Evidence for a god of any kind? Isn’t it interesting that every faith is specific to the limits of the specific cultural understanding of the natural world and the risks associated with the pursuits necessary for survival?
Discussion
You packed a lot into that sentence, can you elaborate a bit?
Pacific island cultures are a decent example. The gods have control of the wind and sea. The rituals focus on the safe return of fishermen, the primary source of nutrition. The Incan gods revolve around the sun and the seasons, the forces involved in the cultural agrarian source of nutrition, so on and so forth. These religions are proportionally complex to the associated culture. Modern religion is no different, and largely addresses the same fundamental human concerns in our culture, sickness, death, loss, risk, not so much resource scarcity because in first world countries that isn’t a concern for the mainstream population, however the adaptations of first world religion in second world countries do have saints directly associated with scarcity because it is a cultural concern.
How would you explain the persistence of Christianity over 2000 years? Obviously back when Jesus walked the earth resource scarcity was a much bigger problem. Christianity survived and thrived amid the ups and downs of the Dark Ages, Medieval Europe, the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and into modernity, and it has taken root in all corners of the world. By your own account, it wouldn't have arisen to address the same concerns as we encounter today, and unlike the religions of Pacific Islanders or the Mayans, it has proven exceptionally universal, and tends to displace local religions over time through evangelization.
The answer to this question is complex and nuanced, and probably not something I’m prepared to answer in a short statement here, but I’ll do my best. I think Christianity has a best fit dogma. Because it’s old, and has had branches follow debunked methodology, it has used natural selection to focus the theology on those parts of our existence science hasn’t been able to quantify yet. Death and the afterlife are constant concerns, and I think Jesus, like Buddha, Mohammad, and countless others meant well, and captured some piece of the human condition. Our existence is massive and difficult to comprehend, never stop searching. As long as I live I will be looking for understanding in whatever form it approaches me with an open heart. I have faith that if some universal deity exists we will cross paths. I’ve been around a long, long time, long enough to see bullshit clearly.
That's an interesting theory, but, I think, an oversimplification. Far from refraining itself merely to questions of origins and the mechanisms of nature such as scientific tools might help us answer; Christian dogma teaches us about the nature of man, the nature of God, how man ought to relate to God and nature, how God relates to us, how we ought to live, and so on.
Far from merely filling in gaps in knowledge, Christianity presents a comprehensive way of understanding the world and our place in it.
Furthermore, another account of this "best fit" effect you point out is that the Church is always emphasizing this or that aspect of its dogma to teach what the world needs to hear at each point of history. It's not trying out different strategies to stay relevant, but rather giving different emphases to respond to the needs of the human condition.
Really? Different strategies don’t include teaching that black people were descended from Cain? Putting women in the pulpit? Allowing homosexual people to be members of the Christian church, the figurative body of Christ? This has nothing to do with accommodating the human condition and you know it. Modern religion has become a culturally irrelevant abomination in the eyes of the very deity dictated text it claims to adhere to. It’s attaching historical relevancy to a faith that has little to do with the tenets established 2023 years ago. Either adhere to the text in the Bible or strike out on your own with a new “sacred” codex, but the hypocrisy in modern Christianity is intolerable. At least the Muslim and Judaic faiths stand their ground, stupid as that is. Of course my statement is an oversimplification, the point of this exercise is rhetorical, for the benefit of those reading. While I won’t address the myriad technical difficulties Christianity has, the macro view from outside the religious box should be a clear enough view of the flawed logic in the whole system, unless there is some mitigating factor making a person need the structure and security of a religious framework. I have no problem with the function of religious dogma, just don’t assert this ideal as factual truth, and certainly don’t condemn others for not buying into your faith.
I'm going to respectfully bow out at this point. We've shifted topics too much to cover any point of contention in sufficient detail to be worthwhile. I hope we can get into some of those specific points in more depth again in the future.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss!
Yes, thank you for your time and efforts toward the discussion as well. I appreciate and respect your views.