Hacker News Reader

> Ethical systems are not the same as the kinds of religious beliefs I was talking about. Ethical systems have practical consequences that can be tested.

Good luck testing one of the currently accepted "ethical system"-type religious beliefs.

The only kind of outcome of such a test that is "allowed" is full agreement with the ethical system. A lot of these systems are just as self-reinforcing and barely based in reality as Christian apologetics of Aquinas or Chesterton. The people holding these beliefs know this on some subconscious level and will viciously attack anyone who disagrees. It is only over time with many such "attacks" that a mass belief will die and be replaced by another one.

In fact, every one of these "ethical" religious beliefs came about the same way: it defeated another commonly agreed upon dogma.

This mechanism by the way is what runs civilization. One meme fighting another.

In my experience having been near many church splits I still feel this simply isn’t true. Churches operate like git forks and merges of ideas.

This is actually a really good analogy that applies to some other argument, but not the one I was trying to make :)

Git forks and merges still share a common ancestral history and are basically an evolution of the same idea. This is true of a real Git repo (it's one software project after all) and the kind of churches you are likely talking about (it's all just a theist religion after all). Christianity is a branch in the same repo as the ancient Roman gods. The Saturnalia feature is even there still :)

I was thinking more about ideas like: - can people be property? - is it a good thing to kill "infidels"? - can women vote? - can a 10 year old get married?

These are "religious" questions because there is no objective truth to the answer either way. It's all based on beliefs and consensus.

Before you downvote me into oblivion: the answers to all of these have historically been different than they are today. People in both times (past and present) would attack you if you disagreed with the status quo (there was even a certain civil war fought about the people=property one). I am not actually disagreeing with the status quo on any of the above.

However, it would be naive to think that we do not presently collectively believe some things that would be appalling to a future human. A good heuristic for these is: would I get attacked or mocked for questioning this?

Indeed ethical systems have changed throughout the lifespan of a religion. Religions are not set in stone and change more than what most religious people are willing to admit.

For example, people used to believe the Book of Genesis literally, and now (I believe) most denominations take it allegorically. I wonder how many similar stories like that will we have in the future.

For me, it always felt like the interpretation of the Holy Books are changing through time as we understand science more and more. And it feels ironic to me.

Jewish Old Testament scholars haven’t taken Genesis literally for more than 2 millennia.

That's true. But even leaving science aside, and focusing only on non-falsifiable aspects of human ethics, there are many examples such as slavery where Christianity for example has changed over time quite radically (and not even linearly)

I asked about slavery in Reddit's DebateAChristian forum. Most Christians say that those part of the Bible needs to be understood in the context of those times where debt slavery was quite common and not considered evil. So we can't apply today's morality there. Well, at least these were the most common answers I got. There were also a person who told me that what "moral"/"good" means is _completely_ subjective (which is true to some extent), so I should not judge Exodus 21.

Religious people asking others to judge the Word Of God by whatever standards humans happened to have at the time the books were written is an implicit acceptance that their religion is completely made up. What happened, God Changed their mind in the meantime?

FWIW, slavery in antiquity was rarely purely a "racial" thing. You became slave because of losing a war, which often was waged in response to some a refusal to just pay some reason indecent amount of taxes or whatever one side insisted was "due".

Surely all christians today believe that tricking somebody with dubious pretexts into debt-based slavery (as often happens with human trafficking of sex workers, where women have to formally pay up their debts and incurring the costs that they captors incur in hosting them in sub-human conditions).

Literal interpretation of Genesis is a fairly recent phenomenon. Fundamentalism is a modern religion.

> Literal interpretation of Genesis is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Um, no, it isn't. It's how Genesis was interpreted by most people of the Jewish and Christian religions throughout most of the time since it was written. What is a fairly recent phenomenon is people of those religions not interpreting Genesis (and the Bible in general) literally.

Indeed they change more than their zealous detractors, whose rigid mindsets cannot update priors despite abundant evidence contradicting their sacred beliefs, namely that the pious and meek are to be looked down upon, either pitied or scorned.

>The fact that most people in a given civilization were Christians //

It's somewhat orthogonal to your argument, but I'd doubt that most people in "Christian countries" (which is a heterodox notion) are/were Christians. Mostly people in the past seem to have followed a societal model, largely imposed as a firm of control.

Where I grew up in the UK the village vicar was not a Christian according to most definitions (they didn't believe in central tenets of the faith as espoused in all the main creeds).

Catholicism has a lot of things that are contradictory to biblical Christianity from basic things like having "special" people, to indulgences which are so contradictory to biblical teachings the only possibly way they were accepted is because most people were ignorant to Scripture. And of course those in power keenly maintained that ignorance.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/primer-on-indulgences

The powerful hoping to keep people ignorant seems like conspiracy/folklore.

Protest-ant publication of non-Latin Bible seems to disagree?

> Catholicism has a lot of things that are contradictory to biblical Christianity

That's only true if you consider the Bible as the only source of revelation, which is not the case for Catholics, where Tradition is equally important.

Not only is it true for sola scriptura but also under prima scriptura (followed by Anglicans and Methodists amongst others) -- so under an "Anglican triad" this position is still valid.

Catholicism still has things that are contradictory to biblical Christianity, such as priesthood of all believers, even if you accept other sources of revelation those sources would still be contradictory.