be sciences of epistemology. And whether you would care to admit it, religion is a science. It offers answers, but more than that, a methodology in areas that science refuses to address. Science will answer the mundane, religion will always answer the mystery. They are really complementary. This constant suppression of the flip side of the coin around here is frankly disheartening. They both are useful and attend man. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/64 "2006-04-22T14:31:44Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > So the unfounded assertions you have been making throughout this thread are, then, religious in nature rather than scientific? > > I’d welcome the opportunity to discuss rationally whether “the supernatural” has any place in a modern understanding of That Which Is (hang whatever term you wish on it), and whether myth and ritual have significant parts to play in life. > > What I’m getting is _dogmatic_ assertions that religious beliefs are claptrap because they posit entities and phenomena that don’t fit into the worldview of _Materialist Rationalism_. To me this sounds suspiciously like fundamentalist theology rejecting the evidence for the Big Bang, chemical evolution, and modern evolutionary theory because they fail to fit into the doctrinal picture they have created and cling to. > > Dogmatic assertions have no place in a rational discussion, except as something to be examined for their (in)validity. On either side. As I’ve said more than once, **Der Trihs** is the Jimmy Swaggart, and/or Jerry Falwell of atheism. I thank God for folks like **Diogenes the Cynic** and **SentientMeat** who are able to have a rational discussion and even help educate me in the process 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/65 "2006-04-22T16:14:35Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Which means science can’t really address the issue at all. It can only deal with the physical body. Because there no evidence anything else exists, therefore there is no scientific reason to believe anything else does. That _is_ science “addressing the issue”. > [@Johanna](#): > > Atwood was saying religion is something too deep in humans to eradicate even with genetic engineering. Well Atwood is wrong; genetics is as deep as it gets. Also, the story makes no sense; without religious impulses why would they bother with rituals in front of an effigy ? What would be the point ? > [@Polycarp](#): > > So the unfounded assertions you have been making throughout this thread are, then, religious in nature rather than scientific? Another standard religious tactic; claim the atheist is religious, because the religious just can’t _bear_ the thought of someone who isn’t religious. > [@Polycarp](#): > > What I’m getting is _dogmatic_ assertions that religious beliefs are claptrap because they posit entities and phenomena that don’t fit into the worldview of _Materialist Rationalism_. To me this sounds suspiciously like fundamentalist theology rejecting the evidence for the Big Bang, chemical evolution, and modern evolutionary theory because they fail to fit into the doctrinal picture they have created and cling to. Ridiculous. Dismissing claims because they are irrational and have no evidence isn’t at all the same as making claims that contradict _massive_ amounts of evidence. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I object. Isn’t it true that even though experiences similar to described religious experiences have been duplicated it can’t accurately be described as proof that spiritual experiences are completely physiological. There’s no proof they _aren’t_, and it’s the logical burden of believers to do so, not unbelievers to disprove it. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > In my own case the question is, if the spiritual experience is merely a chemical reaction then where does the profound life changing insight come from? Your own mind. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > The term soul is an expression of an unsolved mystery about our true nature. No it isn’t, it’s the claim that we have a non-material essence. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > The mythological details of the religion become less important and hopefully people focus on the spiritual principles. There are no spiritual princples to religion, only the mythology and hatred. That’s why the more tolerant churches stagnate at best, and the fundies keep gaining members. It’s the people like Pat Robertson, Osama bin Laden and Fred Phelps who represent the basic principles of religion, not liberal priests sermonizing shrinking groups of followers. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > As I’ve said more than once, **Der Trihs** is the Jimmy Swaggart, and/or Jerry Falwell of atheism. Yes, because having a strong opinion is the same as wanting your opponents silenced and tossed into prison or executed. The religious double standard at work again. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/66 "2006-04-22T16:19:47Z")
Faith based belief systems in the supernature, how redundant is that?, will last the same way any other institution lasts. It will adapt to the needs of people or it will die and be replaced by something else. Christianity has undergone some radical changes in the last thousand years or so and I don’t see why it’s not possible for it to change even more. Or it might go the way of the Greek Pantheon and become a dead religion but I bet it would be replaced by something else. People still believe all sorts of irrational things. Whether it’s the pyramids being built by aliens, angels helping people in their day to day lives, or, what the hell, what about L. Ron Hubbard? I’m sure myth based wacky belief systems are going to be around for a while. Marc ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/67 "2006-04-22T16:39:34Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Because there no evidence anything else exists, therefore there is no scientific reason to believe anything else does. That _is_ science “addressing the issue”. No, it isn’t. Even if your premise (“there’s no evidence anything else exists”) were demonstrably correct, your argument is not a scientific one. It is philosophical, not scientific (not to mention sloppy and fallacious, but that’s another matter). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/68 "2006-04-22T16:48:24Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Even if your premise (“there’s no evidence anything else exists”) were demonstrably correct, It’s the believers job to come up with evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/69 "2006-04-22T17:34:44Z")
I think it’s fair to say that science HAS eroded the grip of religion on society. We are demonstrably less religious now than we were several hundred years ago. Sure, lots of people call themselves ‘Christians’, but the practice of religion in day-to-day life has certainly waned in influence. Compare that to early non-technological civilizations, where significant energy was expended on a daily basis in prayer, offerings, rituals. But religion in general won’t go away for a long, long time, if ever, because it apparently fills a human need. ‘Modern’ religions are taking on the trappings of science (Scientology, ‘New Ageism’, etc), but they are still religions. Scientology is an interesting case in the tenacity of religion to withstand skepticism. Here we have a religion created by a science fiction writer, which has a belief system that reads like a really bad science fiction novel, yet has millions of adherents who believe in it so fervently that they will tithe significant portions of their income to the church. If Scientology can get a foothold from within a highly technological society, then religion isn’t going anywhere for a long, long time. If ever. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/70 "2006-04-22T17:48:43Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Another standard religious tactic; claim the atheist is religious, because the religious just can’t bear the thought of someone who isn’t religious. That is not what he said and you do your argument no good by creating a straw man. He pointed out that your _behavior_ is indistinguishable from the _behavior_ of various people (of a particular philosophy) among religious people. He made no claim that atheists, in general, were actually “religious” or even that atheists, in general, are guilty of the same behavior that you display. > [@](#): > > Because there no evidence anything else exists, therefore there is no scientific reason to believe anything else does. That is science “addressing the issue”. > … > There’s no proof they aren’t, and it’s the logical burden of believers to do so, not unbelievers to disprove it. Your claims are too broad and you have missed the point. There is no physical evidence that things that are not physical exist. There is, indeed, a fairly broad body of _testimony_ that (many) humans appear to have had experiences that lead them to a belief in things that have no physical existence. Now, it is entirely possible that such beliefs and the experiences upon which they are built are the result of misinterpretations of common physical events by people who do not (yet) have the methodology to parse out their origins. However, when you assert that the non-physical does not exist, it becomes your burden to prove that statement, just as believers bear the burden of proof if they assert that the spiritual clearly does exist. Simply declaring that there is no physical evidence of that which is not physical is a mere tautology. You continue to harp that all religious startements are “irrational” (thus displaying your ignorance of the meaning of the word and your ignorance of the matter you condemn) yet you resort to _irrational_ logical fallacies as you bluster through this thread. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/71 "2006-04-22T17:54:32Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > > [@cosmosdan](#): > > > > As I’ve said more than once, Der Trihs is the Jimmy Swaggart, and/or Jerry Falwell of atheism. > > Yes, because having a strong opinion is the same as wanting your opponents silenced and tossed into prison or executed. The religious double standard at work again. And yet, despite the fact that Swaggart is a charaltan and a buffoon and Falwell desires a theocracy, neither of them have actually called for the silencing or imprisonment of those who oppose their views. So you are, again, resorting to a straw man in order to bolster your simplisticly shallow and unsupportable rhetoric. It would seem that rather than pointing out a double standard, you are trying to demonstrate the point against which you rail. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/72 "2006-04-22T18:00:59Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > As long as there are mysteries in life their will be sciences of epistemology. And whether you would care to admit it, religion is a science. It offers answers, but more than that, a methodology in areas that science refuses to address. Science will answer the mundane, religion will always answer the mystery. They are really complementary. This constant suppression of the flip side of the coin around here is frankly disheartening. They both are useful and attend man. I don’t want to necessarily say it, but someone will. How can religion be useful and attend man in the same way that science can? Sure, it may help people live better lives, but I think that the ones that take the mores and teachings of their religion to heart are few and far between. Science never had an Inquisition or castrated young boys to keep their voices high pitched or suicide bombed people. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/73 "2006-04-22T18:17:08Z")
> [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > Science never had an Inquisition or castrated young boys to keep their voices high pitched or suicide bombed people. Tuskeegee study on syphilis Kallikaks and forced sterilization ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/74 "2006-04-22T18:21:51Z")
> [@diogenes the cynic](#): > > In other words, they believe it because they believe it. It’s self-confirmed, a priori and circular. While I have no doubt that these kinds of subjective and life-informing exoerience really do occur, I always have to wonder why they always occur only in a fashion that the believer would already expect. They occur in all cultures and all religions. People have subjectively persuasive, personal experiences of Hindu and African tribal deities just as often as they have experiences of Jesus. In ancient times, people had experiences of Zeus and Isis. I wonder why they never had experiences of Jesus if Christianity is really the true religion. Why is it that only people who have already heard of Jesus ever have Christian religious experiences? FOr the sake of argument, suppose each of four different people has the exact same (seemingly) supernatural expience. One is a Baptist, one is a Moslem, one is a Hindu, and one is an atheist. Each hears a voice in his head saying, “Give up everything you have, and devote your life to helping the poor.” Each of them is going to interpret the experience a different way, based in large measure on his pre-existing beliefs. The Baptist will assume he heard the voice of Jesus. The Moslem will asume it was the voice of Allah. The Hindu will assume it was the voice of Rama. The atheist will decide to go see a neurologist, because he must have a brain tumor or incipient schizophrenia or something. But it would be wrong to assume that any of the religious persons having this experience is going through something wholly unique to people of his faith. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/75 "2006-04-22T18:34:49Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > FOr the sake of argument, suppose each of four different people has the exact same (seemingly) supernatural expience. One is a Baptist, one is a Moslem, one is a Hindu, and one is an atheist. > > Each hears a voice in his head saying, “Give up everything you have, and devote your life to helping the poor.” > > Each of them is going to interpret the experience a different way, based in large measure on his pre-existing beliefs. > > The Baptist will assume he heard the voice of Jesus. > > The Moslem will asume it was the voice of Allah. > > The Hindu will assume it was the voice of Rama. > > The atheist will decide to go see a neurologist, because he must have a brain tumor or incipient schizophrenia or something. And doctors will discover a small tumor in the athiest’s brain, excise it, and he will go on to live a happy life. The others will experience increasing levels of confusion, convulsions and eventually death. This will be described by the faithful as “The will of God.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/76 "2006-04-22T18:39:11Z")
> [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > How can religion be useful and attend man in the same way that science can? I don’t think it can, and I think that’s really a non-issue. Religion serves a social, not a technological purpose. > [@](#): > > Sure, it may help people live better lives, but I think that the ones that take the mores and teachings of their religion to heart are few and far between. Even if I take the most cynical view of religion that I can think of, it still serves to give people a sense of community and belonging. As a scientist, I can understand how that can be useful to a highly social animal like _Homo sapiens_. Much of our behavior is geared towards keeping social cohesion, not just towards solving the next technological problem. Religion may not be the only way for a society to maintain cohesion, but it certain has proven to be one very effective way. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/77 "2006-04-22T19:41:18Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > That is not what he said and you do your argument no good by creating a straw man. He pointed out that your _behavior_ is indistinguishable from the _behavior_ of various people (of a particular philosophy) among religious people. He made no claim that atheists, in general, were actually “religious” or even that atheists, in general, are guilty of the same behavior that you display. I was pointing out that this is a standard behavior of religious people. > [@tomndebb](#): > > There is, indeed, a fairly broad body of _testimony_ that (many) humans appear to have had experiences that lead them to a belief in things that have no physical existence. Also there have been witnesses to fairies, unicorns, aliens, Bigfoot, Nessie, goblins, and all sorts of nonsense; without evidence, such claims should be ignored as meaningless. > [@tomndebb](#): > > However, when you assert that the non-physical does not exist, it becomes your burden to prove that statement, just as believers bear the burden of proof if they assert that the spiritual clearly does exist. As I’ve said several times, science has proved it as far as it can be proven. It is _impossible_ for me or anyone to do better, and there’s no point in demanding it. > [@](#): > > Even if I take the most cynical view of religion that I can think of, it still serves to give people a sense of community and belonging. So do street gangs, excpet gangs do less damage and are more rational ( hard not to be ). Should we encourage them ? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/78 "2006-04-22T20:06:15Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I was pointing out that this is a standard behavior of religious people. Which is a false statement _as delivered_. This was not a general reference to the behavior of “religious” people (in which case it would have been a gross overgeneralization and inaccurate to the extent that there are religious people who do not engage in that behavior), it was a direct (false) reply to a specific poster in this thread. It is a behavior in which some people engage, religious or otherwise, and you were using it to make a false claim about a specific poster. In other words, you are behaving in exactly the dishonest manner of those, such as Falwell and Swaggart, to whom you have been accurately compared. > [@](#): > > As I’ve said several times, science has proved it as far as it can be proven. It is impossible for me or anyone to do better, and there’s no point in demanding it. If that is the best you can do, then, perhaps, you should stop making insupportable statements as though they were fact. It is perfectly rational to point out an error in the claims of other people for which they do not have evidentiary support. It is irrational (your favored term) to assert as fact something for which you admit there is a limit beyond which you are unable to proceed. ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/79 "2006-04-22T20:47:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If that is the best you can do, then, perhaps, you should stop making insupportable statements as though they were fact. It is perfectly rational to point out an error in the claims of other people for which they do not have evidentiary support. It is irrational (your favored term) to assert as fact something for which you admit there is a limit beyond which you are unable to proceed. It seems to me Der Trihs was simply stating (correctly or not) that science had disproved the existence of the supernatural to roughly the same degree that it had proved the inverse square law of gravity, or evolution by means of natural selection. The ‘limit beyond which he is unable to proceed’ is simply the limit at which we raise skepticism to Cartesian levels. If someone comes along asserting as fact, the idea that the entropy of the universe always increases, would you harangue them for not continually prefacing their every sentence with ‘to the best of current knowledge, and assuming there are real things, and that I exist, and that it’s not all Brahman’s dream’ etc etc? At some point we have to ‘make statements of fact’ even though we could all be brains in a vat. If you’re going to ‘turn the skepticism dial up to Descartes level’ for the assertion that ‘there is no evidence for the supernatural’, why are you even posting on a message board? Maybe your computer isn’t real! [warning: Nancarrow may not exist!] ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695/80 "2006-04-22T20:56:32Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Because the world is made up of a wide variety of people who each must make their own journey and their own choices about what they believe and when they change their beliefs. There are a lot of emotional forces at work that move people to cling to certain things. Sure. But then time passes, and things change. Presumably, that’s what the OP is asking: will religions based around primitive mythologies survive, or will they mutate into something else. I would point to Christianity as something that has largely been in the process of doing the latter. While the stories can be resolved and rethought in some rather tortured ways to fit the new message, the question is: why? Why not look to different, less ambiguous stories, which less to massage and ignore? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-myth-based-supernatural-belief-systems-like-chrstianity-going-to-survive/353695.md?page=5)