Pessimistic Meta-Induction of Religion

This is an argument that I'm sure most atheists and agnostics have already thought of. This is only an attempt to formalize it. The argument takes the form of Lauden's Pessimistic Meta-Induction of Science as found in my old philosophy of science text-book, Understanding Philosophy of Science by James Ladyman. I substitute Lauden's terms for my own where appropriate.

(i) There have been many religions throughout history that have been subsequently rejected and the name(s) of whose god(s) do(es) not refer according to contemporary religions.

(ii) Current religions are no different in kind from those which have been discarded and so we have no reason to think they will not ultimately be replaced, as well.

(iii) By induction, we have a positive reason to expect that current religions will be replaced by new religions, according to which the name(s) of their god(s) do(es) not refer.

 

Honestly, I have nothing to disagree with about this argument. Well done. =)

 

Newtonian --> Einsteinian --> Quantuum --> ?
We teach children the simpler theories first...

Old tribal religions --> Ancient Monotheism --> Modern monotheism --> ?

Ultimately, we refine the knowledge that is handed down to us, if we find a better representation of reality. Of course, some accurate representations of reality are misrepresented by those claiming to spread knowledge about them.

Do you truly understand the christian message or do you listen to some preacher's perverted interpretation of it? You have to understand the message with your own mind before you can be an accurate judge of it. Too often, people judge the message based on the words of those who do not understand it (this is any atheist or agnostic, but most importantly it is those who claim to know God that do not accurately convey the true message of God- these people are the worst, by far).

 

It's not as if general relativity is merely an extension of Newtonian physics. In fact, the two blatantly contradict eachother, but this is a minor issue. What I really object to is how you parallel the above with:

The reason general relativity supplanted Newtonian physics was because general relativity could explain certain anomalies that Newtonian physics couldn't, such as the apparent position of Mercury. It was empirical evidence that decided for us which theory to adopt. No such evidence exists to help us decide whether we should be monotheists or polytheists or animists or whatever. All religions are empirically adequate and thus underdetermined. The same cannot be said of all scientific theories. So, the two are not analogous.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

 

i have one little problem with christianity, islam or any other form of chauvanism, even idiological and economic, and that is simply this, that you cannot put taking sides ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in without causing suffering and harm. and isn't it a contradiction of humility to put one's own immortal soul ahead of the well being of all other persons and creatures?

as for the evolving of collective, shaired and 'organized' beliefs, yes, it takes several centuries for a majority of people to realize their next chapter is even there.

 

Your only responsibility is to do what is best for God and those around you (serving those around you in the correct manner is part of serving God). Opposing ignorance is the right thing to do.

You cannot put your soul ahead of the well being of all other persons and creatures and benefit your self. To do so vanquishes your own soul.

 

responsibility? my responsibility is to the kind of world you, me, and all the rest of us, have to live in. why? because we do have to live in it. and on what basis does it make any kind of sense to immagine this unlikely to hold for any other world or kind of experiential existence our awairness may in some future form of existence find itself subject to experience?

how can you possibly know what is "best for god"?
what if 'what is best for 'god'' ISN"T what is best for 'those arround you'?
and what makes 'those arround you' any more or less important then those NOT 'arround you'?

is ignorance some terrible thing that is to be defeated with smoke and mirrors?
how does impairing intrinsic clearity of thought 'oppose ignorance'?

yet isn't this precisely what literalist 'christianity' insists upon?
and what does 'vanquishes your own soul' precisely mean?
the only soul i know anything about IS my awairness that IS the real me
not the outward tangable form it currently happens to be walking arround in.

perhapse you are speaking of some theoretical debating tecnique of which i am massivily ignorant. that may very well be, and likely is, yet how does that address any of the issues you attempt to raise by way of illustrating it, if that indeed is what is going on here?