Pitting The Rationality Of Science Against The "Rationality" Of Religious Fundamentalism

 In a Stoicism group,
someone posted this:

Honestly, I'm not sure what the person who posted that meme 
was trying to elude to.

But what caught my attention was this:

Some guy commented/replied by saying this:

"Got what? A defeater for all rationality?"

---------------
I knew I wanted to reply to this. 

But first,
I wanted to check on something.

Turns out ...
yep. 
Just as I suspected.
The guy is a bible-thumping Christian-religious fundamentalist.

Now, it's time to reply.

For this, I replied without words.

I posted only this image, as my reply to him:

In reply to me, he said this:


" Charles Darwin - “Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
Of course Plantinga develops this doubt into an argument showing that the answer is an obvious no and rationality is not compatible with Darwinism. See "Plantinga evolutionary argument against naturalism."
If you're actually interested in rationality instead of meme making."

--

This time, I'm replying in the form of a blog;
this blog. 

I made my point.

You surely understood my point.

I stand by my point.

The fact that I could make such a comprehensive point using only an image ... testifies to the potential power of imagery as a form of communication. 


"Meme" is an idea expressed as a quote, image, or both
which spreads virally;
because of its appreciated utility.

Memetics is the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution.

Proponents describe memetics as an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer.

Memetics describes how an idea can propagate successfully.

Thus, why I chose a meme for this issue.
It was both apt and poetic;
given the context of the discussion.

My reply, as a meme, was on topic for the thread
and in regards to your comment.

The point of that meme was also fully rational.

They whom live in glass houses
perhaps aught not throw stones.

Your religion is blatantly and excessively guilty of
the very thing you accused Darwin and Evolution-proponents of.
Rationality is not compatible with it.

The only elements in bibles and bible-based religions which have rational merit are the concepts which originated from outside of those religions.
==

Evolution of species
is the most strongly supported scientific theory
(the closest any scientific discovery ever gets to "fact")
of all scientific discoveries.

Humans are primates.

We are a species of great ape.

All fossils are transitional.

All species are transitional.

Humans, in roughly our current form,
have existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

Life on this planet traces back billions of years.

The oldest religion currently practiced is Hinduism.

The Hebrew religion traces back to the Canaanites.

The Canaanites were all polytheists.

"El" was a categoric name for their entire pantheon of gods.

It was later adopted as a name for one of their more specific gods.

It was much-later adopted as a name for a new god; made from parts of other/older god-concepts.

That Canaanite god "El" is one of the gods they harvested for parts to build Yahweh with.

 Yahweh is, in this way, 
a Frankenstein's monster-god. 

Before the Hebrews began converting to monotheism (changing their stories to fit with their new monotheistic-ish theology)
Yahweh even had a lover; a goddess named Asherah.

The Hebrews all remained polytheists for most of their religious history.

The first Hebrews to adopt a monothe-ish theology
were those captured and enslaved by the Babylonians;
sometime after the beginning of the second temple period.

Some of the story-elements of the Hebrew religious texts (what you would call the Old Testament) were written when they were still polytheists.

Some of the Hebrew religious texts were written closer to when Christianity started. 

The earliest forms of monotheism happened in other religions first.

Monotheism is a fairly recent invention, in the span of religious history.

The Egyptian King Akhenaten created the idea of a monotheistic god;
as a way to consolidate his power (early-mid 1300s BC).



The entire history of the world
unfolded very very differently than the Hebrew religious texts claim.

Their mountain of false-history is what later "Abrahamic" religions are built upon.

Presently,
a vast majority of Christians realize that evolution is true and that Hebrew religious texts can only be salvaged as mostly metaphors.

Fundamentalist Christians who think their bible is inherent,
or infallible,
or both mostly-literal and "all true" ...
are a dying breed. 
 Eventually, such poorly educated Christians will be a thing of the past. 

Meanwhile,
you either do
or you don't
think we humans have "convictions".

You either do
or you don't
think that various human convictions ever have rational merit.

Are we the "monkeys" that Darwin mentioned?
 No. 
But do those monkeys ever have rational thoughts?
 Yes. They are just not as informed, complex, or nuanced as our own. 

Many non-human-animals are also self-aware.

They also have well-developed, human-like emotions.

For these reasons, 
many scientists recognize the personhood
of many different animal species.

Only pretty recently have we discovered these truths about our kin in the animal kingdom; 
with no help from your religion. 

Meanwhile,
there are no fully rational arguments against naturalism.

"Supernatural" is even worse than incoherent.

It's not even a concept.
It's a wildcard; a place-holder for a concept which the speaker does not actually posses.

It's a ruse.
It's a mental 'slight of hand';
meant to manipulate the cognitions of their audience.

Why commit such a ploy? 

So that the easily stupefied might lean back in awe ...
at the very idea of an alternative to physics-phenomenon.

Those tricksters are hoping their audience doesn't realize:
there is entirely nothing (no substance at all)
in that bottle labeled "Supernatural".

At least the writers of the early Christian "creeds" realized they need to pour some sort of undefined "substance" in the bottle.
But today's fundies are committed to out-grifting their own patriarchs. 

"Supernatural" is not a wrong concept.
Worse than that.
It's not even a concept.

And honestly, my time is too valuable
to volunteer for further pseudo-intellectual gaslighting
from some random freelance agent of our society's oldest PSY OP, mafia, ego-cult, grift.

This is what your religion boils down to: