Did belief in God evolve so your tribe could survive? The argument sounds good, but is there a glaring contradiction?

1.2K

• (edited )

https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/BIOT_a_00018.pdf

If you're like me, you'll find the argument made there extremely compelling. I mean...it's good. There doesn't appear to be a single stone unturned. A rational person, who'd been inclined toward belief prior to reading this paper, could very easily walk away convinced against the proposition that God is real, or that anything in Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) points to something real.

There is, however, a glaring contradiction in this theory's logic. I am not interested here to pick apart the paper in terms of its specific points. If you'd care to do that after reading the paper, we can do that in the comments. I want to attack a specific assumption made by the paper which is given barely any attention, but which is crucial for its thesis to go through.

Essentially, the argument goes that belief in the supernatural, namely God (and all of the associated social effects of this), were the cause of - not just society's survival - but for the evolution of our society's complexity, and even the sophistication of our cultural practices and institutions, including the development of science (by implication). The paper is concerned with showing the combination of factors that caused religious belief to evolve.

But inserted at the tail end of the paper, after a summary of the combination of factors that causes religion to evolve, is the sneaky phrase:

None of these evolved for religion per se.

This is quite literally the only sentence in the paper which even alludes to the underlying assumption on which the whole theory rests.

What this statement truly says, is that: "None of the factors which contributed to the evolution of religious belief did so because religious belief is true. They each represent independent forces, and religion is basically an accident that emerged from them, which just so happened to be super beneficial." In other words, it's not possible that the object of religious belief, God, is true - instead, all of the factors that came together that made you believe in God are themselves what do all of the work of helping you survive reality.

In the highly critical words of Winnie the Pooh: Oh, bother.

Think about this for a moment. The same combination of factors that caused you to believe in God, is also the same set of factors that caused your society to transcend its primitive state and to begin to discover the truth of the universe via the scientific institution. The former is a counterintuitive belief, according to these two researchers, and the latter is not.

One thing the paper stresses is that our 'supernatural beliefs' are counterintuitive, which is to say that belief in God runs contrary to our regular intuitions about the world. Let's be charitable. Let's grant them that.

Yet, what are we to contrast these counterintuitive God beliefs with? Well, the scientist writing the paper implicitly assumes that the beliefs we can trust about the universe would be our scientific ones. Hmm. Situate this in the evolutionary paradigm, in which everything is attempting to balance tradeoffs and costs of new adaptations for survival against an environment that kills us for getting it wrong, regularly.

So our counter-intuitive beliefs in God were the result of a combination of factors that caused society to evolve massive complexity and intelligence, including the ability to finally gain a scientific (apparently intuitive) grasp of the universe, but this same combination of factors didn't evolve because God was true. God was the counterintuitive part, and science was the intuitive (and true) result, and we should think science tells us true things about reality, but the very belief in God that led us there was an irrational accident.

The combination of factors that evolved to produce belief in God didn't "evolve for religious [truth], per se", but they did evolve to lead us to scientific truth, per se?

Based on what? The paper stipulates that belief in the supernatural (God, heaven, hell, etc.) is counterintuitive, but that our regular intuitive ontologies and observations of the world are supposedly something we ought to put actual stock in.

I wonder how well this holds up in 2021. How intuitive is current cosmology? How intuitive is the Big Bang? How intuitive is quantum mechanics? How intuitive is the mathematical concept of infinity? We are told in this paper that the factors which promoted the evolution of belief in God did not do so because God is true, but that they contributed to the increase in intelligence in mankind that did lead us to so-called true knowledge in the sciences.

I'm emphasizing the evolutionary context because the only thing that matters in this context is survival. There are either adaptations which confer greater survivability, or there are spandrels. But the theory is clear that the belief in God was a causal force in the advancement that led to greater knowledge of the universe, and higher survivability. Is this really a case for God being a spandrel? A spandrel is an accident. A spandrel does not build a church - which leads us to question whether the belief in God is rationally counterintuitive if this very belief opened mankind up to expanding into the real universe in ways it would not have otherwise. Talk about shooting the horse you rode in on.

What do you think? Was God a spandrel?

It would take a large amount of room to completely summarize the evolutionary argument for religious belief. If you're interested to know what the theory consists of, I would highly recommend reading the following paper. It does an excellent job of fully explaining the contemporary understanding of the evolution of religious belief. (If you're a person that denies evolution altogether, forget it for a moment; we'll be granting that it's true for argument's sake.) https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/BIOT_a_00018.pdf If you're like me, you'll find the argument made there extremely *compelling*. I mean...it's *good*. There doesn't appear to be a single stone unturned. A rational person, who'd been inclined toward belief prior to reading this paper, could very easily walk away convinced against the proposition that God is real, or that anything in Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) points to something real. There is, however, a glaring contradiction in this theory's logic. I am not interested here to pick apart the paper in terms of its specific points. If you'd care to do that after reading the paper, we can do that in the comments. I want to attack a specific assumption made by the paper which is given barely any attention, but which is crucial for its thesis to go through. Essentially, the argument goes that belief in the supernatural, namely God (and all of the associated social effects of this), were the cause of - not just society's survival - but for the evolution of our society's complexity, and even the sophistication of our cultural practices and institutions, including the development of science (by implication). The paper is concerned with showing the *combination of factors* that caused religious belief to evolve. But inserted at the tail end of the paper, after a summary of the combination of factors that causes religion to evolve, is the sneaky phrase: >None of these evolved for religion per se. This is quite literally the only sentence in the paper which even alludes to the underlying assumption on which the whole theory rests. What this statement truly says, is that: "None of the factors which contributed to the evolution of religious belief did so because religious belief is true. They each represent independent forces, and religion is basically an accident that emerged from them, which just so happened to be super beneficial." In other words, it's not possible that the object of religious belief, God, is *true* - instead, all of the factors that came together that made you believe in God are *themselves* what do all of the work of helping you survive reality. In the highly critical words of Winnie the Pooh: Oh, bother. Think about this for a moment. The same combination of factors that caused you to believe in God, is also the same set of factors that caused your society to transcend its primitive state and to begin to discover the *truth* of the universe via the scientific institution. The former is a counterintuitive belief, according to these two researchers, and the latter is not. One thing the paper stresses is that our 'supernatural beliefs' are **counterintuitive**, which is to say that belief in God runs contrary to our regular intuitions about the world. Let's be charitable. Let's grant them that. Yet, what are we to contrast these counterintuitive God beliefs with? Well, the scientist writing the paper implicitly assumes that the beliefs we *can trust* about the universe would be our scientific ones. Hmm. Situate this in the evolutionary paradigm, in which everything is attempting to balance tradeoffs and costs of new adaptations for survival against an environment that kills us for getting it wrong, regularly. So our counter-intuitive beliefs in God were the result of a combination of factors that caused society to evolve massive complexity and intelligence, including the ability to finally gain a scientific (apparently *intuitive*) grasp of the universe, but this same combination of factors didn't evolve because God was true. God was the counterintuitive part, and science was the intuitive (and true) result, and we should think science tells us true things about reality, but the very belief in God that led us there was an irrational accident. The combination of factors that evolved to produce belief in God didn't "evolve for religious [truth], per se", but they did evolve to lead us to scientific truth, per se? Based on what? The paper stipulates that belief in the supernatural (God, heaven, hell, etc.) is *counterintuitive*, but that our regular intuitive ontologies and observations of the world are supposedly something we ought to put actual stock in. I wonder how well this holds up in 2021. How intuitive is current cosmology? How intuitive is the Big Bang? How intuitive is quantum mechanics? How intuitive is the mathematical concept of infinity? We are told in this paper that the factors which promoted the evolution of belief in God did not do so because God is true, but that they contributed to the increase in intelligence in mankind that *did lead* us to so-called true knowledge in the sciences. I'm emphasizing the evolutionary context because the only thing that matters in this context is survival. There are either adaptations which confer greater survivability, or there are [spandrels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)#:~:text=In%20evolutionary%20biology%2C%20a%20spandrel,direct%20product%20of%20adaptive%20selection.&text=Gould%20and%20Lewontin%20sought%20to,more%20structuralist%20view%20of%20evolution.). But the theory is clear that the belief in God *was a causal force* in the advancement that led to greater knowledge of the universe, and higher survivability. Is this really a case for God being a spandrel? A spandrel is an accident. A spandrel does not build a church - which leads us to question whether the belief in God is rationally counterintuitive if this very belief opened mankind up to expanding into the real universe in ways it would not have otherwise. Talk about shooting the horse you rode in on. What do you think? Was God a spandrel?

[–] • 0 pt

But the evolution of religious belief is said to have relied on the confluence of them all.

I just dont distinguish culture from religion. We all have religious thinking i.e. our perception of reality is inaccurate, sorted into binary opposites, heavily based on symbols, not particularly “rational” . Maybe involving gods or spirits, maybe not. Secular atheists have any number of irrational magical beliefs.

displays that are costly.

This makes me think of sex! A lot of what we think of as civilization is just a bag of tricks developed by men to bag more babes. As with many other species, human males have some costly displays that dont always seem to be utilitarian. Showy behavior is often a demonstration of health and prosperity. I dont know why this wouldnt extend to religious behavior.

If both science and religion are spandrels, what can you trust as truth?

If we are working from the perspective of a true evolutionist, finding the cold hard truth of existence or the universe or whatever is unimportant. It is useful to learn how things work if that knowledge helps you to survive. So curious monkeys (usually) have an adaptive advantage over the dull ones. Curious monkeys can cure covid for example. But comprehending cosmogony is (so far) a spandrel of such abilities.

But, if science was what convinced you the above was true, where does your confidence that it is finally come to rest? It could be accused of begging the question.

It is an ironic situation that by rejecting certain religious beliefs as truth and trying to examine them from an evolutionary (scientific) paradigm, I have come to the conclusion that humans probably function better relying on religious beliefs than trying to incorporate purely scientific beliefs into every mode of our life. Atheists tend to reject sorting behaviors into taboo and sacred, which leads to cultural chaos, corruption , and exploitation. Moral relativism is not a good bit of software to run on human brains.

So maybe I had to become an atheist to see how religion actually works within evolution. But it may in fact be a penalty in terms of my survival. Traditionally religious people are usually better able to endure hardships, risk death for the good of the group, and perhaps more honest, more likely to follow the rules?

Who knows? Atheist societies will have to compete against religious ones for supremacy.

Technically I think atheists perform the same logic errors as theists because their brain is just as irrational. But since they reject a lot of the religious abstract concepts and behavior norms of established religions, there is a lot of cultural (moral ) chaos.

People mistakenly think “organized” religion is the problem because it imposes a “tyrannical” or “arbitrary” moral regime that doesnt have an obvious scientific basis, but they miss the point that the whole purpose of religion(in an evolutionary paradigm) is only to organize society under a common regime.

> But the evolution of religious belief is said to have relied on the confluence of them all. I just dont distinguish culture from religion. We all have religious thinking i.e. our perception of reality is inaccurate, sorted into binary opposites, heavily based on symbols, not particularly “rational” . Maybe involving gods or spirits, maybe not. Secular atheists have any number of irrational magical beliefs. >displays that are costly. This makes me think of sex! A lot of what we think of as civilization is just a bag of tricks developed by men to bag more babes. As with many other species, human males have some costly displays that dont always seem to be utilitarian. Showy behavior is often a demonstration of health and prosperity. I dont know why this wouldnt extend to religious behavior. >If both science and religion are spandrels, what can you trust as truth? If we are working from the perspective of a true evolutionist, finding the cold hard truth of existence or the universe or whatever is unimportant. It is useful to learn how things work if that knowledge helps you to survive. So curious monkeys (usually) have an adaptive advantage over the dull ones. Curious monkeys can cure covid for example. But comprehending cosmogony is (so far) a spandrel of such abilities. >But, if science was what convinced you the above was true, where does your confidence that it is finally come to rest? It could be accused of begging the question. It is an ironic situation that by rejecting certain religious beliefs as truth and trying to examine them from an evolutionary (scientific) paradigm, I have come to the conclusion that humans probably function better relying on religious beliefs than trying to incorporate purely scientific beliefs into every mode of our life. Atheists tend to reject sorting behaviors into taboo and sacred, which leads to cultural chaos, corruption , and exploitation. Moral relativism is not a good bit of software to run on human brains. So maybe I had to become an atheist to see how religion actually works within evolution. But it may in fact be a penalty in terms of my survival. Traditionally religious people are usually better able to endure hardships, risk death for the good of the group, and perhaps more honest, more likely to follow the rules? Who knows? Atheist societies will have to compete against religious ones for supremacy. Technically I think atheists perform the same logic errors as theists because their brain is just as irrational. But since they reject a lot of the religious abstract concepts and behavior norms of established religions, there is a lot of cultural (moral ) chaos. People mistakenly think “organized” religion is the problem because it imposes a “tyrannical” or “arbitrary” moral regime that doesnt have an obvious scientific basis, but they miss the point that the whole purpose of religion(in an evolutionary paradigm) is *only* to organize society under a common regime.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Moral relativism is not a good bit of software to run on human brains.

This is kind of the angle that I'm trying to approach from.

Why? Why is it not a good bit of software?

You established just a bit earlier in your comment...

our perception of reality is inaccurate, sorted into binary opposites, heavily based on symbols, not particularly “rational” . Maybe involving gods or spirits, maybe not. Secular atheists have any number of irrational magical beliefs.

..something that is relative.

So doesn't the implication that moral relativism is bad suggest that there is, in fact, something like a moral truth? Something which causes man to endure in the universe amidst complexity?

It is useful to learn how things work if that knowledge helps you to survive.

The question we are trying to approach is 'What is true?'. We've moved from the principle that we are here to survive for survival's sake to admitting that certain kinds of knowledge cause things to survive 'better'. If survival is our first principle, then are we entitled to call such knowledge truth?

Or is everything relative? - which you've said is not good to believe. But perhaps you think reality actually is relative and that the danger comes from having a true belief about reality. So the survivability comes from our false belief that things AREN'T relative. Do you see the problem? Why couldn't it just be true that things aren't relative?

Think about the nature of belief with me for a moment. We'd think, from purely evolutionary terms, that belief would evolve to cause us to think certain things in terms of our explanations of reality, and if survival is all that counts, then the beliefs that promote survival ought to be truer. Fire is hot. Ice is cold. If I try to murder my rival, he will try to murder me! Men have penises, and girls have vaginas. We tend to believe things which are true.

We think that these things would be true in any possible world like our own, that is, that fire would burn us (or any sufficiently hot thing would burn us). It becomes senseless to call this a relative truth, or worse yet, a false belief that just serves us usefully. If the fact that fire burns us isn't true, then you've at least established one truth - that relativism is true. Yet if relativism is true, you've also established that belief in it would hurt survival - therefore a true belief would hurt us. This is a contradiction. It makes no sense.

My point is this. There is a circularity in your views about the falsehood of religious belief.

Our beliefs about fire, and about snakes and lightning are true. They help us to survive. Yet, you are convinced that just because religious belief is prevalent and just because it helps us survive, that they still aren't true.

Why? If survival is the only principle, then the only way to construe true belief would be that which best helps people survive. You insist that relativism is dangerous, and also that false beliefs can have survival utility. Then that means that ALL KINDS OF FALSE BELIEFS could have survival utility, and yet, we see a dramatic convergence of religious belief onto a relatively small set of enduring facts which are similar across disparate cultures with no temporal communication.

Why would you assume, then, that these are false and irrational? Or that they don't point to something true? What is/are your reason/s? To just say that, "Oh, well humans have all kinds of symbols and irrational beliefs," just begs the question, the very same question begged by the authors of that paper.

@PS @KingOfWhiteAmerica

> Moral relativism is not a good bit of software to run on human brains. This is kind of the angle that I'm trying to approach from. Why? Why is it not a good bit of software? You established just a bit earlier in your comment... >our perception of reality is inaccurate, sorted into binary opposites, heavily based on symbols, not particularly “rational” . Maybe involving gods or spirits, maybe not. Secular atheists have any number of irrational magical beliefs. ..something that is relative. So doesn't the implication that moral relativism is bad suggest that there is, in fact, something like a moral truth? Something which causes man to endure in the universe amidst complexity? >It is useful to learn how things work if that knowledge helps you to survive. The question we are trying to approach is 'What is true?'. We've moved from the principle that *we are here to survive for survival's sake* to admitting that certain kinds of knowledge cause things to survive 'better'. If survival is our first principle, then are we entitled to call such knowledge *truth*? Or is everything relative? - which you've said is not good to believe. But perhaps you think reality *actually is relative* and that the danger comes from having a *true* belief about reality. So the survivability comes from our *false* belief that *things AREN'T relative*. Do you see the problem? Why couldn't it just be true that things aren't relative? Think about the nature of belief with me for a moment. We'd think, from purely evolutionary terms, that belief would evolve to cause us to think certain things in terms of our explanations of reality, and if survival is all that counts, then the beliefs that promote survival ought to be truer. Fire is hot. Ice is cold. If I try to murder my rival, he will try to murder me! Men have penises, and girls have vaginas. We tend to believe things which are true. We think that these things would be true in any possible world like our own, that is, that fire would burn us (or any sufficiently hot thing would burn us). It becomes senseless to call this a *relative* truth, or worse yet, a false belief that just *serves us usefully*. If the fact that fire burns us isn't true, then you've at least established **one truth** - that relativism is true. Yet if relativism is true, you've also established that belief in it would hurt survival - therefore a *true belief would hurt us*. This is a contradiction. It makes no sense. My point is this. There is a circularity in your views about the falsehood of religious belief. Our beliefs about fire, and about snakes and lightning are *true*. They help us to survive. Yet, you are convinced that *just because religious belief is prevalent* and *just because it helps us survive*, that they still aren't true. Why? If survival is the only principle, then the only way to construe true belief would be that which best helps people survive. You insist that relativism is dangerous, and also that false beliefs can have survival utility. Then that means that ALL KINDS OF FALSE BELIEFS could have survival utility, and yet, we see a dramatic convergence of religious belief onto a relatively small set of enduring facts which are similar across disparate cultures with no temporal communication. Why would you assume, then, that these are false and irrational? Or that they don't point to something true? What is/are your reason/s? To just say that, "Oh, well humans have all kinds of symbols and irrational beliefs," just begs the question, the very same question begged by the authors of that paper. @PS @KingOfWhiteAmerica

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Why? Why is it not a good bit of software?

Because the hardware is built to process and store good and evil not 50 shades of gray. Suboptimal results decreases survival.

You established just a bit earlier in your comment.... ..something that is relative.

What do you mean? I said the brain understands absolutes.

I stated that I dont think moral relativism is good because the push to embrace it is causing cultural upheaval and dysfunction that is not optimal for me or the survival of my people. There is turmoil within my society that I process as evil. Do I have to explain why Im personally invested in my society and my genetic group and my culture surviving?

I suppose that the basis of moral truth is just what ever confers survivability. Of genes and culture. I know that is very cold and mercnary but that is at the root of good and evil, I believe.

The question we are trying to approach is 'What is true?'.

No the question we are trying to approach is ‘did belief in God evolve so your tribe could survive’

We've moved from the principle that we are here to survive for survival's sake to admitting that certain kinds of knowledge cause things to survive 'better'.

No we never did. Sorry dont mean to be difficult but its binary, survive /not survive. I love my genes. I want them all to survive. You and I have some of the same genes. I dont give a fuck about your genes surviving unless they are the ones we have in common. That is not how I literally think but that is how evolution works.

Or is everything relative? - which you've said is not good to believe.

It probably is. Does it really matter if intelligent life or any life exists in the universe? But living systems that choose preservation and replication over death and extinction survive and proliferate so its in my nature to favor survival over extinction. That’s probably the strongest moral imperative around.

But perhaps you think reality actually is relative and that the danger comes from having a true belief about reality.

This is why its not good to believe that everything is relative. If you realize or perhaps maybe suspect that its all pointless and there is no good or evil, its pretty much a recipe for extinction.

Think about the nature of belief with me for a moment. We'd think, from purely evolutionary terms, that belief would evolve to cause us to think certain things in terms of our explanations of reality, and if survival is all that counts, then the beliefs that promote survival ought to be truer. Fire is hot. Ice is cold. If I try to murder my rival, he will try to murder me! Men have penises, and girls have vaginas. We tend to believe things which are true. We think that these things would be true in any possible world like our own, that is, that fire would burn us (or any sufficiently hot thing would burn us). It becomes senseless to call this a relative truth, or worse yet, a false belief that just serves us usefully. If the fact that fire burns us isn't true, then you've at least established one truth - that relativism is true. Yet if relativism is true, you've also established that belief in it would hurt survival - therefore a true belief would hurt us. This is a contradiction. It makes no sense

Maybe its because its 1 am but these paragraphs make no sense.

just because religious belief is prevalent and just because it helps us survive, that they still aren't true.

Snakes are not pure evil. Some are totally harmless. But if you beleive all snakes are evil and you stay the hell away from all of them, it will probably confer survival.

People believe if you cheat on your husband you will burn in hell. Societies that teach that are stable because there is low cheating, less strife between males and some males may go off to war secure in the knowlege that the other guy wont fuck their wives. Successful society.

Are you asking why I dont think people burn in hell for cheating on their husbands? There is zero evidence of that. I can test whether fire is hot. Unless it is in hell.

Im not saying there isnt a rational reason not to cheat on your husband. Im saying the religious justification may not resemble reality. And Im saying the human brain doesnt process reality in a rational accurate way.

I guess its too late. Im mot really following what your saying.

> Why? Why is it not a good bit of software? Because the hardware is built to process and store good and evil not 50 shades of gray. Suboptimal results decreases survival. >You established just a bit earlier in your comment.... ..something that is relative. What do you mean? I said the brain understands absolutes. I stated that I dont think moral relativism is good because the push to embrace it is causing cultural upheaval and dysfunction that is not optimal for me or the survival of my people. There is turmoil within my society that I process as evil. Do I have to explain why Im personally invested in my society and my genetic group and my culture surviving? I suppose that the basis of moral truth is just what ever confers survivability. Of genes and culture. I know that is very cold and mercnary but that is at the root of good and evil, I believe. >The question we are trying to approach is 'What is true?'. No the question we are trying to approach is ‘did belief in God evolve so your tribe could survive’ >We've moved from the principle that we are here to survive for survival's sake to admitting that certain kinds of knowledge cause things to survive 'better'. No we never did. Sorry dont mean to be difficult but its binary, survive /not survive. I love my genes. I want them all to survive. You and I have some of the same genes. I dont give a fuck about your genes surviving unless they are the ones we have in common. That is not how I literally think but that is how evolution works. >Or is everything relative? - which you've said is not good to believe. It probably is. Does it really matter if intelligent life or any life exists in the universe? But living systems that choose preservation and replication over death and extinction survive and proliferate so its in my nature to favor survival over extinction. That’s probably the strongest moral imperative around. >But perhaps you think reality actually is relative and that the danger comes from having a true belief about reality. This is why its not good to believe that everything is relative. If you realize or perhaps maybe suspect that its all pointless and there is no good or evil, its pretty much a recipe for extinction. >Think about the nature of belief with me for a moment. We'd think, from purely evolutionary terms, that belief would evolve to cause us to think certain things in terms of our explanations of reality, and if survival is all that counts, then the beliefs that promote survival ought to be truer. Fire is hot. Ice is cold. If I try to murder my rival, he will try to murder me! Men have penises, and girls have vaginas. We tend to believe things which are true. We think that these things would be true in any possible world like our own, that is, that fire would burn us (or any sufficiently hot thing would burn us). It becomes senseless to call this a relative truth, or worse yet, a false belief that just serves us usefully. If the fact that fire burns us isn't true, then you've at least established one truth - that relativism is true. Yet if relativism is true, you've also established that belief in it would hurt survival - therefore a true belief would hurt us. This is a contradiction. It makes no sense Maybe its because its 1 am but these paragraphs make no sense. >just because religious belief is prevalent and just because it helps us survive, that they still aren't true. Snakes are not pure evil. Some are totally harmless. But if you beleive all snakes are evil and you stay the hell away from all of them, it will probably confer survival. People believe if you cheat on your husband you will burn in hell. Societies that teach that are stable because there is low cheating, less strife between males and some males may go off to war secure in the knowlege that the other guy wont fuck their wives. Successful society. Are you asking why I dont think people burn in hell for cheating on their husbands? There is zero evidence of that. I can test whether fire is hot. Unless it is in hell. Im not saying there isnt a rational reason not to cheat on your husband. Im saying the religious justification may not resemble reality. And Im saying the human brain doesnt process reality in a rational accurate way. I guess its too late. Im mot really following what your saying.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Are you asking why I don't think people burn in hell for cheating on their husbands? There is zero evidence of that.

Insofar far as Christianity purports to be a fully true religion, and there is evidence for the truth of Christianity, then there is evidence for what Christianity teaches being true, and that includes the reality of hell.

Look into the First Vision of Fatima, private revelation validated by the Miracle of the Sun. This is also evidence.

Note that I'm not speaking of proof - something that typically only applies to syllogistic argument and geometry anyway - I'm talking about evidence. Evidence is merely a fact that does suggest the truth of a claim or theory. To suggest there is no evidence of hell is patently absurd.

@Chiro

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

(post is archived)