"Christianity´s Successes Are Irrelevant Because of Science" Nah, Don´t Think So

@Green Peacemst The historical successes of Christianity has absolutely no relevance to the fact that in the modern era with our current understanding of science, Christianity has been completely and utterly debunked without question. Scientific naturalism and materialism are no longer just philosophy/thought/opinion that opposes religion, rather it is the unequivocal truth of our reality. The good thing about science is that it is true, whether you believe it or not. Christianity and all other religions that humans have fabricated were purely because we as a species found ourselves sentient in a world we didn't understand. A greater purpose is actually extremely important for our psychology, but the solution for seeking that greater purpose no longer lies with religion.

​ @Joph Stphns  Right. Hail, Science. I get it. No. As a spiritual interfaith Christian, I´d say, “In seeking to understand and experience God´s love through Jesus and Buddha, etc, I love scientific philosophy, and the rest of educational (philosophical) views. So let´s examine the empirical nature of your assertions. “Christianity has no relevance...with science, which debunked it without question.”

See, it is with philosophical questioning that scientists, scientific philosophers, actually do what they do. And what other kinds of philosophers do what they do. Science is not about being “unquestioning,' and that´s the most basic of your mistakes. Based on that, You don´t quite get the meaning of your own words because you are trying to substitute philosophical inquiry itself with Science Supremacism, actually “Scientism,” and for actual philosophical scholarship that governs scientific activity. It is that which interrelates it directly to the rest of University-based, Liberal Arts scholarship and ITS diversified forms of empirical philosophy. “Science is só widespread that it rules” sums up your philosophy, that you want to act as if it were called “Scientific Truthism,” and you could tag an “Ueber Alles” to connote the Nazi Supremacists. Yet, that´s só truthfully harsh, that a more diplomatic “L´Etats, c´est moi” for Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette´s Aristocratic Supremacism is nicer. That´s a nice whisper of Jesus´ spirit. You could also check into biologist turned Philosopher of Science Massimo Pigliucci´s critiques of Scientism. Well, somebody´s not asking questions, and that includes you. However, empiricism, meaning empirical philosophy, isn´t just “scientific”, but has been widely applied in the Social Sciences and the rest of the Humanities. Climate Change has been soundly studied by a UN scientific group the IPCC repeatedly, among others. That´s one issue that isn´t being opposed primarily by religious groups, but business groups protecting their profits and anti-social ideology. Beyond that, no one talks about the 2005 World Bank-UNEP-NGO Ecosystem Assessment that was bad around all kinds of environmental angles. That´s all been updated by such reports as WWF/Global Ecofootprint Living Planet Reports (i.e. Dying Planet Reports), and more.

That´s science versus big business executives. And their paid representatives worst of all in the GOP, but also gagging the Dems too much. Yet, you call scientific materialism and materialism “no longer just philosophy....” but “the unequivocal truth of our reality.” Except that businesspeople haven´t cast aside Christianity or science. They have diversely exerted their power and influence to fund Fundamentalism, especially around anti-evolutionary science which mixes in pro-life positions. That was thanks to a Rev Fifield meeting with the National Manufacturers Association in the 1950s and on from there. By the 1971 Powell Memo to the Chamber of Commerce leaked and published in the Wash. Post, they trashed Ralph Nader. All before the Reagan-era. And só on. Why is it that scientific materialism can be manipulated by profiteering businesspeople if it is “the unequivocal truth”? Because science is a form of philosophy based on studying physical objects, not the “unequivocal truth.” Apparently, Einstein said, “Science without Religion is lame, or misguided, or something.” He´s not the last word, but a good one. Gandhi went much further. Gandhi never conflicted with science, but he showed how it is philosophy, since he acted with economic activism and lifestyles in his spiritual philosophy, linked into Christianity´s basis, Jesus´ spiritual teachings about spiritual practice and growth. Thomas Jefferson´s Civil Rights and FDR and Eleanor´s UN human rights include religion/spirituality for good reasons. Churches like the United Church of Christ and the Quakers are fine bases for any progressive reformed Christian movements. Unitarian Universalism is one attempt, that I have myself co-opted in calling myself an interfaith UU Christian. You, on the other hand, don´t know Civil Rights and human social science from your personal feelings and beliefs about whatever church experience you have had yourself. You´re addicted to something, like Dawkins and co. You don´t quite get that because you are trying to substitute Science Supremacism for actual philosophical scholarship that governs scientific activity, and interrelates it directly to the rest of University-based, Liberal Arts scholarship and ITS diversified forms of empirical philosophy. The analysis continues, but this makes a nice “Z” for Zorro for spirituality and social justice, on the one hand, and the Zombie virus fiction through profit-manipulated sci-techno-control you fantasize. “Let them eat computer chips and circuit-boards” to paraphrase Marie Antoinette´s escapist aristocratic supremacism.

&&& What a load of... look im trying to be respectful, I never said Christianity has no relevance. I said that the historical SUCCESSES of Christianity (that you named) have no relevance when it comes to disproving it (the supernatural faith, not the historical accounts from the bible which can be proved without it) with modern science. Christianity certainly is relevant in an absolute sense because unfortunately many people today still have demoted themselves to believing the arbitrary human fabrications of our reality called religion. Your points about business people funding religious fundamentalism, therefore, misrepresenting Christianity is laughable because it just contributes to the debunking of Christianity in that it is a completely plastic set of ideas that change to suit the personal interests of the humans that propagate it. It is funny that you bring up Einstein as a point in favour of Christianity when he was very much an agnostic and his personal beliefs were antithetical to Christian doctrines. He specifically maintained that he didn't 'believe'* in life after death (*not even something to believe in - life is a natural consequence of biochemistry under appropriate conditions and consciousness is a result of groups of neurons sending electrical signals and neurotransmitters, there is no soul, in my view, anyone with a credible understanding of our reality cannot also believe that there is a soul, or any form of consciousness after our material bodies die.) Einstein did not believe in a god that is anything like the Abrahamic god, he did not believe there was a god with feelings, or one that had any personal connection to our planet or our species. He believed that 'god' manifests as the physical forces and quantum properties of our universe, which truly has nothing to do with the anthropocentric inventions of religion like Roman Catholicism - arguably the biggest scam in history. Einstein specifically called himself a religious nonbeliever for the explained reasons, so it is amusing that you use him to prove the legitimacy of Christianity. Your last paragraphs are basically the whole religious morals fallacy (like saying Jefferson's rights were inherently Christian therefore Christianity is legitimate because of morals). We don't need to invent supernatural stories to give us morals and purpose, in my view it is THAT which is immoral. Morality should be based on improving the human condition, improving our society, sustaining concious life and the systems that support it and improving the conscious experience of ALL humans and sentient animals (a sentient animal is what we are after all). Morality should be based on reality, not fiction.

&&& What a load of... look im trying to be respectful, I never said Christianity has no relevance. I said that the historical SUCCESSES of Christianity (that you named) have no relevance when it comes to disproving it (the supernatural faith, not the historical accounts from the bible which can be proved without it) with modern science. Christianity certainly is relevant in an absolute sense because unfortunately many people today still have demoted themselves to believing the arbitrary human fabrications of our reality called religion. “respectful” is what you do if you´re going to get to the truth, which you are trying to pull out of your “loads of ….” Your “respect” is why Jesus´ Commandments of love are not irrelevant, bro. Your “respect” gets my compassion, which were values disdained in ancient Greece and Rome except for dumb brute strength. The question of Christianity´s successes not being relevant to your fantasies of “disproof” is an argument you need to try to articulate and make. That is because Christians fueled on Jesus´ Love as Commandment learned to make LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, not focus on disrespect. Either way, you are trying to make an argument about explanation, and confusing your issues of “disproof” with the issue of Christianity. You´re trying to argue that Santa Claus is fake, and it doesn´t matter that there was a St. Nicholas of Myra. St. Nicholas of Myra matters, because he stood in relation to God through Jesus. Santa Claus matters because the social sciences deconstruct his transformation and widespread Big Biz manipulation. St. Nicholas of Myra still stands on record for his Christian integrity and the spirit of Christmas time for any Joe unprejudiced and balanced enough to have spiritual=emotional intelligence. That´s just scratching it at the surface, however, as you wallow in your fallacies, one after the other. You say, “Christianity certainly is relevant in an absolute sense because unfortunately many people today still have demoted themselves to believing the arbitrary human fabrications of our reality called religion.” Nice, you just turned yourself into a circular ball of scientism snowball slush. Did that give you a rush? Yeah, don´t worry man, I can be respectful because you can´t argue your way out of scientism´s paper bag. Your points about business people... and Christianity is laughable … and debunks Christianity's plastic set of ideas....” Funny, for a guy worried about being “respectful”, you didn´t get that my point included science. You assert that science is the ultimate truth, and yet it is putty in Big Biz´s hands in the US, as if scientists have no more sense than fundies. The Union of Concerned Scientists has stepped up, as have the Physicians for Social Responsibility, in their calm and cool way that has as little relative sway as average not for profits like Greenpeace and WWF. Not quite the whole truth there. Jim Hansen has gotten arrested, perhaps having met the progressive Christian Al Gore got him hooked on the moral issues that frame the use of sci-tech by Big Biz. Other than that, scientists are trained to obey rules in their distilled Christian-derived lab rat mindsets and are more likely to wait for the authorities, or even side with Big Biz because they are deprived of spiritual backbone and morally inept. And philosophically unable to legitimize spirituality because of confusion such as your scientism. As for Christianity, you´re a little eager to jump on your own bandwagon. Just like you ignored how almost no scientists are getting arrested like Jim Hansen like Climate Change and Ecosystem catastrophe don´t matter, you bite into the mirage of fundamentalism. The point is that Big Biz up to the catastrophic end of WWII had few references to sustainability to control and manage it as it fueled insane growth. You try to smear Christians as weak fundies, but it was UK Deist Robert Owen inspired by a Christian doctor and the UK and US Quaker-anchored anti-slavery abolitionists who followed Luther and the Enlightenment, all high integrity Christians who dissented from hypocritical Christian authority. That´s where your attempt to disqualify Christian success is what is the truly laughable thing. You can´t tell the difference between hypocritical trends in Christian institutions, and the psychological-spiritual and social experience that underlies Christian integrity. After WWII, the moral extreme lunacy of the Nazis has focused Germans in their context. America, however, has had Big Biz AND a Superpower Identity pushing indoctrination. However, FDR and Eleanor founded the UN. The atheist Stalin, meanwhile, wanted to execute all Nazi officers. Sadly, your own forced attitude that you are “trying to be respectful” followed by simplistic and inane fallacy puts you more in the league of those who have committed similar fallacies of thought that they fantasize as justification. It is funny that you bring up Einstein as a point in favour of Christianity when he was very much an agnostic and his personal beliefs were antithetical to Christian doctrines. He specifically maintained that he didn't 'believe'* in life after death (*not even something to believe in - life is a natural consequence of biochemistry under appropriate conditions and consciousness is a result of groups of neurons sending electrical signals and neurotransmitters, there is no soul, in my view, anyone with a credible understanding of our reality cannot also believe that there is a soul, or any form of consciousness after our material bodies die.) Einstein did not believe in a god that is anything like the Abrahamic god, he did not believe there was a god with feelings, or one that had any personal connection to our planet or our species. He believed that 'god' manifests as the physical forces and quantum properties of our universe, which truly has nothing to do with the anthropocentric inventions of religion like Roman Catholicism - arguably the biggest scam in history. Einstein specifically called himself a religious nonbeliever for the explained reasons, so it is amusing that you use him to prove the legitimacy of Christianity. As for Einstein, I mentioned him for his wise statement recognizing religious phenomena, His personal materialistic beliefs were his and demonstrate his profession as a physicist. What´s “funny” is that I also mentioned Gandhi, who you ignored entirely. Actually, it´s more typical than funny. Shallow in your comfort zone and keen on plumbing Einstein´s own materialism. His beliefs are those of a heavily scientific materialist, só you just confirm your own bias. The issue is empirical study. “Life after death” is a secondary doctrine to Jesus´ teachings of 2 Commandments. Nor is it even emphasized in Judaism, a basic aspect of Einstein´s religious etc background. However, life after death is a Hindu belief in reincarnation, as well as Allen Kardec´s spiritism already by Einstein´s time. Maybe if Einstein hadn´t married his first and second cousin and had more concern for his schizophrenic son, he would have felt a little more driven to seek Christian and interfaith possibilities, even at Lourdes, Christian Science, or that crazy psychotherapy thing, where W Reich cured a schizophrenic. However, this is not to judge Einstein, but to classify his spiritual status with greater accuracy. Einstein´s beliefs don´t determine the reality or not of an afterlife. Empirical study does. I Stevenson MD at UVA in the 1960s started studying reincarnation in the US and abroad. Not least of all, he discovered correlations between scars in the reincarnated recipient that match deaths in the person who died. B Greyson PhD started studying Near Death Experiences (i.e.Revived from Death Exp). Using medical contexts, he gets highly precise information. That includes especially the result that previously unknown information is gained by people in NDEs. There are other phenomena and testimonies. That´s RELEVANT philosophical empirical information that can be evaluated. Your indulging in Einstein´s beliefs is an appeal to an authority like many a fundamentalist does. Your attempting to assert a materialistic definition of neuronal function and foundations, and dismiss any other possibility is IRRELEVANT to evidence of Stevenson´s and Greyson´s kind of research. That is both a reductionism and denialism fallacy, a double logical error pure and simple. You then comment on Roman Catholicism. This discussion isn´t limited to RCism, but even they have Lourdes and other testimonies. That´s a part whole fallacy mixed in with your appeal to authority and denialism. Your last paragraphs are basically the whole religious morals fallacy (like saying Jefferson's rights were inherently Christian therefore Christianity is legitimate because of morals). We don't need to invent supernatural stories to give us morals and purpose, in my view it is THAT which is immoral. Morality should be based on improving the human condition, improving our society, sustaining concious life and the systems that support it and improving the conscious experience of ALL humans and sentient animals (a sentient animal is what we are after all). Morality should be based on reality, not fiction. As for religious morals, it´s an issue with specific topics, not any simplistic fallacy. Do we need supernatural stories to give us morals and purpose....? The first empirical examination is what is the context of modern morals in the first place. As is typical of your myopic scientific materialism, you deny that science is philosophy, and make reductionistic fallacies left and right and every turn. Christianity isn´t just “legitimate” because of morals, but its origins in spiritual-religious experience, complex and multigenerational at that, which provided Jesus´ specific Jewish prophetic and heritage of one level of spiritual-religious ethical standards that Jesus took to a new level of spirituality, yet was dampened institutionally and arguably pragmatically in his legacy. This is human-related phenomena, and thus terminology and phenomena in philosophical empirical investigation are not predetermined by your preferred bias. “Supernatural stories” are not defined as such except by an ideologue trying to push caricatures. What people “need” is also not predetermined, but in need of examination. The truth is that spiritual-religious experience has demonstrated specific qualities in human accomplishments, and Christian society´s moral development. That traces events historically including Luther´s Reformation, and on the other hand the fall of aggressively secular and anti-religious ideologies like the French Revolution, Totalitarian Communism, Nazi opportunism, and the unsustainability of US-led profiteering economics. In modern times, the simple observation is that prayer and meditation, and belonging to a religious community provide various benefits. That extends to the coherence of Mosaic-Jesus Commandments and Jesus´ legacy, and its correspondence to reality. You and your view, on the other hand, try to reject philosophy as you blunder in fallacies around your prejudice. Atheist anti-theist materialists swollen on science´s widespread toys making grade school philosophical fallacies are amusing, not serious. Science´s toys have been abused, and Christianity´s resurgent high integrity demonstrates spiritual-religious experience in full form already hinted at in actual scientific studies of prayer and meditation. Luther´s Reformation was inspired by his courage in relation to an omnipotent God of the Bible after his spiritual agonizing. Beforehand, science itself was already simmering because of monastics and clerics like Robert Grosseteste in the 1300s, and the unprecedented community that Christianity made possible. You don´t know the difference between integrity in Jesus and the more complex processes of modernization and hypocrisy. Your perspective of atheist anti-Christianity is based on crude stereotyping and basic illiteracy, even in terms of the benefits of prayer and meditation and their larger significance cross-culturally and understood in the past. The “supernatural” no less has various dimensions beyond the afterlife, already empirically demonstrated in materialistically impossible healings confirmed by medical attestation and spiritual-religious testimony.

&&& ​ @Joph Stphns  Man, you are so lacking in literacy that your comments about a "load of..." and "trying to be respectful" show how you confuse your own clownish lack of literacy with the myopic and steroid-addicted beliefs about sci-tech toys and experiments. Your view can be characterized "Why, good and bad people have many qualities that can be compared to machines, and that means science and I know it all!" Widespread tools, and experiments that have lopsidedly expanded physico-bio science (not even understanding that it is actually a form of philosophy) apply nowhere else directly. Empirical philosophy has expanded the social sciences, which you barely grasp, and philosophy itself is necessary to resolve the issues among physical and human disciplines, that includes understanding "emergence" adequately and the meanings of modern terms like "transpersonal," "transcendental", and more traditional terms like "supernatural." You don´t even know David Bohm´s relevance and his ideas of implicate and explicate order, sucking as you do on Einstein´s "beliefs" like a lollipop. Just as essential to evaluating Christianity adequately, You don´t know the difference between integrity in Jesus and the more complex processes of modernization and hypocrisy. Your perspective of atheist anti-Christianity is based on crude stereotyping and basic illiteracy, even in terms of the benefits of prayer and meditation and their larger significance cross-culturally and understood in the past. The “supernatural” no less has various dimensions beyond the afterlife, already empirically demonstrated in materialistically impossible healings confirmed by medical attestation and spiritual-religious testimony. The relevance of my reference to Einstein is that he apparently acknowledged religion and science as interdependent, but that doesn´t make him a qualified expert on religions. He was a physicist with some spiritual ideas and opinions. Besides your clumsy and eager prejudicial misstep there, you IGNORED my mention of Gandhi. Gandhi, unlike Einstein, engaged in ample spiritual-religious research and practice on top of his law degree, another discipline that is relevant to human-based disciplines, and less scientific materialism. I am someone advancing the thought of morality based on reality, not fiction, and it is fictional science supremacism and scientism that you are doing. Published sources in the right direction include Fritjof Capra, Gandhi, John B Cobb´s Process Theology (based on math-philosopher AN Whitehead), and WL Craig´s arguments for the existence of God (although his personal doctrinal affiliation is largely and unwisely conservative, he has shown responsiveness to concerns about human rights). Unitarian Universalism had insightful contributors to its Principles and Sources, as well. Until you try to grapple with appropriate thinkers in appropriate disciplines, you are full of the "load of..." and pretense of "trying to be respectful..." you crudely dump in dialogue as if your pride in science´s physical achievements were not foolishness. It is foolishness. Respect modern University education´s basis in philosophical diversification and do your appropriate research. Again, Einstein is a physicist, with some spiritual ideas. Gandhi researched his spirituality in depth and conducted a rich campaign filled with the relevance of the Transpersonal and transcendent. The British Empire is full of atheistic aristocrats who failed to indulge their assumptions about military power. Their default basis was the sufficient presence of Christian integrity and withdrawal. In Africa, the British slaughtered and tortured the less spiritually sophisticated Mau Mau in Kenya, as one recent film portrayed. Until you recognize that your contradictory impulse to deny Christianity´s successes and your total inability to comprehend the interaction of hypocrisy, integrity, modernization, and the dependence of atheist ambitions on spiritual-religious experience itself, you are trapped in your absurd assumption starting with "Einstein was an expert on spiritual-religious experience." Fiction, not reality, indeed.

&&& You’re a fckwt. I was not denying Christianity’s successes lmao. Christianity and Abrahamic religion is dying, it’s end is guaranteed thanks to the information era. Yes I guess I am a scientific supremacist, pretty stupid thing to say since science does in fact rule supreme in our materialist universe. God doesn’t exist, when we both die we will meet the meaningless, timeless void where consciousness no longer exists. Unfortunately you won’t be sentient to realise that you were wrong all along though, and that you dedicated your single life to a lie. Sad. &&&

Oh, I´ve got wit allright. What you do to yourself in your sadly and poorly tutored mindset is your own perverted business. “Sad” is an emotion that represents genuine emotional feelings of disappointment, and is twisted out of shape in your “unquestioning” judgmental and blind vomit. I am something, but as a lab rat testtube junkie in a goldfish bowl, you project yourself in various amusing ways in your various ad homs. Your ad hom about a “load of...” proving again that in fact it is you that is “full of....” All That continues to be clownish. You´re trying to use words that have been developed by scholars, as if you suck a test tube, work out in a gym, and think like some locker room clown from gradeschool, “Ey, I got a pin up of a sci-tech car. Ey, everybody´s got a car. Yeah, I guess I am a car supremacist.” No, science doesn´t actually “rule supreme.” It´s like a tool that everybody is using like a car, but neither US democracy nor UN human rights are “scientific” accomplishments. “Supremacism” is not being able to tell the difference between cars and mechanics and moral reasoning and spiritual-religious experience. Similar to “White Supremacism” who confuse achievement with superiority, even when most whites are exploited by the richest in a hen-pecking system of its own. That´s why Jesus is not optional, nor irrelevant, nor tangential. As for acknowledging “Christianity´s successes”, yeah, you try to project mockery, but all you´ve done is get my words wrong. I specifically noted that you try to dissociate that from the religion´s faults in your fallacious stereotyping. I also noted that resolving your contradictions takes knowing what words and concepts like “integrity” mean among others, that takes scholarly philosophical competence. You show that you can´t step out of your locker room fantasies and see the way you bruise yourself. So, “sadly” your “stupid things to say” all end up in your face. And then you indulge yourself about your materialist views, unscientifically, more precisely, unphilosophically, and most precisely, unspiritual, and in the most encompassing sense, unChristianly. But, the love Jesus taught led to the Freedom of Religion and University study that science and profiteering businesspeople will find themselves unable to exterminate, to all appearances. You couldn´t even sustain explicit “respect,” and you sure as hell never touched the necessary respect that scholarship makes possible and requires, in fact. Don´t let the historical church door bang your head metaphorically on your way out.