Guybrush

First of all, I think about what I write. My sentence was formulated thus :

It doesn't say all because I don't think it does apply to all.

Still, I think you're confused by what I mean by criteria. duga explained it reasonably well. Let's say you have a hypothesis that people from Texas are taller than people from Alaska so you measure 10 people from each state and compare them. You find out that on average, people are an inch taller in Texas than they are in Alaska. Could science accept that as true? You went out and had a look, right?

The answer is no, it can't - not until it has passed a process of tests and judgment according to certain scientific criteria. For example you'd need to do statistical testing that shows the difference in height is significant. Likely you would have to do your experiment again with more people. You would also have to publish the result so that the scientific community get a chance to review your work and determine whether or not it can be accepted. Results from scientific experiments should also be possible to replicate with more experiments. When you write in your height-article a true or false statement about the universe, you have to reference to an authoritive work that can back your claim and which hopefully has been accepted by the scientific community beforehand. You should perform your work in such a way that you reduce human error and don't introduce errors into your data.

There are lots of criteria on which a published hypothesis may be either fully rejected or criticized for. The same is usually not true for religious truths. It may help if a new truth about religion or the universe is brought about by someone with authority inside the faith, but a lot of people seem to think that God could speak to or through anyone. There are few formal rules. Scientology probably has more rules about what it can accept as true or not so of course there are examples where what I wrote does not necessarily apply, which is why I wrote much and not all.

As an example, science can not accept there is a God until it can be tested - attempts so far have not passed the criteria. Generally speaking, it can of course be accepted by religion.


A slight digression which might still be valid to our discussion, you may have noticed CA use the word memes in this thread.

Memes were thought up by famous biologist Ricgard Dawkins who figured evolutionary biology theory could be used to explain the evolution of culture - sort of like much of the maths and methods from ecology have origins in economy. Meme theory thus has the potential to help provide ultimate answers to questions like why does Santa Clause have a red suit? It also has the potential to answer ultimate questions about religion such as why in christianity is there a hell?

Memes are equivalent to genes of the mind. They are small ideas with meaning that can be selected for or against. "God is female" could be a meme while "God is male" could be another. To say memes compete would be a little inaccurate, but there is a selective process (cultural evolution) which over time will favour one over the other. The reason is if those two were the only memes concerning the supposed sex of God, you couldn't believe in one and the other at the same time. At least not many people would so the fitness of the two together would do worse probably than either one. Instead, one would increase frequency in the minds of people while others would decrease - one meme will outcompete other memes potentially occupying that same niche in our minds.

What I'm getting at is that according to meme theory, much of culture evolves in a way comparable to organisms. Just like a gene's fitness is dependent on other genes such as the gene that determines an eye will be blue is dependent on there being other genes that make the rest of the eye, so do memes get together to form larger meme structures. For example the idea there is a hell exists alongside other memes that make up christianity such as there is a God and he judges you and that you can be rewarded or punished in the afterlife.

Memes are not chosen by criteria, their fitness depends ultimately on their "appeal" to us and to some degree on what other memes are in the mindscape. I use apostrophes around appeal because they don't have to be nice, but for example it might helps if they stir the emotions in people. For example the idea of a nasty hell can raise the collective fitness of itself and other christianity memes by scaring people into believing in them.

In other words, hell is a "truth" brought about by cause and consequence rather than criteria. You could defend it by saying it's in the bible because it's true, but from a meme point of view, it makes sense it would come about even if there really is no hell.

__________________
Something Completely Different