A decent video. Evidence can undermine religion. It’s not that there is not evidence of religions doing good or have some place in history, or science for that matter, but bad and conflict are certainly evidenced in pletiude when religions enter the equation of “society.” As stated elsewhere, The reality is that theologians and philosophers have produced nothing more than strings of words or fabricated relics as evidence for the existence of deities, not physical evidence or the deities themselves revealing themselves as “super” beings that deserve reverence and homage. The words that theists have compiled fail to give humanity even one reason to believe that any deity exists, or that miracles are real, or that there is any difference between a prayer and a wish. Religion is dumb in that sense because all we have are the words and phantasmal imaginations of theists, and never faith, just blind belief. Devoting time, resources, and energy into the words of theism is dumb (and possibly psychotic).
Is all thought, and the attempt to prove any knowledge feeble, if not futile? To explain or show something to be true, or knowledge, we can turn to proof, but what is the proof based on? We end up with an infinite regress of proof, on proof, on proof….”turtles all the way down,” which bring us to three choices for proof (the Agrippan or Münchhausen trilemma):
- “First, proof could go on forever, with A justified by B justified by C justified by …, ad infinitum. [infinite regress, and Infinitistism]
- Second, it it could cycle back on itself at some point, with A justified by B justified by C justified by…justified by B, for example. [circularity, and Coherentists]
- Third and finally, the regress might stop at some point, with A justified by B justified by C justified by…justified by N, which is not justified by any further belief.” [axioms (self evident), and Foundationalism]
All deductive arguments are circular and/or question-begging because the argument is in the premise and results in a conclusion that begs the question of how the claim is not circular. How do we get away from using an argument that assumes the premise is proved from the outset or based on an apparent axiom?
The truths of science change as evidence to the contrary arises. Religion, on the other hand, is blind-belief where the answer is not up for debate because it is built on absolutes and il/logic alone. Science is built on empiricism, and faith in that evidence, not blind belief. Questioning religious truths can involve the truths of science, but more often the truths of a priori logic and reason, as that is what religion mostly boils down to, words. It is impossible to get absolutes with science to prove religious claims, but not not impossible to show how holy thinking is absolutely full of holes. Granted, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (ad ignorantiam), but as Bertrand Russell laid out the burden of proof is with the scientifically elusive claims of theists, not the burden to disprove them.
