I think it’s unfortunate that you wouldn’t share some of your beliefs; we could have constructively criticized each other’s beliefs, and thereby sharpened our critical thinking skills.
actually, i'd love that. i just had some bad experience doing that in public where uncharitable readers can chime in. my email is in my profile. how about we continue the discussion there?
prevailing religious texts are outdated compared to our current understanding of the world
it's not that the texts themselves are outdated, but that peoples interpretations of those texts is. for example when the bible claims that the world was created in seven days, we today know that this can't possibly be true, therefore this text can't possibly be meant to be taken literally. it also means that it was never meant to be taken literally, but the people who did take it literally lacked the scientific understanding to realize that.
but this problem may also occur with a religious text written today. when a discrepancy is found it doesn't mean the text is wrong, but our interpretation of it is. or maybe the scientific findings are faulty. it's no different than having findings that contradict a scientific theory. either the theory is wrong or the findings are in error. the interpretation of a religious text is just like another theory.
the correlation between religiousness and harmony is not as strong as many religious people seem to claim
well, that to me is an indictment of those religions, and rightly so.
most of them also include many infamously unproven teachings (the existence of a creator and afterlife/reincarnation)
well, the problem here is that these are by their nature either unprovable or we simply lack the scientific knowledge to verify or falsify them.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. this is the leap of faith that a believer in science needs to do. it is fine to reject claims that can clearly be proven wrong (such as the age of the earth) but for anything that can't be proven we need to keep an open mind. that doesn't mean to blindly accept it. keep that skepticism, but at least allow that those claims are at least in the realm of the possible, specifically because we have no way to prove otherwise. to reject god or the afterlife without proof is just as much an act of faith as is to accept them.
actually, i'd love that. i just had some bad experience doing that in public where uncharitable readers can chime in. my email is in my profile. how about we continue the discussion there?
prevailing religious texts are outdated compared to our current understanding of the world
it's not that the texts themselves are outdated, but that peoples interpretations of those texts is. for example when the bible claims that the world was created in seven days, we today know that this can't possibly be true, therefore this text can't possibly be meant to be taken literally. it also means that it was never meant to be taken literally, but the people who did take it literally lacked the scientific understanding to realize that.
but this problem may also occur with a religious text written today. when a discrepancy is found it doesn't mean the text is wrong, but our interpretation of it is. or maybe the scientific findings are faulty. it's no different than having findings that contradict a scientific theory. either the theory is wrong or the findings are in error. the interpretation of a religious text is just like another theory.
the correlation between religiousness and harmony is not as strong as many religious people seem to claim
well, that to me is an indictment of those religions, and rightly so.
most of them also include many infamously unproven teachings (the existence of a creator and afterlife/reincarnation)
well, the problem here is that these are by their nature either unprovable or we simply lack the scientific knowledge to verify or falsify them.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. this is the leap of faith that a believer in science needs to do. it is fine to reject claims that can clearly be proven wrong (such as the age of the earth) but for anything that can't be proven we need to keep an open mind. that doesn't mean to blindly accept it. keep that skepticism, but at least allow that those claims are at least in the realm of the possible, specifically because we have no way to prove otherwise. to reject god or the afterlife without proof is just as much an act of faith as is to accept them.