From times 51:58 to 53:42 minutes in the video the presenter (Dr. Clark Wernecke) states, “Most importantly, what you should take home from today’s talk, is heightened skepticism. Skepticism is healthy,  and it is part of science. Watch the language, there are code words that should wave large red flags in your head, and the following are all examples, all from recent publications. I like this one, “this study proves” or “We prove”, the scientific method does not prove things, we try to disprove them. And then even if much of our data may suggest that are data is otherwise, “prove” is a very definitive word. I like this one, “conclusively shows”, really?,  beyond a shadow of a doubt it “conclusively shows”? Or “does not support”, ok, but on the surface, this might seem ok, it is a real weasel phrase. Lots of things don’t support a hypothesis, dirt on my shoe does not support my hypothesis that the ozone of the earth is depleting. Nope, no it does not, so what? There are a lot of things that don’t support things. “Refuts the possibility”, oh, this is reserved when you have a real ax to grind, with a colleague. This is not only wrong, it is impossible to ever be right! When you see phrases like this, I want you to think of me, using my most sarcastic tone, and going, “really?” So read these things and think about them.” ref

I don’t believe as him, though, we know that I am a rationalist but a skeptic, soooo. Lol

He states any archaeology or science that states “proves” etc. Can never be true because science doesn’t prove things it only tries to disprove. And to me, there is so much wrong in what was stated, I will start by only offering one: his argument of “disprove”, is to “prove” it is not accurate or relatable to the claim.

I hear over and over again that there is no “scientific proof” only “science evidence or facts.” But a fact: is a thing that is known or proven to be true. And evidence: is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. ref, ref

“A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. The concept applies in a variety of disciplines, with both the nature of the evidence or justification and the criteria for sufficiency being area-dependent. In some areas of epistemology and theology, the notion of justification plays approximately the role of proof, while in jurisprudence the corresponding term is evidence, with “burden of proof” as a concept common to both philosophy and law. In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something. Evidence is drawn from the experience of the world around us, with science obtaining its evidence from nature. Exactly what evidence is sufficient to prove something is also strongly area-dependent, usually with no absolute threshold of sufficiency at which evidence becomes proof.” ref

Many seem unaware that science involves philosophy, but most science communications don’t fully explain the philosophy in science. And even when they are somewhat explained, it is likely limited, and thus can add some confusion.

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. The philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic, and semantic aspects of science. Ethical issues such as bioethics and scientific misconduct are often considered ethics or science studies rather than the philosophy of science. There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy itself.” ref

“The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.”

So “proof” in such an agreement is a “sufficient amount of warrant.”

Moore’s Proof of an External World: Responding to External World Skepticism

“Most people who first encounter Moore’s Proof typically think that it’s a total failure. As we’ve seen, it’s not clear why or even whether it is a failure. External world skepticism is the view that we cannot know anything about the external world: we can’t know that we have hands, that there are other people, or, in general, know that anything external to our minds exists. Such skeptics commonly argue that we can’t refute skeptical hypotheses—such as that everything is a projection of our own minds—and that since we can’t do that, we can’t know that we have hands or much else. British philosopher G. E. Moore (in)famously purported to refute external world skepticism with what’s known as Moore’s Proof: he held out his hands during a lecture and said “Here is one hand” and “here is another”, claiming to prove that there is an external world on that basis. While philosophers tend not to think that Moore’s Proof refutes skepticism, it is hard to explain why.” ref

“Proof, in logic, is an argument that establishes the validity of a proposition. Although proofs may be based on inductive logic, in general, the term proof connotes a rigorous deduction.”

Proving a Negative (Negative proof or “disproof”)

“A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim.”

The concept of evidence is crucial to epistemology and the philosophy of science. In epistemology, evidence is often taken to be relevant to justified belief, where the latter, in turn, is typically thought to be necessary for knowledge.”

Facts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
“Facts may explain actions and mental states and the view that facts are what we know. Facts are also invoked in the philosophy of mind by philosophers who claim that judgments or beliefs enjoy the property of intentionality, of being “directed towards” something, because they represent states of affairs or are psychological relations to states of affairs and that judgments and beliefs are correct or satisfied only if states of affairs obtain, that is, if facts exist.”

Evolution: Fact and Theory

The National Center for Science Education: “Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.”

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work
The National Center for Science Education: “In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.”,modified%20or%20even%20discarded%20tomorrow


“This sentence contains words” accurately describes a linguistic fact, and “The sun is a star” accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further, “Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States” and “Abraham Lincoln was assassinated” both accurately describe historical facts. In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge, called epistemology and ontology, which studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A fact can be defined as something that is the case, in other words, a state of affairs.”

Is it scientifically “True” that a stone tool is actually made of stone? Would it not be scientifically “True” that its substance is a kind of stone? I would say yes these very basic things are unchangeable, right? A stone tool scientifically proven to be flint will always be.

Has not science and experimental archaeology conclusively determined/proven “True” most/many stone tools have been “Knapped“, the shaping of flint, chert, obsidian, or other fracturing stone through the process of lithic reduction to manufacture stone tools? What would it take to prove all that thinking was wrong?

I say it is an unchangeable “truth” and its truth status would only be in jeopardy upon lots of extraordinary proof otherwise because the standard claim of stone tools has been “Knapped” with all the facts known and evidence in its support making its claim non-extraordinary.

However, to show that the standard “Truth” claim of stone tools has been “Knapped” is in complete error, “the alternative claim”, that no stone tools have ever been “Knapped”, would hold the status of an extraordinary claim, thus requiring extraordinary proof to be considered, right?  

May reason and evidence guide you?

I strive to let evidence and reason guide me, thus if the status of evidence, for or against any claim, I would take it into consideration, and if soundly warranted I would amend beliefs to this changed status. Even a believed reasoned speculation could be wrong, in error someway, need some reworking, or complete relinquishment as a belief.

I hear some people say, “DNA science is too new so its interpretations will come clearer in 5 to 10 years.”
I think, so you would be against solving crimes with DNA? Or are you against letting convicts free currently, so its interpretations will come clearer in 5 to 10 years?

“In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are.”

Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted. Within the philosophy of science, this view is often an answer to the question “how is the success of science to be explained?” The discussion on the success of science in this context centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories. Scientific realism involves two basic positions: First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce. Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains. It is important to note that one might be a scientific realist regarding some sciences while not being a realist regarding others.”

“In the philosophy of science, structuralism “structural realism” (also known as scientific structuralism or as the structuralistic theory-concept) asserts that all aspects of reality are best understood in terms of empirical scientific constructs of entities and their relations, rather than in terms of concrete entities in themselves.”

“In the philosophy of science, constructive empiricism is a form of empiricism. While it is sometimes referred to as an empiricist form of structuralism, its main proponent, Bas van Fraassen, has consistently distinguished between the two views. Constructive empiricism states that scientific theories are semantically literal, that they aim to be empirically adequate, and that their acceptance involves, as belief, only that they are empirically adequate. A theory is empirically adequate if and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true (regardless of what it says about unobservable entities). A theory is semantically literal if and only if the language of the theory is interpreted in such a way that the claims of the theory are either true or false (as opposed to an instrumentalist reading). Constructive empiricism is thus a normative, semantic, and epistemological thesis. That science aims to be empirically adequate expresses the normative component. That scientific theories are semantically literal expresses the semantic component. That acceptance involves, as belief, only that a theory is empirically adequate expresses the epistemological component.”

“In the philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting phenomena. According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature’s unobservable objects, properties, or processes. A scientific theory is merely a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by formulating laws, which state or summarize regularities, while theories themselves do not reveal supposedly hidden aspects of nature that somehow explain these laws.”

Relativism is the claim that standards of truth, rationality, and ethical right and wrong vary greatly between cultures and historical epochs and that there are no universal criteria for adjudicating between them. The disappearance of old certainties in both the religious and scientific arena, the breakdown of traditional ethical frameworks, and an increasing awareness of social and cultural diversity across different societies have contributed to the popularity of relativism today. Philosophical considerations arising out of skepticism about the possibility of objective knowledge have also fueled the traditional and postmodernist debates on relativism.”

“Strong social constructivism as a philosophical approach tends to suggest that “the natural world has a small or non-existent role in the construction of scientific knowledge”. One characteristic of social constructivism is that it rejects the role of superhuman necessity in either the invention/discovery of knowledge or its justification. In the field of invention, it looks to contingency as playing an important part in the origin of knowledge, with historical interests and resourcing swaying the direction of mathematical and scientific knowledge growth. In the area of justification, while acknowledging the role of logic and reason in testing, it also accepts that the criteria for acceptance vary and change over time. Thus mathematical proofs follow different standards in the present and throughout different periods in the past, as Paul Ernest argues.”,work%20together%20to%20construct%20artifacts

“History and philosophy have shown that the idea of a singular scientific method is, well, unscientific. In point of fact, the methods of science have varied between disciplines and across time.”

“Science does arrive at what we can call functional truth, that is, when it focuses on what something does as opposed to what something is.”

“In this website Berkeley.Edu, we talk about ​​science providing us with “accurate” and “reliable” explanations.”

“Many people, including many philosophers, find it natural to think of truth as correspondence to reality.” (Also known as: Correspondence Theory of Truth)

“Scientific truth is based on facts. Philosophy, religion, feelings, and prejudice have nothing to do with science. Only facts matter. Verified, reproducible facts are the bedrock of scientific truth. The facts are used to construct theories which describe the detailed relations among large numbers of facts and their origin from common roots. Each element of a theory corresponds to some part of nature and, in this sense, scientific theories describe nature.”


“For logical, semantic, and systemic claims there are methods to determine their truth.  It is with regard to the empirical claims about the universe, events, and properties of it that is the main concern of the theories about Truth.”

Archaeology is science and science does not produce truth?

What? Has not archaeology science conclusively proven that not only humans, but other members of the Homo lineage produced stone tools? I would say yes, in fact, I see it is an absolute archaeology truth!

Can a fact be changed to a non-fact? So are science facts tentative and thus not absolute like science thinks truths or proof is? And if a fact is demonstrated to be a non-fact is it not proven to be so and is that now the new truth status whether or not a claim of truth is made?

“Aside from the fact (the true fact) that fact has been able to denote something either false or true for most of the time it has been in the English language, there is another possible argument to be made in favor of this more liberal definition.”

“Facts are the objects of certain mental states and acts, they make truth-bearers true and correspond to truths, they are part of the furniture of the world.”

“Facts make propositions true. Facts, then, are perhaps qualified to play the role of what makes judgments correct and propositions true.”

“The founder of modern semantics has almost no use for the category of facts understood as anything other than true thoughts or for the category of states of affairs.”

Science uses the term Theory in a way often different from the general public and accepts that there are different ways to use the term Theory but don’t want to use the term Truth because there are different ways to use the term Truth. All understanding or claims of facts and Truth should be updated, amended, or changed when there is valid and reliable reason to do so.

“SCIENCE: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method.”

What Is a Theory?

“In everyday use, the word “theory” often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses, and facts.”

“Karl Popper, philosopher of science and proponent of falsification, proclaimed that scientific truths are deduced from statements and justified by means of deliberation and intersubjective scientific consensus.”

As a methodological rationalist, I connect with “fallibilism as the notion that knowledge might turn out to be false. Furthermore, fallibilism is said to imply the principle that propositions are open to revision.”

I read the Bible twice, once King James’ version and the other was the NIV, and years later I realized the conclusion that God had walked away from the truth. Learning science, critical thinking, devil mythology, and archeology facts I realized that I was no longer a believer. I started as an atheist (2006) that believed ghosts may be real, and an atheist afterlife too, but I tested my old beliefs and they failed. I don’t believe any of that now. No ghosts, no gods, and no afterlife. We only have now and why I want to help make a positive impact.

We light a candle in our mind when we let reason be our master because reason requires its user to change to what is reasoned over what may be preferred. Follow an “ethics of belief” and don’t “believe what you like” but rather what is justified soundly, thus let “Reason” be your master, and may you master “Reason.”

Nothing is a justified true belief without valid or reliable reason and evidence; just as everything believed must be open to question, leaving nothing above challenge. The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge. In fact, to me, scientific truth is only rightly labeled as such if it is not limited to one person, just as a confirmed/proven scientific law or scientific theory takes the work of many so too does any substantiated claim of “scientific truth.”  

Scientific law?

Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physicschemistryastronomygeosciencebiology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.” ref

Scientific theory?

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains “why” or “how”: a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts.” ref 

Science is a Trustable Methodology, whereas Faith is not Trustable at all!

One should be inspired by science and appalled by faith which then would lead one to the conclusion of atheism or not believing things on faith and only forming beliefs from the known facts of science. 

If your ideas can’t withstand an educated mind, then likely your ideas are intellectually blind. Faith is not a substance with which to judge the truth or falsehood of a reality claim, faith is not evidence of reality things, it’s a mental attitude. So, bringing up trust, faith (trust to you) when one is asserting a reality thing without evidence is to offer a lie. So, faith or trust can be at 100% and yet 100% wrong. Think there are millions of people of different faiths all believing with the same absurdity of assurance that they and only they are right due to faith. But then you see the trust/faith dilemma you can’t determine who is wrong or right by a proclamation of faith because faith is strong belief without evidence or contrary to evidence it is not a valid test of testing reality or making valid claims about it.

If you are a faitheist, don’t forget that faith lacks epistemic humility and doesn’t see its self as potentially wrong nor can it welcome correction or thoughtful reevaluation as it is commonly a form of trusting what is set to be believed or accepting what is thought needed to believe on a hope it is true. Faith is a thinkers folly as a method of trying to know or confirm what can be known is not a rational nor a sound justification to believe anything as well as faith wrongly inspires undue confidence in what is a proposed belief and thus it is irrational and unwarranted as well as commonly inspires lacking any openness that it could be wrong, like that in the healthy persuasion of fallibilism and neither does it welcome a reasoned ethics of belief nor sound epistemic humility.

“Reasonable fallibilism welcomes a reasoned ethics of belief as well as sound epistemic humility in beliefs and is the philosophical doctrine that absolute certainty about knowledge rather impossible, or at least that all claims to knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken or upon reevaluation need to be amended or removed. Unlike the general thinking of philosophic skepticism like that true knowledge is by definition uncertain, reasonable fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our ability to reach knowledge, but that knowledge can be revised by further observation, and a need to hold epistemic humility understanding that any of the things we take as knowledge at present might later possibly turn out to be false and thus require amending or changing completely.” ref

“Epistemic itself roughly means is about a relating to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it.” ref

“In the philosophy of science, epistemic humility is a virtue that emerges from the recognition of the fragility of epistemic confidence (fallibilism) and refers to a posture of scientific observation (Evidentialism) rooted in the recognition that (a) knowledge of the world is always interpreted, structured, and filtered by the observer, and that, as such, (b) scientific pronouncements must be built on the recognition of observation’s inability to grasp the world in itself.” ref

Evidentialism’s epistemic justification contents a dependent upon evidence holding that one is only justified to believe something if and only if that person has evidence which supports the proposed belief implying as well that all faith-based beliefs are unjustified. ref

Some people say that science is not about truth, which may make one wonder, is there scientific truth? Yes, there are truths in science or truths found or figured out by science, and sometimes it is more established then others! Is there evidence that is not true, or fact not held as also true? Both saying the term evidence and fact is to announce a truth claim. ref

Likewise, to profess knowing something is to offer a truth claim. Some people say science does not have absolute truth which I would call something different, “epistemically certain truth”, “epistemically certain facts”, or “epistemically certain knowledge” about observables and not always so for nonobservables that rely on scientific inferences. It is the second that must stay open for doubt to some amount or another commonly not the first kind and the one being referred to what it is said science is not about truth rather in this instance science is a relationship of educated inference guesses of investigated things or that science is a rational methodological set of inferences with the evidence about things they are investigating.

Many science supporters talk about science providing us with “accurate” and “reliable” evidence, facts, explanations and thus knowledge. Even though science is often characterized as such, science, generally, is not thought of or describe as a search for truth even though it is “accurate” that most scientists strive to build knowledge about the natural world that is “reliable” evidence, facts, explanations corresponds to the way the world really works (correspondence theory of truth). Science does try to build true knowledge of how the world works, but it is not philosophy and thus they tend to avoid what people call “the truth” as truth is a value judgment and what makes this judgment seem valid hold different meanings in the various way’s truth can be established. ref

Truth is a main subject of contention even in philosophy and the problems with it are many, starting with what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. Whether there are problems of truth and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the overarching thinking on a common theory of truth. Basically, the common truth approach science ascribes to in trying to know the truths about the natural world is idea of the correspondence theory which roughly is that what is believed or say to be true should correspond to the way things actually are thus to the facts available. This idea can be seen in various forms throughout the history of philosophy. ref

Faith in gods is evidence devoid uneducated guessing while scientific inference if evidence supported educated guessing. “An inference is an idea or conclusion that’s drawn from evidence and reasoning. An inference is an educated guess. We learn about some things by experiencing them first-hand, but we gain other knowledge by inference thus the process of inferring things based on what is already known.” ref

There in importance in grasping the epistemic significance of valid inference. ” what The traditional picture of logic takes it for granted that valid arguments have a fundamental epistemic significance but lack an account of this significance. Thus, there arises a area of some confusion to explain how and why we can nevertheless use them sometimes to acquire knowledge. how It is suggested that we should distinguish between arguments and acts of inferences and that we have to reconsider the latter notion to arrive at the desired explanation. More precisely, the notions (belief) should be developed so that the following relationship holds: one gets in possession of a ground for a conclusion by inferring it from premisses (related to the know) for which one already has grounds (to know in a correspondence theory of truth way), provided that the inference in question is valid. why Explications of the concepts of the ground and deductively valid inference so that this relationship holds as a conceptual truth. Logical validity of inference is seen as a special case of deductive validity but does not add anything as far as epistemic significance is concerned—it resides already in the deductively valid inferences.” ref

Deductive validity describes arguments that are both factual and logical. Any argument that doesn’t have facts that are actually true or that are not logically sound will not pass the test as a good argument. It is important to be able to determine whether or not an argument is valid because invalid arguments are bad and should not be accepted. ref

When assessing the quality of an argument, ponder how well its premises support its conclusion and whether the argument is either deductively valid or inductively strong. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said also to be sound. The difference between deductive and inductive arguments does not lie in the words used within the arguments, but rather in the intentions of the arguer. It comes from the relationship the arguer takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, then the argument is deductive. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises provides only good reasons to believe the conclusion is probably true, then the argument is inductive.

Although inductive strength is a matter of degree, deductive validity and deductive soundness are not. In this sense, deductive reasoning is much more cut and dried than inductive reasoning. Nevertheless, inductive strength is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of whether the premise ought to promote a higher degree of belief in the conclusion. It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts define “deduction” as reasoning from the general to specific and define “induction” as reasoning from the specific to the general. However, there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form. As noted, the distinction between deductive and inductive has to do with the strength of the justification that the arguer intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. ref

If one’s process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises (something assumed supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference) actually do provide this sort of justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid.

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. A valid argument may still have a false conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only valid but begins with premises that are actually true. It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. ref

Inductive takes specific patterns, trends, examples, trials, or repeated observations for reasoning to make broad generalizing then extrapolate to form a conjecture kind of conclusion drawn from data such as a mathematical theory or generalization. Or conclusions derived from the bottom up. From the specific instance to a generalizing. Relates to the thinking style of empiricism. It can be said that inductively reasoned conclusions tend to relate to probabilities. Thus, it holds a probability of being true or it can be inferred as true. Inductive research tends to begin with observation to collect, understand, or perceive a pattern to generate a hypothesis then from there to a theory. Inductive reasoning may not always produce a true conclusion, but it can provide a hypothesis to investigate and then use deductively valid reasoning to apply the hypothesis to then answer the proposed questions.

Deductive set of data, axioms/postulations statements that are true without needing proof, logic, theorems/fact statements that must be proven to be true, or facts reasoning and deducing other facts from those facts. As well as to form a set of logical arguments that lead to a conclusion. Or conclusions derived from the top down. From a generalizing to the specific instance. So, it roughly states with a general statement, theory, or hypothesis. It relates to the thinking style of rationalism. It can be said that deductively reasoned conclusions tend to relate to certainties. It works its way down to a specific conclusion based on the evidence. Deductive research tends to begin with a theory to generate a hypothesis that must be correct which then guides the logical collection or observation leading to analysis and confirmation. Then there also is abductive reasoning commonly takes incomplete sets of observations to come to the likeliest available explanation used for making and testing a hypothesis from whatever information is available. These explanations are an over-generalization of these useful ideas but still helpful to understand them. ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Thus, there is a need to grasp just how scientists make reasonable inferences. “Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly. The ability to gather and evaluate evidence is central to scientific inquiry, especially when scientists investigate things that are not directly observable. For example, scientists cannot see dinosaurs, the bottom of the ocean, or atoms and molecules. Still, scientists want to know more about these things, so they gather evidence about them in other ways. For example, they make observations of fossil dinosaur droppings or measure the amount of time it takes sound to travel to the bottom of the ocean. Although atoms and molecules are too small to see, scientists use very powerful microscopes to gather evidence about them. Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating.” ref

“For example, when scientists figure out what is in a fossil dinosaur dropping, they can then make inferences about what the dinosaur ate when it was alive. They are not observing the dinosaur eating—they are using evidence to make an inference. Similarly, by measuring the amount of time it takes for sound to travel to the ocean floor, scientists are able to make inferences about how deep the ocean is and what the ocean floor is like. Over time, scientists gather more evidence and become more and more sure of the inferences they have made. Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One-way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable. For example, scientists cannot directly observe an extinct organism or the surface of a faraway planet. In these instances, scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking to emerge.” ref

Most people that think science is not at all about truth seem likely to be missing a reasonable understanding of the word truth in relation to science which is roughly that a proposed thing, claim or idea accurately maps with some fact or demonstratable part of reality and how this conception of truth has a relationship with the epistemic knowledge of science. “A study was to develop and validate an online contextualized test for assessing students’ understanding of epistemic knowledge of science. In addition, how students’ understanding of epistemic knowledge of science interacts with learner factors, including time spent on science learning, interest, self-efficacy, and gender, was also explored. The results of this study show that; (1) by factor analysis, the six factors of epistemic knowledge of science could be grouped into two dimensions which reflect the nature of scientific knowledge and knowing in science, respectively; (2) there was a gender difference in the participants’ understanding of the epistemic knowledge of science; and (3) students’ interest in science learning and the time spent on science learning were positively correlated to their understanding of the epistemic knowledge of science which has an epistemic value.” ref

“Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding. These kinds of cognitive success do of course often have practical value. True beliefs about local geography help us get to work on time; knowledge of mechanics allows us to build vehicles; understanding of general annual weather patterns helps us to plant our fields at the right time of year to ensure a good harvest. By contrast, false beliefs about the existence of weapons of mass destruction can lead nations to fight hugely expensive wars that are ultimately both destructive and useless. It is fairly uncontroversial that we tend to care about having various cognitive or epistemic goods, at least for their practical value, and perhaps also for their own sakes as cognitive successes. But this uncontroversial point raises a number of important questions. For example: it’s natural to wonder whether there really are all these different kinds of things (true beliefs, knowledge, and so on) which have a distinct value from an epistemic point of view, or whether the value of some of them is reducible to, or depends on, the value of others.” ref

“It’s also natural to think that knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief, but it has proven to be no easy task explaining where the extra value of knowledge comes from. Similarly, it’s natural to think that understanding is more valuable than any other epistemic state which falls short of understanding, such as true belief or knowledge. But there is disagreement about what makes understanding the highest epistemic value, or what makes it distinctly valuable, or even whether it is distinctly valuable. Indeed, it’s no easy task saying just what makes something an epistemic value in the first place. Do epistemic values just exist on their own, independent of other kinds of value? Or are cognitive goods valuable because we care about having them for their own sakes? Or are they are valuable because they help us to achieve other things which we care about for their own sakes? Furthermore, if we accept that there are things which are epistemically valuable, then we might be tempted to accept what is sometimes called the instrumental (or consequentialist, or teleological) conception of epistemic rationality or justification, which is the view that a belief is epistemically rational just in case it appropriately promotes the achievement of an epistemic goal. If this idea is correct, then we need to know which epistemic values to include in the formulation of the epistemic goal, where the “epistemic goal” is an epistemically valuable goal in light of which we evaluate beliefs as epistemically rational or irrational.” ref

“Being an epistemically virtuous person is often equated with being a critical thinker and focuses on the human agent and the kind of practices that make it possible to arrive at the best accessible approximation of the truth. The epistemic virtues, as identified by virtue epistemologists, reflect their contention that belief is an ethical process, and thus susceptible to the intellectual virtue or vice of one’s own life and personal experiences. Epistemic virtues include the following: attentiveness, conscientiousness, creativity, curiosity, deep thinking, discernment, honesty, humility, intellectual honesty, objectivity, open-mindedness, the principle of charity, studiousness, understanding, wisdom. These can be contrasted to the epistemic vices such as: closed-mindedness, dogmatism, epistemic blindness, gullibility, intellectual dishonesty, self-deception, shallow thinking, the superficiality of thought, superstition, willful naïveté, wishful thinking.” ref  

Marquis Amon – Faith is a paradox. It literally says something is true if I believe it to be true. The problem and paradox are this thinking can only work in subjective confines. Incidentally, reality is objective. How do I know that, the tested scientific method. The fact that I do not know what your response will be to me if any, having no control over what you may type or who else will reply is but one example of objective reality. If my faith was real, I could say you will reply about dancing monkeys and then you would reply with it. lol Epistemic humility is indeed a virtue, something we have shown each other many times. I think it would be best described by you as “good belief etiquette which is good belief acquisition based on evidence and logic, good belief maintenance which is being open to new evidence and ideas. And lastly, good belief relinquishment which is being willing to amend your beliefs based on new evidence. You asked the question is science the search for truth? To me, the answer is yes and no. In execution, you have a hypothesis and you experiment to see if that hypothesis is true. You rinse and repeat this process as necessary. Sometimes you answer one question that leads to another. In this sense, to me, it is clearly. However, science is also a tool that we use to interact with reality. Instead of searching for truth, we use what we know and apply it in reality, and refine it. It has a distinctly corporeal purpose in a sense. We are using what we know to achieve various objectives.
You also talk about inductive and deductive reasoning. I think it is related to the coherence of truth theory with inductive reasoning being subjective based while deductive reasoning being evidence-based. To clarify the weight of inductive reasoning should be based on the preponderance of evidence and not faith. A conjecture is fine under the circumstances of insufficient/inconclusive evidence that is based on sound reasoning. Does atheism follow the scientific method? Yes. What many don’t understand it is that it is a conclusion based on all available evidence and claims. The determination is that they are false. No one really believes the world is flat, well they shouldn’t… So why believe in this god nothing? – Marquis Amon

Scientific Realism

Debates about Scientific Realism are closely connected to almost everything else in the philosophy of science, for they concern the very nature of scientific knowledge. Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude toward the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences. This epistemic attitude has important metaphysical and semantic dimensions, and these various commitments are contested by a number of rival epistemologies of science, known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism.” ref

Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted. Within philosophy of science, this view is often an answer to the question “how is the success of science to be explained?” The discussion on the success of science in this context centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories. Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make valid claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables, as opposed to instrumentalism.” ref

“Scientific realism involves two basic positions. First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce. Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains. It is important to note that one might be a scientific realist regarding some sciences while not being a realist regarding others.” ref

According to scientific realism, an ideal scientific theory has the following features:

  • The claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly described by the theory. This is the semantic commitment of scientific realism.
  • The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently. This is the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism.
  • There are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the theory says. This is the epistemological commitment.” ref

“Combining the first and the second claim entails that an ideal scientific theory says definite things about genuinely existing entities. The third claim says that we have reasons to believe that many scientific claims about these entities are true, but not all. Scientific realism usually holds that science makes progress, i.e. scientific theories usually get successively better, or, rather, answer more and more questions. For this reason, scientific realists or otherwise, hold that realism should make sense of the progress of science in terms of theories being successively more like the ideal theory that scientific realists describe.” ref

“The following claims are typical of those held by scientific realists. Due to the wide disagreements over the nature of science’s success and the role of realism in its success, a scientific realist would agree with some but not all of the following positions:

  • The best scientific theories are at least partially true.
  • The best theories do not employ central terms that are non referring expressions.
  • To say that a theory is approximately true is sufficient explanation of the degree of its predictive success.
  • The approximate truth of a theory is the only explanation of its predictive success.
  • Even if a theory employs expressions that do not have a reference, a scientific theory may be approximately true.
  • Scientific theories are in a historical process of progress towards a true account of the physical world.
  • Scientific theories make genuine, existential claims.
  • Theoretical claims of scientific theories should be read literally and are definitively either true or false.
  • The degree of the predictive success of a theory is evidence of the referential success of its central terms.
  • The goal of science is an account of the physical world that is literally true. Science has been successful because this is the goal that it has been making progress towards.” ref

Scientific Realism: “No miracles argument”

“One of the main arguments for scientific realism centers on the notion that scientific knowledge is progressive in nature, and that it is able to predict phenomena successfully. Many scientific realists (e.g., Ernan McMullin, Richard Boyd) think the operational success of a theory lends credence to the idea that its more unobservable aspects exist, because they were how the theory reasoned its predictions. For example, a scientific realist would argue that science must derive some ontological support for atoms from the outstanding phenomenological success of all the theories using them.” ref

“Arguments for scientific realism often appeal to abductive reasoning or “inference to the best explanation” (Lipton, 2004). For instance, one argument commonly used—the “miracle argument” or “no miracles argument”—starts out by observing that scientific theories are highly successful in predicting and explaining a variety of phenomena, often with great accuracy. Thus, it is argued that the best explanation—the only explanation that renders the success of science to not be what Hilary Putnam calls “a miracle”—is the view that our scientific theories (or at least the best ones) provide true descriptions of the world, or approximately so.” ref

Bas van Fraassen replies with an evolutionary analogy: “I claim that the success of current scientific theories is no miracle. It is not even surprising to the scientific (Darwinist) mind. For any scientific theory is born into a life of fierce competition, a jungle red in tooth and claw. Only the successful theories survive—the ones which in fact latched on to actual regularities in nature.” (The Scientific Image, 1980). Some philosophers (e.g. Colin Howson) have argued that the no miracles argument commits the base rate fallacy.” ref

Pessimistic induction, one of the main arguments against realism, argues that the history of science contains many theories once regarded as empirically successful but which are now believed to be false. Additionally, the history of science contains many empirically successful theories whose unobservable terms are not believed to genuinely refer. For example, the effluvium theory of static electricity (a theory of the 16th Century physicist William Gilbert) is an empirically successful theory whose central unobservable terms have been replaced by later theories.” ref

“Realists reply that replacement of particular realist theories with better ones is to be expected due to the progressive nature of scientific knowledge, and when such replacements occur only superfluous unobservables are dropped. For example, Albert Einstein‘s theory of special relativity showed that the concept of the luminiferous ether could be dropped because it had contributed nothing to the success of the theories of mechanics and electromagnetism. On the other hand, when theory replacement occurs, a well-supported concept, such as the concept of atoms, is not dropped but is incorporated into the new theory in some form. These replies can lead scientific realists to structural realism.” ref

Science and Pseudo-Science

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is part of the larger task of determining which beliefs are epistemically warranted. This entry clarifies the specific nature of pseudoscience in relation to other categories of non-scientific doctrines and practices, including science denial(ism) and resistance to the facts. The major proposed demarcation criteria for pseudo-science are discussed and some of their weaknesses are pointed out. There is much more agreement on particular cases of demarcation than on the general criteria that such judgments should be based upon.” ref

Demarcations of science from pseudoscience can be made for both theoretical and practical reasons (Mahner 2007, 516). From a theoretical point of view, the demarcation issue is an illuminating perspective that contributes to the philosophy of science in much the same way that the study of fallacies contributes to our knowledge of informal logic and rational argumentation. From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and public life. Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide range of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas. The demarcation issue is therefore important in practical applications such as the following:

  • Climate policy: The scientific consensus on ongoing anthropogenic climate change leaves no room for reasonable doubt (Cook et al. 2016; Powell 2019). Science denial has considerably delayed climate action, and it is still one of the major factors that impede efficient measures to reduce climate change (Oreskes and Conway 2010; Lewandowsky et al. 2019). Decision-makers and the public need to know how to distinguish between competent climate science and science-mimicking disinformation on the climate.

  • Environmental policies: In order to be on the safe side against potential disasters it may be legitimate to take preventive measures when there is valid but yet insufficient evidence of an environmental hazard. This must be distinguished from taking measures against an alleged hazard for which there is no valid evidence at all. Therefore, decision-makers in environmental policy must be able to distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific claims.

  • Healthcare: Medical science develops and evaluates treatments according to evidence of their effectiveness and safety. Pseudoscientific activities in this area give rise to ineffective and sometimes dangerous interventions. Healthcare providers, insurers, government authorities and – most importantly – patients need guidance on how to distinguish between medical science and medical pseudoscience.

  • Expert testimony: It is essential for the rule of law that courts get the facts right. The reliability of different types of evidence must be correctly determined, and expert testimony must be based on the best available knowledge. Sometimes it is in the interest of litigants to present non-scientific claims as solid science. Therefore courts must be able to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Philosophers have often had prominent roles in the defence of science against pseudoscience in such contexts. (Pennock 2011)

  • Science education: The promoters of some pseudosciences (notably creationism) try to introduce their teachings in school curricula. Teachers and school authorities need to have clear criteria of inclusion that protect students against unreliable and disproved teachings.

  • Journalism: When there is scientific uncertainty, or relevant disagreement in the scientific community, this should be covered and explained in media reports on the issues in question. Equally importantly, differences of opinion between on the one hand legitimate scientific experts and on the other hand proponents of scientifically unsubstantiated claims should be described as what they are. Public understanding of topics such as climate change and vaccination has been considerably hampered by organised campaigns that succeeded in making media portray standpoints that have been thoroughly disproved in science as legitimate scientific standpoints (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004; Boykoff 2008). The media need tools and practices to distinguish between legitimate scientific controversies and attempts to peddle pseudoscientific claims as science.” ref

“Attempts to define what we today call science have a long history, and the roots of the demarcation problem have sometimes been traced back to Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics (Laudan 1983). Cicero’s arguments for dismissing certain methods of divination in his De divinatione has considerable similarities with modern criteria for the demarcation of science (Fernandez-Beanato 2020). However, it was not until the 20th century that influential definitions of science have contrasted it against pseudoscience. Philosophical work on the demarcation problem seems to have waned after Laudan’s (1983) much-noted death certificate according to which there is no hope of finding a necessary and sufficient criterion of something as heterogeneous as a scientific methodology. In more recent years, the problem has been revitalized. Philosophers attesting to its vitality maintain that the concept can be clarified by other means than necessary and sufficient criteria (Pigliucci 2013; Mahner 2013) or that such a definition is indeed possible although it has to be supplemented with discipline-specific criteria in order to become fully operative (Hansson 2013).” ref

The Unity of Science

The topic of unity in the sciences can be explored through the following questions: Is there one privileged, most basic or fundamental concept or kind of thing, and if not, how are the different concepts or kinds of things in the universe related? Can the various natural sciences (e.g.,physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology) be unified into a single overarching theory, and can theories within a single science (e.g., general relativity and quantum theory in physics, or models of evolution and development in biology) be unified? Are theories or models the relevant connected units? What other connected or connecting units are there? Does the unification of these parts of science involve only matters of fact or are matters of value involved as well? What about matters of method, material, institutional, ethical and other aspects of intellectual cooperation? Moreover, what kinds of unity, not just units, in the sciences are there? And is the relation of unification one of reduction, translation, explanation, logical inference, collaboration, or something else? What roles can unification play in scientific practices, their development, application, and evaluation?” ref

“The historical introductory sections have aimed to show the intellectual centrality, varying formulations, and significance of the concept of unity. The rest of the entry presents a variety of modern themes and views. It will be helpful to introduce a number of broad categories and distinctions that can sort out different kinds of accounts and track some relations between them as well as additional significant philosophical issues. (The categories are not mutually exclusive, and they sometimes partly overlap; therefore; while they help label and characterize different positions, they cannot provide a simple, easy and neatly ordered conceptual map.)” ref

“Connective unity is a weaker notion than the specific ideal of reductive unity; this requires asymmetric relations of reduction, with assumptions about hierarchies of levels of description and the primacy—conceptual, ontological, epistemological, and so on—of a fundamental representation. The category of connective unity helps accommodate and bring attention to the diversity of non-reductive accounts.” ref

“Another useful distinction is between synchronic and diachronic unity. Synchronic accounts are ahistorical, assuming no meaningful temporal relations. Diachronic accounts, by contrast, introduce genealogical hypotheses involving asymmetric temporal and causal relations between entities or states of the systems described. Evolutionary models are of this kind; they may be reductive to the extent that the posited original entities are simpler and on a lower level of organization and size. Others simply emphasize connection without overall directionality.” ref

“In general, it is useful to distinguish between ontological unity and epistemological unity, even if many accounts bear both characteristics and fall under both rubrics. In some cases, one kind supports the other salient kind in the model. Ontological unity is here broadly understood as involving relations between descriptive conceptual elements; in some cases, the concepts will describe entities, facts, properties, or relations, and descriptive models will focus on metaphysical aspects of the unifying connections such as holism, emergence, or downwards causation. Epistemological unity applies to epistemic relations or goals such as explanation. Methodological connections and formal (logical, mathematical, etc.) models may belong in this kind. I will not draw any strict or explicit distinction between epistemological and methodological dimensions or modes of unity.” ref

“Additional categories and distinctions include the following: vertical unity or inter-level unity is unity of elements attached to levels of analysis, composition, or organization on a hierarchy, whether for a single science or more, whereas horizontal unity or intra-level unity applies to one single level and to its corresponding kind of system (Wimsatt 2007). Global unity is unity of any other variety with a universal quantifier of all kinds of elements, aspects or descriptions associated with individual sciences as a kind of monism, for instance, taxonomical monism about natural kinds, while local unity applies to a subset (Cartwright has distinguished this same-level global form of reduction, or “imperialism”, in Cartwright 1999; see also Mitchell 2003). Obviously, vertical and horizontal accounts of unity can be either global or local. Finally, the rejection of global unity has been associated with isolationism, keeping independent competing alternative representations of the same phenomena or systems, as well as local integration, the local connective unity of the alternative perspectives. A distinction of methodological nature contrasts internal and external perspectives, according to whether the accounts are based naturalistically, on the local contingent practices of certain scientific communities at a given time, or based on universal metaphysical assumptions broadly motivated (Ruphy 2017). (Ruphy has criticized Cartwright and Dupré for having adopted external metaphysical positions and defended the internal perspective, also present in the program of the so-called Minnesota School, i.e., Kellert et al. 2006.)” ref 

Scientific Progress

Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics, there exist clear standards or normative criteria for identifying improvements and advances in science. For example, the historian of science George Sarton argued that “the acquisition and systematization of positive knowledge are the only human activities which are truly cumulative and progressive,” and “progress has no definite and unquestionable meaning in other fields than the field of science” (Sarton 1936). However, the traditional cumulative view of scientific knowledge was effectively challenged by many philosophers of science in the 1960s and the 1970s, and thereby the notion of progress was also questioned in the field of science. Debates on the normative concept of progress are at the same time concerned with axiological questions about the aims and goals of science. The task of philosophical analysis is to consider alternative answers to the question: What is meant by progress in science? This conceptual question can then be complemented by the methodological question: How can we recognize progressive developments in science? Relative to a definition of progress and an account of its best indicators, one may then study the factual question: To what extent, and in which respects, is science progressive?” ref

“The idea that science is a collective enterprise of researchers in successive generations is characteristic of the Modern Age (Nisbet 1980). Classical empiricists (Francis Bacon) and rationalists (René Descartes) of the seventeenth century urged that the use of proper methods of inquiry guarantees the discovery and justification of new truths. This cumulative view of scientific progress was an important ingredient in the optimism of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and it was incorporated in the 1830s in Auguste Comte’s program of positivism: by accumulating empirically certified truths science also promotes progress in society. Other influential trends in the nineteenth century were the Romantic vision of organic growth in culture, Hegel’s dynamic account of historical change, and the theory of evolution. They all inspired epistemological views (e.g., among Marxists and pragmatists) which regarded human knowledge as a process. Philosopher-scientists with an interest in the history of science (William Whewell, Charles Peirce, Ernst Mach, Pierre Duhem) gave interesting analyses of some aspects of scientific change.” ref

“In the early twentieth century, analytic philosophers of science started to apply modern logic to the study of science. Their main focus was the structure of scientific theories and patterns of inference (Suppe 1977). This “synchronic” investigation of the “finished products” of scientific activities was questioned by philosophers who wished to pay serious attention to the “diachronic” study of scientific change. Among these contributions one can mention N.R. Hanson’s Patterns of Discovery (1958), Karl Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959) and Conjectures and Refutations (1963), Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Paul Feyerabend’s incommensurability thesis (Feyerabend 1962), Imre Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programmes (Lakatos and Musgrave 1970), and Larry Laudan’s Progress and Its Problems (1977). Darwinist models of evolutionary epistemology were advocated by Popper’s Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (1972) and Stephen Toulmin’s Human Understanding (1972). These works challenged the received view about the development of scientific knowledge and rationality. Popper’s falsificationism, Kuhn’s account of scientific revolutions, and Feyerabend’s thesis of meaning variance shared the view that science does not grow simply by accumulating new established truths upon old ones. Except perhaps during periods of Kuhnian normal science, theory change is not cumulative or continuous: the earlier results of science will be rejected, replaced, and reinterpreted by new theories and conceptual frameworks. Popper and Kuhn differed, however, in their definitions of progress: the former appealed to the idea that successive theories may approach towards the truth, while the latter characterized progress in terms of the problem-solving capacity of theories.” ref

“Since the mid-1970s, a great number of philosophical works have been published on the topics of change, development, and progress in science (Harré 1975; Stegmüller 1976; Howson 1976; Rescher 1978; Radnitzky and Andersson 1978, 1979; Niiniluoto and Tuomela 1979; Dilworth 1981; Smith 1981; Hacking 1981; Schäfer 1983; Niiniluoto 1984; Laudan 1984a; Rescher 1984; Pitt 1985; Radnitzky and Bartley 1987; Callebaut and Pinxten 1987; Balzer et al. 1987; Hull 1988; Gavroglu et al. 1989; Kitcher 1993; Pera 1994; Chang 2004; Maxwell 2017). These studies have also led to many important novelties being added to the toolbox of philosophers of science. One of them is the systematic study of inter-theory relations, such as reduction (Balzer et al. 1984; Pearce 1987; Balzer 2000; Jonkisz 2000; Hoyningen-Huene and Sankey 2001), correspondence (Krajewski 1977; Nowak 1980; Pearce and Rantala 1984; Nowakowa and Nowak 2000; Rantala 2002), and belief revision (Gärdenfors, 1988; Aliseda, 2006). Another was the recognition that, besides individual statements and theories, there is also a need to consider temporally developing units of scientific activity and achievement: Kuhn’s paradigm-directed normal science, Lakatos’ research programme, Laudan’s research tradition, Wolfgang Stegmüller’s (1976) dynamic theory evolution, Philip Kitcher’s (1993) consensus practice. A new tool that is employed in many defenses of realist views of scientific progress (Niiniluoto 1980, 2014; Aronson, Harré, and Way 1994; Kuipers 2000, 2019) is the notion of truthlikeness or verisimilitude (Popper 1963, 1970).” ref

“Lively interest about the development of science promoted close co-operation between historians and philosophers of science. For example, case studies of historical examples (e.g., the replacement of Newton’s classical mechanics by quantum theory and theory of relativity) have inspired many philosophical treatments of scientific revolutions. Historical case studies were important for philosophers who started to study scientific discovery (Hanson 1958; Nickles 1980). Historically oriented philosophers have shown how instruments and measurements have promoted the progress of physics and chemistry (Chang 2004). Experimental psychologists have argued that the strive for broad and simple explanations shapes learning and inference (Lombrozo 2016). Further interesting material for philosophical discussions about scientific progress is provided by quantitative approaches in the study of the growth of scientific publications (de Solla Price 1963; Rescher 1978) and science indicators (Elkana et al. 1978). Sociologists of science have studied the dynamic interaction between the scientific community and other social institutions. With their influence, philosophers have analyzed the role social and cultural values in the development of science (Longino 2002). One of the favorite topics of sociologists has been the emergence of new scientific specialties (Mulkay 1975; Niiniluoto 1995b). Sociologists are also concerned with the pragmatic problem of progress: what is the best way of organizing research activities in order to promote scientific advance. In this way, models of scientific change turn out to be relevant to issues of science policy (Böhme 1977; Schäfer 1983).” ref

Scientific Method

“Science is an enormously successful human enterprise. The study of scientific method is the attempt to discern the activities by which that success is achieved. Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories. How these are carried out in detail can vary greatly, but characteristics like these have been looked to as a way of demarcating scientific activity from non-science, where only enterprises which employ some canonical form of scientific method or methods should be considered science (see also the entry on science and pseudo-science). Others have questioned whether there is anything like a fixed toolkit of methods which is common across science and only science. Some reject privileging one view of method as part of rejecting broader views about the nature of science, such as naturalism (Dupré 2004); some reject any restriction in principle (pluralism).” ref

“The Scientific Method should be distinguished from the aims and products of science, such as knowledge, predictions, or control. Methods are the means by which those goals are achieved. Scientific method should also be distinguished from meta-methodology, which includes the values and justifications behind a particular characterization of scientific method (i.e., a methodology) — values such as objectivity, reproducibility, simplicity, or past successes. Methodological rules are proposed to govern method and it is a meta-methodological question whether methods obeying those rules satisfy given values. Finally, method is distinct, to some degree, from the detailed and contextual practices through which methods are implemented. The latter might range over: specific laboratory techniques; mathematical formalisms or other specialized languages used in descriptions and reasoning; technological or other material means; ways of communicating and sharing results, whether with other scientists or with the public at large; or the conventions, habits, enforced customs, and institutional controls over how and what science is carried out.” ref

“While it is important to recognize these distinctions, their boundaries are fuzzy. Hence, accounts of method cannot be entirely divorced from their methodological and meta-methodological motivations or justifications, Moreover, each aspect plays a crucial role in identifying methods. Disputes about method have therefore played out at the detail, rule, and meta-rule levels. Changes in beliefs about the certainty or fallibility of scientific knowledge, for instance (which is a meta-methodological consideration of what we can hope for methods to deliver), have meant different emphases on deductive and inductive reasoning, or on the relative importance attached to reasoning over observation (i.e., differences over particular methods.) Beliefs about the role of science in society will affect the place one gives to values in scientific method.” ref

“The issue which has shaped debates over scientific method the most in the last half century is the question of how pluralist do we need to be about method? Unificationists continue to hold out for one method essential to science; nihilism is a form of radical pluralism, which considers the effectiveness of any methodological prescription to be so context-sensitive as to render it not explanatory on its own. Some middle degree of pluralism regarding the methods embodied in scientific practice seems appropriate. But the details of scientific practice vary with time and place, from institution to institution, across scientists and their subjects of investigation. How significant are the variations for understanding science and its success? How much can method be abstracted from practice? This entry describes some of the attempts to characterize scientific method or methods, as well as arguments for a more context-sensitive approach to methods embedded in actual scientific practices.” ref

“The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.” ref

“Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.” ref

“The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis. Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to a remote mountaintop to CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order. The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out. As in other areas of inquiry, science (through the scientific method) can build on previous knowledge and develop a more sophisticated understanding of its topics of study over time. This model can be seen to underlie the scientific revolution.” ref

“The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, these actions are better considered as general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always done in the same order. As noted by scientist and philosopher William Whewell (1794–1866), “invention, sagacity, [and] genius” are required at every step.” ref

Correctability is a virtue, and one of the shining examples of Correctability as a virtue is science correcting itself and changing to the evidence and what is reasonably valid and reliable as is currently available. And why science is intellectually honest and trustable in its confirmations about facts found in reality, unlike the non-facts that faith beliefs find their home in and which are devoid of the intellectual honesty correctability ensures.

“On paper. Unfortunately, academia has strayed some if the evidence disagrees with certain subjects like origins of civilizations. I’ve been seeing a lot in the way of burying evidence that support a much older timeline, like ancient Egypt for example, or the travels of the Maori people of New Zealand. But at least they try.” – Responder

My response, I don’t know where you got that perception or thinking it sounds like a conspiracy theory. I am friends on LinkedIn with thousands of academic archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians and they are open to sharing facts of prehistory all the time from academic articles or sources. I also use such prehistory facts from academic supported sources to make my blogs on the evolution of religion and the cultures that went with it. Walters, Richard; Buckley, Hallie; Jacomb, Chris; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (7 October 2017).

“Mass Migration and the Polynesian Settlement of New Zealand”. Journal of World Prehistory. 30: 351–376. “Several decades later there is still no convincing direct evidence of humans on the New Zealand landscape any earlier than 1300 AD, although some archaeologists believe that earlier horizons are yet to be found in New Zealand, or are represented in known sites at the low-probability ends of some radiocarbon calibration curves. Claims of indirect evidence of earlier settlement in the form of anthropogenic influences on landscapes remain ephemeral (e.g., Beavan and Sparks 1998; Higham et al. 2004; Holdaway 1996; Wilmshurst and Higham 2004). It is now apparent that sites containing both moa bone as food remains and artifacts of tropical East Polynesian form date no earlier than the first decades of the 14th century and decline by the beginning of the 15th. Unfortunately, this period represents a particularly wiggly portion of the radiocarbon calibration curve, creating regions of ambiguity (Hogg et al. 2013; McFadgen et al. 1994) that make it difficult to resolve sites into a tight chronological sequence.”

“Damien AtHope, unfortunately, many in academic circles in Egypt are devoted to their faith above all and will not pose any idea that suggests any civilization older than 8000 years… Conspiracy in the way that it is actually concerted effort to hide evidence to the contrary accepted academic ideology… Perfectly bored drilled holes in red granite… Foundation stones of the pyramids weighing thousands of tons… The sphinx pointed towards the horizon would make more sense if it were built in the age of Leo which predates ancient Egypt by thousands of years… Museum directors who will stop any research that disagrees with their “school” of thought. All for tenure… Or academic funding for research.” – Responder

My response, Saying you think the sphinx is thousands of years older does not make that belief proof that it is older.

Prehistoric Egypt 40,000 years ago to The First Dynasty 5,150 years ago:

12,000 – 10,000 years old Shamanistic Art in a Remote Cave in Egypt:

Ancient Egypt: Epipaleolithic, Neolithic, and Predynastic from 12,000 to 5,000 years ago:

“I’ll give these a read. Thanks for sharing. I watched a presentation last night on the rivalry between two Napoleonic French academics who were the first to decipher ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs… One was Young of the famous Young double-slit experiment… Apparently, he knew about everything one could possibly know in the early 1800’s… Very interesting man… The name of his rival escapes me at the moment..” – Responder

My response,Here is my blog with a video of me talking with Legesse Allyn is the author of “The Ethiopian Culture of Ancient Egypt.” Legesse Allyn: Writer/Researcher in Ancient Languages and Ancient Scripts:

“What I really find interesting are the megalithic quarries all over the world and places like Gobekli Tepe which is said to predate stone henge… megalithic Quarry China. Polygonal masonry work that obviously has similar tool marks thousands of mile apart done by truly ancient civilizations who should have had no contact with each other and even more impressively quarrying these megalithic multiton stones and fitting them with such a degree of precision it wouldn’t be possible with today’s technology. Time and boredom be damned, I don’t care if we lived a millennia now we could not move these stones.” – Responder

My response,I have several blogs on Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple” around 12,000 years ago:

Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years old T-shaped Pillars are not Alone (not Ancient Aliens):

There is also info on 12,400 – 11,700 Years Ago – Kortik Tepe (Turkey) Pre/early-Agriculture Cultic Ritualism:

Ancient Megaliths: Kurgan, Ziggurat, Pyramid, Menhir, Trilithon, Dolman, Kromlech, and Kromlech of Trilithons:

My response, I have several videos on that as well. An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution:

“Have you seen the “birdman” motif present at Gobekli Tepe as well as in Easter Island? What are your thoughts on Graham Hancock?” – Responder

My response, Graham Hancock is a pseudo-historian using both facts mixed with fallacies and conspiracy theories.

“Graham Bruce Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. Hancock specializes in pseudoscientific theories involving ancient civilizations, Earth changes, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical or astrological data from the past. His works propose a connection with a ‘mother culture’ from which he believes other ancient civilizations sprang. An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer-reviewed nor published in academic journals.”

My response, Proto Religion: Superstition around 1 million years ago, to Pre-Animism & then Animism Religion:

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago):

Animism as in that seen in Africa: 100,000 years ago:

“Totemism” as first seen in Europe: 50,000 years ago:

Shamanism (as seen in Siberia: 30,000 years ago):

Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago):

“Damien AtHope, how do you define conspiracy theory… If it’s by the cia coined term I believe you’re correct but I presume for different reasons… The man was actually on the ground in turkey at Gobekli Tepe… To me that says a lot.” – Responder

My response, “A conspiracy theory is “an intellectual construct”, a “template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events”. Positing that “some small and hidden group” has manipulated events, a conspiracy theory can be local or international, focused on single events or covering multiple incidents and entire countries, regions and periods of history.”

“Damien AtHope, these days The definition is not only accurate, but true. I can bring foia released cia and/or state documents and folks will still cry conspiracy theory… Counterintelligence in the US got a late start compared to a country like China, but had progressed exponentially through the efforts of people like Sydney Gottlieb of MKULTRA fame.” – Responder

My response, “Pseudohistory covers a variety of theories that do not agree with the view of history that is commonly accepted by mainstream historians, which are often not properly researched, peer-reviewed, or supported by the usual historiographical methods. Pseudohistory presents many of the same challenges to mainstream academic history as pseudoscience does to science, but with certain significant differences. The most important difference is that history is an academic discipline, rather than a scientific one. This means that mainstream history is very dependent on a set of shared ethical academic standards and methods, and on peer review. However, supporters of pseudohistorical theories often specifically deny the validity of these mainstream standards and methods, and denounce the peer review process as prejudiced towards the academic establishment, attempting instead to gain popular appeal. This lack of common ground can often make it difficult for mainstream historians to refute the pseudohistorical claims.”

Religion is not about truth, it’s about indoctrinated faith. Do you really believe that even if clear documents demonstrate that Jesus had said he was not god, that they would stop all Belief, not hardly as it’s not about truth. Just like if clear documents proved Mohammed had said he was not really a profit of Allah but just made it up, that they would stop all Belief, not hardly. So again I say it’s all about indoctrinated faith, not truth.

Disproof by Logical Contradiction
In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Contradiction by the creation of a paradox, Plato’s Euthydemus dialogue demonstrates the need for the notion of contradiction. In the ensuing dialogue, Dionysodorus denies the existence of “contradiction”, all the while that Socrates is contradicting him: “… I in my astonishment said: What do you mean Dionysodorus? I have often heard, and have been amazed to hear, this thesis of yours, which is maintained and employed by the disciples of Protagoras and others before them, and which to me appears to be quite wonderful, and suicidal as well as destructive, and I think that I am most likely to hear the truth about it from you. The dictum is that there is no such thing as a falsehood; a man must either say what is true or say nothing. Is not that your position?” Indeed, Dionysodorus agrees that “there is no such thing as a false opinion … there is no such thing as ignorance” and demands of Socrates to “Refute me.” Socrates responds “But how can I refute you, if, as you say, to tell a falsehood is impossible?”. – Wikipedia

There’s no truth?

When do we start lying? Studies show that at around 2 years of age 30% will lie. At 3 years of age, 50% will lie. And by 7-8 years of age 100% will lie. – (Through the Wormhole TV show)
“And still the world runs on the shoulder of truth… least we are all pretending very well everyday like cowards and liars…..there’s no truth!” – Challenger
My response, You should rethink what you said about truth. You don’t seem to get if there was no truth, that includes your statement that there is no truth. Because if it were then there would be some truth exposing your statement’s internal contradiction. And, to me, “Truth” is a value (axiological) judgment of something we believe is justified and presumed accurate. The following are how I think like I do. Some of my ideas are because I am educated both some in college (BA in Psychology with addiction treatment, sociology, and a little teaching and criminology) and also as an autodidact I have become somewhat educated in philosophy, science, archeology, anthropology, and history but this is not the only reason for all my ideas. It is also because I am a deep thinker, just striving for truth. Moreover, I am a seeker of truth and a lover of that which is true. What we call truth is a “value judgment” of what we believe is the reality of the case. So, a claim of truth then like all claims needs some type supporting justification. The claim of truth’s integrity requires testing of what the theme of the offered truth involves, if validly justified, it should not be distrusted. However, if the claim of truth’s integrity is not justified then the term “Truth” has not been itself attacked rather it’s the using the word “Truth” that cannot substantiate the term that it should be distrusted because it is seemingly in error or a lie-pseudo truth.
Therefore, the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Truth” but believe in and promote pseudo-truth because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. So, I love truth, its claims of the term “Truth” with no justification that I can’t stand, because such claims are pseudo-truth. It’s like how science as a term is quite corrupted by pseudoscience right? Yes and No. Yes, because fake science is believed as real science where the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Science” believe in and promote pseudo-science but because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. However, we can know science from pseudoscience as the term is given other methodological structure to which to evaluate then prove true science or prove a claim as not science and in fact pseudoscience so to do we sadly have to the methodological structure to prove a claim as not truth and in fact pseudo-truth. I am not just an Atheist (disbelieving claims of gods), an Antitheist (seeing theism as harmful) and an Antireligionist (seeing religion as untrue and/or harmful). I am also a Rationalist, valuing and requiring reason and evidence to support beliefs or propositions as well as I’m against all pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and Pseudomorality. Moreover, theists like to claim I cannot see the truth of theism because I don’t have faith. This just sounds like a fideist, they think faith is better than reason or possibly even evidence. But faith is strong belief either without evidence or contrary to reason or evidence. Thus, in the acquisition of knowledge faith is not worth believing in and furthermore, if it takes faith to see a thing as real you’re admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality. The term “Fideism” itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.
Truth mixed with lies is still lies. Some truth is married to untruth, thus it is hidden in lies. But some may think the truth is just too hard to take for some people, so they seem to welcome lies, even if it’s laid before our eyes. It is this truth we fear that often becomes the fear that may motivate us to only wish to take that which requires no change, no need to reason and understand or emotionally adept. We too often seem to like easy truth or comfortable lies that become like a mental trap. So then, we often end up marrying our desired truth with some untruth to not see that which is real but unpleasant, so to us, it stays a lie. Become a protector of truths, not a supporter of lies. Rise and support truth in a world of lies. Rise, my friend, come to the defense of truth. This charge is required of all honest thinkers. I repeat, rise and let your voice be heard, as this is not a time of slumber. No, this is a time of fighting for truth and a time where the truth is in much need, as we are literally in a post-truth nation. Rise, become a truth crusader, and support truth in a world of lies.

Likelihood of Truth, the power behind any thought or belief being true or having a high likelihood of being true, is often limited to the weakest link in its reason and evidence. Therefore, to me, truth is what can be trusted after surviving critical inquiry. The most trust-inspiring rationale in trusting science is not limited to the facts it proves but instead is due to the fact that science desires to change or update beliefs to new facts. Science rejects old ideas found wanting no matter any emotional attachment they might have for new ideas shown to hold a higher epistemic accuracy with valid and reliable reason and evidence. The scientific method assumes a priori about the nature of reality (methodological naturalism), one is not agnostic about this, the scientific method is using philosophical rationalism as the nature-of-reality proof or truth by using a priori assumptions. The scientific method uses a priori for the nature of reality or rationalistic naturalism. Some do realize all the utilized or assumed philosophy in the scientific method, which, to me, entail things like Scientific Realism, Metaphysical Naturalism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Methodological Skepticism, Justificationism, Correspondence Theory of Truth, Falsificationism, Falabalism, Reliabilism, Probabilism, Probability Theory, etc. Science it methodological inquiry looking for a level of epistemic certainty for beliefs not just pushed by the whims of psychological certainty that often lacks epistemic properties of valid belief. Facts and proof like “truth” statements about Science imply a level of epistemic certainty and all three words to non-scientists or religious believers can mean different things to different people, which favors only psychological certainty with little relation to imply a real level of epistemic certainty on most things claimed as religionist favor faith (generally Fideism “faithism” or to me faith drunk thinking) not real facts to support beliefs.

Therefore, let me explain that in a general way proof and facts are truths, just as assertions of knowledge, as well as certainty, are epistemic properties of belief. Moreover, science and as you must know does not have one universal standard in science but for methodological processes and a value for the scientific method in the relation to the philosophy of science especially against my side the scientific realists (the majority of scientists whether they know it or not) against the instrumentalists or anti-realist science thinkers who seem to be promoting what is not generally the norm of science. As stated before, to me, “Truth” is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is is evidence. One could ask, what makes some believed truth actually “True”? Therefore, the rational imperative on us is to demonstrate that the proposed evidence or reasoned assumption is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible from as credible a sore as possible which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True thus a “justified true belief”. Broadly, epistemic means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means ” critical study of knowledge validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge”.

If I never look, I will always find only what I am looking for, which is, simply, nothing. However, if I truly seek truth, I may find more than I could imagine. If you only look for nothing, you will find nothing. However, to look earnestly, you will always find a new truth waiting to be found. Be willing to look and be a truth seeker. When you believe you can have little or no facts and need only faith, you demonstrate no real love of truth. I implore you to be a rationalist and accepting nothing but facts upon facts connected to reality. Faith is a proclamation of belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence. Faith is not a reasoned virtue; it is the vice of emotionalism. If it requires faith to see a thing as real, then you are admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality. Can you not see that in the acquisition of knowledge faith, as a method is not worth believing in? Critical thinking requires you to work on your thinking continually, to make your thinking the object of thought, to make your behavior the object of your thinking, and to make your beliefs the object of your thinking. For example, take your religious thinking: All over the world, there are many belief systems, and each is certain of its truth on the evidence-devoid-property of faith. As such, on average, if you are raised where buddhism is most common, then you become a buddhist. If you are raised where hinduism is most common, then you become a hindu. Christian, you become a christian. Etc. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, you have 500 choices. Honestly, how many study religions before they pick one rather than it being picked for them?

“Most scientists would object to the word “truth”, btw.” – Challenger 

My response, And I would explain why it is of truth. Like evolution. Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory. A fact is a piece of evidence evaluated as truth.

“There is no truth at the end of any scientific method – rather, a better understanding of how things work. Some of us might use the word “truth” to imply certainty but a great many people, the ones you argue with, use it in a universal way that doesn’t reflect the reality that we understand through science. I guess what I’m saying is that it’s difficult to argue with believers once you start using the word “truth” because it means different things to different people.” – Challenger 

My response, Well, facts and proof like “truth” to imply a level of certainty and all three can mean different things to different people, so. Therefore, proof and facts are truths and you are now making truth statements about truth and science and as you must know there is not one universal standard in science in the relation to the philosophy of science especially against my side the scientific realists (the majority of scientists whether they know it or not, just like you making truth statements seeming to say you don’t know truth) against the instrumentalists or anti-realist science thinkers as you seem to be promoting as the norm of science when it is no.

Science is a system where justified true beliefs that are derived from objective methodologies such as the scientific method and religion is a system of unjustified beliefs based on subjective faith or revelation. We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe. Modern Science is not a thing, it’s a group of different specialties aiming to test (generally with the scientific method) and try to figure out the world as it presents itself in reality, which is devoid of supernatural magic.

We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs from myths devoid of corroborating evidence or reason. Whereas, science uses as well as demands corroborating evidence and reason to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe in. Thus, we have a belief without valid and reliable warrant or justification, so it’s an issue involving religion believers violating the ethics of belief. Do you believe in god? What is a god? When someone asks me if I believe in gods I think, are you asking me if magic exists? Well my answer as an ignostic atheist is, first prove the actuality of simple magic before you try to ask anyone about the possibility of some supreme magic, i.e. the claims of gods. So, let’s recap, likely no religion follower is honestly going to stop belief because of lack of evidence or reason, or they would have already done so.

Just as no science follower is honestly going to start believing something if it has a lack of evidence or reason. Remember, we honest thinkers need to adhere to beliefs in an ethical way, like exhibit good belief etiquette: reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. I can’t stand when people try to say that atheism and religion use faith. We atheists, have archaeology that proves religion is a lie, so no faith is needed. Moreover, We atheists, have science which shows that every mystery has ever turned out to be nature and not magic.

There is nothing that the only explanation is magic or supernatural anything, so for religion it has no evidence at all. All religion has is faith without any proof and do not try to say that atheism is anything like that. Promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. To me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from who they are shaming them for being human. In addition, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from real history, real science or real morality to pseudohistory, pseudoscience and pseudomorality. Moreover, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from rational thought, critical thinking, or logic. Likewise, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from justice, universal ethics, equality, and liberty.

Yes, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from loved ones, and religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from humanity. Therefore, to me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that should be rejected as not only false but harmful as well even if you believe it has some redeeming quality. To me, promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. Religion may have once seemed great when all you had or needed was to believe. Science now seems great when we have facts and need to actually know. I proudly reject all gods and religions. It should be understood, that religion as well as its love of gods, must be seen for what they are, which beyond their pomp and circumstance are exposed as little more than indoctrinated cultural products, the conspiracy theories of reality no one should believe today in our world of science.

Simply, religion and its gods are the leftovers of an ignorant age trying to explain and control a fearful world which seems now favored by the uninformed, misinformed, emotional/physical/social support seekers and conmen. To me, a rational mind values humanity and rejects religion and gods as real until valid and reliable reason and evidence that passes scientific consensus that what is being offered is as it is claimed, so no belief without proof. A truly rational mind sees the need for humanity, as they too live in the world and see themselves as they actually are an alone body in the world seeking comfort and safety.

Thus, see the value of everyone around them as they too are the same and therefore rationally as well a humanistically we should work for this humanity we are part of and can either dwell in or help its flourishing as we are all in the hands of each other. You are Free to think as you like but REALITY is unchanged. While you personally may react, or think differently about our shared reality (the natural world devoid of magic anything), We can play with how we use it but there is still only one communal reality (a natural non-supernatural one), which we all share like it or not and you can’t justifiably claim there is a different reality. This is valid as the only one of warrant is the non-mystical natural world around us all, existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by superstitions like gods or other monsters to many sill fear irrationally.

Do Beliefs Need justification?

Yes, it all requires a justification and if you think otherwise you should explain why but then you are still trying to employ a justification to challenge justification. So, I still say yes it all needs a justification and I know everything is reducible to feeling the substation of existence. I feel my body and thus I can start my justificationism standard right there and then build all logic inferences from that justified point and I don’t know a more core presupposition to start from. A presupposition is a core thinking stream that like how a tree of beliefs always has a set of assumed sets of presuppositions or a presupposition is relatively a thing/thinking assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of thinking point, belief projection, argument or course of action. And that, as well as everything, needs justification to be concluded as reasonable. Sure, you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true, nor wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. When is something true that has no justification? If you still think so then offer an example, you know a justification. Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification.

Remembering my past, it all goes back to such troubles, which were so dark as was my mind, it was like being dead while alive. I had made my life unclean with excessive or even exclusive concern, for myself, my own advantage, and relatively my own pleasure regardless of the welfare of others or with little concern for them. Limited in caring I looked only for me, me, me getting what I could take from life not what I could give and was almost drowning in selfishness and pain. Trying to have fun no matter the cost. I was left feeling worthless. I needed something for my insides felt empty. I was like a screen smeared with the darkness of selfness. My hearts tongueless words sang of my despair. My dark mind felt lost in a crowd. I needed to do something. It is as if my log lost empathy start to feel a call. Yes, I started to see past the mountain of me that strong and selfish tree. Something is changing. It’s as if my inner being has a mind of its own or it cries out for change. Bright life seems at hand by caring, to feel the connection not just with others but indeed a new and welcoming empathetic new me. I now seek that sweet day of caring connection and stop this night only selfishness bent on care of only me. My frozen shell shatters. It is hard to trust, but I must and seek others to help. I cried out, and listened to my need for change for the first time! I want to be more than my dark mind and self-limited life. I want to be my bright emotional wellbeing! Then joy springs forth in my every fiber mind and inner being. It’s as if I am on fire.

Hope touch like a flame is was a soft breath that sets me free. I feel it, my bright inner thinking of love and care I now live in me adding to the freedom in the world. I may still have at times have a dark mind but have now created a bright life full of concern for the welfare of myself and others. I wish you to a bright life especially if you to suffer with a dark mind. However, when I was young I raged at the world, for abuse I received from my religious parents. Then I developed some, so I held my parents accountable, raging at them and the world; as so much was out there, like them. Then I fully developed and became an atheist, thus I started to see my parents were two different versions of christofascism (christian and fascism), as well as I saw that relatively all religions in some way are part of religiofascism (religion and fascism) especially how they often force hereditary religion of children by cursive force or oppression and I became an antireligionist atheist raging against religion as well as the lies of gods.

Religion and Science are Completely Different Epistemologies

Some try to say that science and religion ear not that different saying they both use faith. This is utter nonsense, not only does science not use faith as a method for anything, religion and science are completely different epistemologies. Scientists reason differently than most nonscientists because of a standardized focus on scientific based reasoning and scientific epistemology.
A basic outline of scientific epistemology:
Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability
*being epistemic certainty is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*
A basic outline of religious epistemology:
Religion: Culture/Testimony/ Myths/Scriptures/Revelation/Prophecies (arbitrary and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) + Mysticism, Supernaturalism, Spirtualism, or Theology (arbitrary and unjustified to form explanations, Idealism or misuse of Rationalism; often self-justified or even believe they are beyond a need for justification) – Denial of Relevant Alternatives and Basis (Fideism/Dogmatic Foundationalism/Pseudo-Skepticism/Anti-Rationalism/Anti-Empiricism or Anti-Skepticism) + Superstition, Falsehood, Misconception, Fantasy, or Delusion (unsubstantiated ideas and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) = Religion Reality Theory = Unjustified Untrue Faith Belief = Religion Faith or Beliefs as Knowledge = Unwarranted Psychological Certainty supportive of incorrectability
*being psychologically certain believing a truth does not mean that something is not actually false*

The Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, an estimate is that a terrestrial biosphere emerged as early as 4.1 billion years ago. Ref The earliest evidence for life on Earth is 3.7 billion years old from Greenland and 3.48 billion years old from Australia. Ref The earliest evidence for sexual reproduction first appears 1200 million years ago and may have increased the rate of evolution and kick-started or probably contributed to the evolution of sexual dimorphism (two sexes), where organisms within a species adopted different strategies of parental investment and what would later involve a reliance on caregiver compassion. Most plants, unlike most animals, are hermaphroditic (both male and female sexes) but approximately 6% of plants have separate males and females or have what amounts to serial sexual dimorphism. Most animals, unlike plants, are not hermaphroditic but approximately 5% are as well as some are sequential hermaphrodites in which the individual is born as one sex, but can later change into the opposite sex. Ref Ref Ref

But, I hear some say that science does not need philosophy. Really, okay then, I have a question for you:

“Does science observation trump philosophy, or does philosophy trump science observation?”

 I like when science-only people say they value science observation proof as the highest proof, even possibly adding that they either have a low regard for or state they do not believe in philosophy at all as useful, which I find amazing and saddening.

The Battle of Truth

But, then often some of these same science-only-people, when I state I believe it is reasonable to state we can know the external-science-observation-proof of and about reality with a very high level of certainty and still can remain open if new altering observation is found, they say “no” we cannot ever be highly certain that things are a fact (although they seem to state this as a hard fact), some even going as far as stating, we can never be certain of anything. Some think science has no philosophy.

But, then I wonder on what do they make such a strong claim, non-philosophy science-only-observation?

The first general Scientific requirement is for proven methodological answers which is evidence of epistemology  (which involves a philosophy philosophical theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief(s) from opinion(s)) and the tool they most utilize is the Scientific Method.

It has this epistemology standard (requirement is for proven methodological justified answers) due to the value and use of Rationalism.

In epistemology, rationalism in this context is the view that “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification”. More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory “in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive”

* The Scientific Method (multiple methods some of which involve philosophy: Rationalism, Metaphysical naturalism, Evidentialism, Empiricism, Falsificationism, Skepticism, Fallibilism, and Logic)?

Methodological naturalism (which involves a philosophy of scientific materialism, a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences) a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.  Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method.

* Evidentialism (which involves a philosophical theory of justification)

* Empiricism (which involves a philosophy of knowledge)

* Falsificationism (which involves a philosophical approach to knowledge)

Skepticism methodological skepticism” (which involves a philosophical approach involving a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one’s beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in philosophy. Moreover, methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.

Fallibilism (which unlike many forms of skepticism, does not imply that we have no knowledge; fallibilists typically deny that knowledge requires absolute certainty. Instead, fallibilism is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as empirical knowledge might turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are necessarily true (such as mathematical and logical truths).

* Logic (which involves a philosophy use and study of valid reasoning “rationalism”)

Still not convinced that Science uses philosophy Or is it unjustified doubt because of the philosophy of skepticism, if not tells us how without any branch of philosophy you know this, otherwise, I say it’s some philosophy. So, wait which is it then, does philosophy trumps science observation proof of reality, but I thought you did not think philosophy was better than science? Lol

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Do you truly think “Religious Belief” is only a matter of some personal choice?

Do you not see how coercive one’s world of choice is limited to the obvious hereditary belief, in most religious choices available to the child of religious parents or caregivers? Religion is more commonly like a family, culture, society, etc. available belief that limits the belief choices of the child and that is when “Religious Belief” is not only a matter of some personal choice and when it becomes hereditary faith, not because of the quality of its alleged facts or proposed truths but because everyone else important to the child believes similarly so they do as well simply mimicking authority beliefs handed to them. Because children are raised in religion rather than being presented all possible choices but rather one limited dogmatic brand of “Religious Belief” where children only have a choice of following the belief as instructed, and then personally claim the faith hereditary belief seen in the confirming to the belief they have held themselves all their lives. This is obvious in statements asked and answered by children claiming a faith they barely understand but they do understand that their family believes “this or that” faith, so they feel obligated to believe it too. While I do agree that “Religious Belief” should only be a matter of some personal choice, it rarely is… End Hereditary Religion!

Opposition to Imposed Hereditary Religion

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which allows us to achieve new positive thinking and accurate outcomes.

My thoughts on Religion Evolution with external links for more info:

“Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings…

Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure, or a firefighter talks about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victims of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions.

“Understanding Religion Evolution: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, Paganism & Progressed organized religion”

Understanding Religion Evolution:

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

It seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a “dangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),” and human “immorality or imperfection of the soul” which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived “made from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,” but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred.


Quick Evolution of Religion?

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago) pre-religion is a beginning that evolves into later Animism. So, Religion as we think of it, to me, all starts in a general way with Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (Siberia/Russia: 30,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago) (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago)  with CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago).

Historically, in large city-state societies (such as Egypt or Iraq) starting around 5,000 years ago culminated to make religion something kind of new, a sociocultural-governmental-religious monarchy, where all or at least many of the people of such large city-state societies seem familiar with and committed to the existence of “religion” as the integrated life identity package of control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine, but this juggernaut integrated religion identity package of Dogmatic-Propaganda certainly did not exist or if developed to an extent it was highly limited in most smaller prehistoric societies as they seem to lack most of the strong control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine (magical beliefs could be at times be added or removed). Many people just want to see developed religious dynamics everywhere even if it is not. Instead, all that is found is largely fragments until the domestication of religion.

Religions, as we think of them today, are a new fad, even if they go back to around 6,000 years in the timeline of human existence, this amounts to almost nothing when seen in the long slow evolution of religion at least around 70,000 years ago with one of the oldest ritual worship. Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago. This message of how religion and gods among them are clearly a man-made thing that was developed slowly as it was invented and then implemented peace by peace discrediting them all. Which seems to be a simple point some are just not grasping how devastating to any claims of truth when we can see the lie clearly in the archeological sites.

I wish people fought as hard for the actual values as they fight for the group/clan names political or otherwise they think support values. Every amount spent on war is theft to children in need of food or the homeless kept from shelter.

Here are several of my blog posts on history:

I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

To me, Animism starts in Southern Africa, then to West Europe, and becomes Totemism. Another split goes near the Russia and Siberia border becoming Shamanism, which heads into Central Europe meeting up with Totemism, which also had moved there, mixing the two which then heads to Lake Baikal in Siberia. From there this Shamanism-Totemism heads to Turkey where it becomes Paganism.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


Not all “Religions” or “Religious Persuasions” have a god(s) but

All can be said to believe in some imaginary beings or imaginary things like spirits, afterlives, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworldKi and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religionEgyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of naturemotherhoodfertilitycreationdestruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) iKorean shamanismjangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the SeonangdangIn Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (KawiSundaneseJavanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythologyTiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and UrAncient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as AthensSpartaThebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as FlorenceSienaFerraraMilan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen ItzaTikalCopán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coastRagusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

I am still researching the “god‘s origins” all over the world. So you know, it is very complicated but I am smart and willing to look, DEEP, if necessary, which going very deep does seem to be needed here, when trying to actually understand the evolution of gods and goddesses. I am sure of a few things and less sure of others, but even in stuff I am not fully grasping I still am slowly figuring it out, to explain it to others. But as I research more I am understanding things a little better, though I am still working on understanding it all or something close and thus always figuring out more. 

Sky Father/Sky God?

“Egyptian: (Nut) Sky Mother and (Geb) Earth Father” (Egypt is different but similar)

Turkic/Mongolic: (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) Sky Father and (Eje/Gazar Eej) Earth Mother *Transeurasian*

Hawaiian: (Wākea) Sky Father and (Papahānaumoku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

New Zealand/ Māori: (Ranginui) Sky Father and (Papatūānuku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

Proto-Indo-European: (Dyus/Dyus phtr) Sky Father and (Dʰéǵʰōm/Plethwih) Earth Mother

Indo-Aryan: (Dyaus Pita) Sky Father and (Prithvi Mata) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Italic: (Jupiter) Sky Father and (Juno) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Etruscan: (Tinia) Sky Father and (Uni) Sky Mother *Tyrsenian/Italy Pre–Indo-European*

Hellenic/Greek: (Zeus) Sky Father and (Hera) Sky Mother who started as an “Earth Goddess” *Indo-European*

Nordic: (Dagr) Sky Father and (Nótt) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Slavic: (Perun) Sky Father and (Mokosh) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Illyrian: (Deipaturos) Sky Father and (Messapic Damatura’s “earth-mother” maybe) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Albanian: (Zojz) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Baltic: (Perkūnas) Sky Father and (Saulė) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Germanic: (Týr) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Colombian-Muisca: (Bochica) Sky Father and (Huythaca) Sky Mother *Chibchan*

Aztec: (Quetzalcoatl) Sky Father and (Xochiquetzal) Sky Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Incan: (Viracocha) Sky Father and (Mama Runtucaya) Sky Mother *Quechuan*

China: (Tian/Shangdi) Sky Father and (Dì) Earth Mother *Sino-Tibetan*

Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian: (An/Anu) Sky Father and (Ki) Earth Mother

Finnish: (Ukko) Sky Father and (Akka) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Sami: (Horagalles) Sky Father and (Ravdna) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Puebloan-Zuni: (Ápoyan Ta’chu) Sky Father and (Áwitelin Tsíta) Earth Mother

Puebloan-Hopi: (Tawa) Sky Father and (Kokyangwuti/Spider Woman/Grandmother) Earth Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Puebloan-Navajo: (Tsohanoai) Sky Father and (Estsanatlehi) Earth Mother *Na-Dene*


Sky Father/Sky Mother “High Gods” or similar gods/goddesses of the sky more loosely connected, seeming arcane mythology across the earth seen in Siberia, China, Europe, Native Americans/First Nations People and Mesopotamia, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref


Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Knowledge to Ponder: 


  • Possibly, around 30,000 years ago (in simpler form) to 6,000 years ago, Stars/Astrology are connected to Ancestors, Spirit Animals, and Deities.
  • The star also seems to be a possible proto-star for Star of Ishtar, Star of Inanna, or Star of Venus.
  • Around 7,000 to 6,000 years ago, Star Constellations/Astrology have connections to the “Kurgan phenomenon” of below-ground “mound” stone/wood burial structures and “Dolmen phenomenon” of above-ground stone burial structures.
  • Around 6,500–5,800 years ago, The Northern Levant migrations into Jordon and Israel in the Southern Levant brought new cultural and religious transfer from Turkey and Iran.
  • “The Ghassulian Star,” a mysterious 6,000-year-old mural from Jordan may have connections to the European paganstic kurgan/dolmens phenomenon.

“Astrology is a range of divinatory practices, recognized as pseudoscientific since the 18th century, that claim to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the apparent positions of celestial objects. Different cultures have employed forms of astrology since at least the 2nd millennium BCE, these practices having originated in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. Most, if not all, cultures have attached importance to what they observed in the sky, and some—such as the HindusChinese, and the Maya—developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations. Western astrology, one of the oldest astrological systems still in use, can trace its roots to 19th–17th century BCE Mesopotamia, from where it spread to Ancient GreeceRome, the Islamicate world and eventually Central and Western Europe. Contemporary Western astrology is often associated with systems of horoscopes that purport to explain aspects of a person’s personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects; the majority of professional astrologers rely on such systems.” ref 

Around 5,500 years ago, Science evolves, The first evidence of science was 5,500 years ago and was demonstrated by a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world. ref

Around 5,000 years ago, Origin of Logics is a Naturalistic Observation (principles of valid reasoning, inference, & demonstration) ref

Around 4,150 to 4,000 years ago: The earliest surviving versions of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, which was originally titled “He who Saw the Deep” (Sha naqba īmuru) or “Surpassing All Other Kings” (Shūtur eli sharrī) were written. ref


  • 3,700 years ago or so, the oldest of the Hindu Vedas (scriptures), the Rig Veda was composed.
  • 3,500 years ago or so, the Vedic Age began in India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization.


  • around 3,000 years ago, the first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew”
  • around 2,500 years ago, many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed

Myths: The bible inspired religion is not just one religion or one myth but a grouping of several religions and myths

  • Around 3,450 or 3,250 years ago, according to legend, is the traditionally accepted period in which the Israelite lawgiver, Moses, provided the Ten Commandments.
  • Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, a collection of ancient religious writings by the Israelites based primarily upon the Hebrew Bible, Tanakh, or Old Testament is the first part of Christianity’s bible.
  • Around 2,400 years ago, the most accepted hypothesis is that the canon was formed in stages, first the Pentateuch (Torah).
  • Around 2,140 to 2,116 years ago, the Prophets was written during the Hasmonean dynasty, and finally the remaining books.
  • Christians traditionally divide the Old Testament into four sections:
  • The first five books or Pentateuch (Torah).
  • The proposed history books telling the history of the Israelites from their conquest of Canaan to their defeat and exile in Babylon.
  • The poetic and proposed “Wisdom books” dealing, in various forms, with questions of good and evil in the world.
  • The books of the biblical prophets, warning of the consequences of turning away from God:
  • Henotheism:
  • Exodus 20:23 “You shall not make other gods besides Me (not saying there are no other gods just not to worship them); gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves.”
  • Polytheism:
  • Judges 10:6 “Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the sons of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines; thus they forsook the LORD and did not serve Him.”
  • 1 Corinthians 8:5 “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords.”
  • Monotheism:
  • Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Around 2,570 to 2,270 Years Ago, there is a confirmation of atheistic doubting as well as atheistic thinking, mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods and should destroy the thinking that belief in god(s) is the “default belief”. The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”), thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by a god(s) claim. Short Definition: unbelieving, unbeliever, or unbelief.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

  • Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
  • Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
  • Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
  • Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
  • Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
  • Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
  • Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”

Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.

How do they even know if there was nothing as a start outside our universe, could there not be other universes outside our own?
For all, we know there may have always been something past the supposed Big Bang we can’t see beyond, like our universe as one part of a mega system.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Show one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO

Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO

Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO

Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO

Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO

I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.

The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.

An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”

My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?

I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.

I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): by “History with Cy

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston:  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.”

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars. Many monotheism-themed religions started in henotheism, emerging out of polytheism/paganism.

“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.
“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.
“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.
Together = Gods/paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or QuotesMy YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email:

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This