Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

This discussion flows from this social media post ( link ).   The meme/quote reads "Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation". Just in case that link breaks in the future, I posted this image to a Facebook group called " Jehovah’s Witnesses Exposed ". In that group is a mix of mostly atheists Ex-JWs and Christian evangelical anti-JWs.  In reply, "Mark" really does not address ANYTHING specific to the OP. Instead, he goes on an anti-atheist rant; which amounted to " Oh yea? Well at least I know where logic and love come from! ".  That's when I spewed a very cold and delicious Caffeine Free Pepsi from both nostrils.  Good times.  :)  He posted " There is no reason without logic, logic is immaterial, universal and invariant, the atheist say there are no immaterial entities therefore they cannot account for the reason they use." .   My r

I don't have any strong opinions about Dawkins. I never closely followed his work. However, here we are. Youtube's algorithm threw me this bone to chew on. Let's see if we can reach the marrow, before I see a passing squirrel. ---------------------------- For the rest of this blog, I'm going to refer to the host of the above-linked video as "FGI" (short for "Faith Growth Initiative"), because I don't know his name. There really isn't a most famous atheist ever. As examples, Christopher Hitchens is more often quoted by atheists. And Ernest Hemmingway is far more celebrated than any of the Four Horsemen. However, being an "atheist" is like being a non Leprechaun believer. Who is the most famous non-Leprechaun-ist ever? It's not a really meaningful designation. ---- 0:36 Big Bang Theory is cosmology. It has nothing to do with how biological life began. ----- 0:47 I have yet to encounter an a

T o be fair, it's easy to find a scholar to support almost any view; especially at the outer fringes of scholarship. This is why I give the highest % of *probability* on any view to the consensus of qualified scholars whose work stands endorsed by prestigious not-religious Universities. It's their wheelhouse. Does that "prove" any given view is correct? No. But if the logic seems to be solid, then consensus provides true justification for laymen to accept such conclusions as at least 'tentatively correct'; pending any future discovery.  Although, I'm not impressed whenever religious "scholars" are supporting their own theological commitments.   I'm glad to see that scholarship of Biblical history is finally growing into secular maturity; right before our eyes.   It's not there yet. But it's going through one hell of a *growth spurt.  [*Thanks, in part, to Youtube channels like YaleCourses , Mythvision , Gnostic Informant , James T