Why should religion get a free pass?

Religion is not science.It's not supposed to be. Religion can be a lens through which we view science, and a guide for how we use the knowledge we have, but religion is based on a moral code, a worldview, a structure that makes sense out of our lives.Science exists to answer questions with cold hard facts. Religion exists to help those cold hard facts make sense.That said, there are other reasons why religion gets a "free pass".Many people don't care to analyze their belief systems in a serious way, or cannot because of a lack of wider knowledge.Others don't take their own faith literally anyway, and pick and choose from religion what has given them personal fulfillment, abandoning the unworkable parts as errors in man's translation of the divine.Some reasons are political.You don't want to disparage a popular faith if you want to get elected, or anger those who might react violently.There are others who think all religion silly,and so can't be bothered to pick apart what doctrines seem more credible than others.I think that religion is held to a different standard for an obvious reason. It is enough for most people of faith that their religion tells them fundamental things about who they are, and how they should live, and have a cohesive worldview inherent in it. Every story in a holy text need not be proven a historical fact for a religion to be credible. One can believe in a scientific theory without having all the evidence to "prove" it. It sort of the same for religion.And finally, until science can actually credibly disprove heaven, or reincarnation, people will be willing to have faith in these concepts, even when the minutiae of their religions have been disproven.

I think the concept of a "free pass" if a faith doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, is wrong. It misunderstands what the role religion plays in society.Moral questions like abortion, stem cell research, cloning,and gay marriage will be filtered through the religious beliefs of policy makers and their constituencies whether or not religions are questioned and challenged, because religious beliefs go deeper than the assorted legends and myths that may or may not ever be proveable. Most religious people have their own personal experiences that solidify their faith, and no scientific scrutiny will likely change their minds.In the realm of politics, maybe a more relevant thing for society to scrutinize may be the results of a particular religion, if it's basic tenets and philosophies are upheld, ignoring any dangerous fringes which will arise out of any human movement. Whether they would produce a generally healthy or an unhealthy environment for humans to live in.If a religion can pass this test, demonstrating why it's philosophy is beneficial to humans, then legends or myths that are not fundamental to it's existence, and even some that are if they can't be solidly disproved, should get a free pass.

If you look at the universe as God's creation, how can that not be a lens through which you see reality? It doesn't seem a matter of should or shouldn't, just as what is. Sure, if you don't believe in God, or religion, then you will not use that lens.But I don't understand how one can believe in a creator but not have that seep into his worldview, even unconsciously. You don't need to disregard objective scientific thought for your faith(ideally), but it is also hard for me to see how you can honestly disattach from your faith when pursuing science. When I say " make sense" I guess what I meant was "give meaning". Science offers no comfort to the grieving, no moral guidelines to conduct one's life, no answers to deeper questions of why we're here, etc.Science doesn't and can't speak to the spiritual, and if a person has no interest in the spiritual, then he has no use for religion anyway. I wasn't trying to say religion explains the meaning of everything clearly in explicit detail, because, you're right, it would then be mundane. But the major religions, when not hijacked by the corrupt or the crazy, provide a useful and healthy framework for the faithful to successfully operate their lives.

That's not entirely true. I think anyone today proclaiming that homosexuals and adulterers in America should be stoned to death, or that a man who rapes a virgin must marry her because it says so in the Old Testament would most definitely be proclaimed a crank, mostly by modern Christians. Likewise, on this forum and in many other places , Creationists are challenged for their adherence to the literal Bible, and seem to be losing the argument in the mainstream culture.Where people have broadened their knowledge of the physical world, parts of their faith that are not fundamental to it's existence seem to become accepted as allegory, something only relevant to the time it was written, or a mistranslation of the divine, while the essence of the religion remains intact.To use Christianity as an example, the main teachings are belief in redemption and reform through Christ, love for one's neighbor, and generosity to the needy. You can't actually prove that redemption is impossible, and love and generosity are good things. So these things get a free pass because most people have no problem with them. They don't produce a harmful result. Religion doesn't exist to tell us how to do research and further our body of scientific knowledge. But religions and religious people are called on to justify their positions on the basis of their faith all the time.Whenever the abortion argument comes up, pro- choicers say pro -lifers violate their own beliefs by caring more about unborn life than the born, a violation of religious tenets, in their eyes. The same argument is used against those who oppose embryonic stem cell research. Those who oppose programs that help the poor are challenged as well, if they are publicly religious. And acceptance of gay marriage is often defended as a natural progression of Christianity's doctrine of loving one's neighbor and "judge not lest ye be judged".Christians, at least, are always called to explain and justify their faith in terms of the results it produces for society, which is a fair debate to have, within a faith and outside of it. The religious position is often called to justify itself in the public sphere, just not with the same criteria as applies to scientific research. Until people decide that only what is scientifically proven will guide their lives, and people still have faith and want a spiritual experience,this will be the case.

quote:

---

The religious position is often called to justify itself in the public sphere, just not with the same criteria as applies to scientific research. Until people decide that only what is scientifically proven will guide their lives, and people still have faith and want a spiritual experience,this will be the case.

​

Larni writes:
Why should different criteria be used?

---

Because of the different functions religion and science perform for society.Science is there to answer questions in ways that can be quantified. Religion is there for people seeking answers to spiritual questions, which cannot be. If you don't believe in things that cannot be scientifically proven, you will not be satisfied with what religion has to offer. All religions, whether you find their related legends silly or not, rely on faith in a higher supernatural power that can not be proven to exist or not to exist, so a " free pass" is necessary, unless or until society no longer wants to rely on faith based religions.

quote:

---

helenavm writes:
So these things get a free pass because most people have no problem with them. They don't produce a harmful result.

​

So they do get a free pass, then?

---

Yes, they do, and I believe that they should. Unless you are trying to make the argument that religions should each be scientifically scrutinized, and then be ranked on a scale of which is least to most believable , it seems like a pointless task. Any negative results of a religion's practice can be dealt with by society as just another social issue, as society evolves with it's religious communities, which do change over time. For example, when a religion allows domestic violence towards women,or sex with minors, we still arrest the offender for breaking the law, but we don't waste time trying to "reeducate" the church members with scientific evidence, because that is almost never a person's reason for believing.

quote:

---

helenavm writes:
Whenever the abortion argument comes up, pro- choicers say pro -lifers violate their own beliefs by caring more about unborn life than the born, a violation of religious tenets, in their eyes.
Larni writes:
Please show how pro choicers justify their position via religion.

---

It is often argued here that pro-lifers don't take into account the fates of those who are born to disadvantaged mothers, and the reasoning that is used tries to call them hypocrites, willing to protect the sanctity of life of a clump of cells but not a poor child. There's also an ongoing discussion among some Catholics over who to vote for, a candidate who is pro-choice but seems to care more for the poor, or a pro-lifer who doesn't.I wasn't trying to say pro-choicers justify abortion on religious grounds, just that they use the religious teachings most pro-lifers adhere to criticize their supposed lack of empathy for impoverished women with unwanted pregnancies.

quote:

---

helenavm writes:
And acceptance of gay marriage is often defended as a natural progression of Christianity's doctrine of loving one's neighbor and "judge not lest ye be judged".
Larni writes:
Can you substantiate this? I sounds contrary to what I understand xianity to proclaim: it certainly is here in the UK.

---

This is used by some Christian gay marriage supporters here, not their opponents. No mainstream Christian doctrine that I know of accepts gay marriage but that doesn't stop independent Christians from using the argument.

quote:

---

helenavm writes:
Science offers no comfort to the grieving,

​

Larni writes:
This is of course false.

​

The science of cognitive behavioural psychology (in its practical application of therapy) is an excellent choice for many people when facing bereavement.

---

Sorry, I wasn't even considering the field of psychology when I wrote that. I was only thinking of the hard sciences. I do agree that therapy can often help the grieving process.

quote:

---

helenavm writes:
I do agree that therapy can often help the grieving process.

​

Larni writes:
But before this could be used it was evidence based. There was no 'free pass' that religion has had in this role for years.

---

Maybe because religion has historically been a source of comfort for those in distress, and psychotherapy, as the new kid on the block for dealing with tragedy,had to convince people of it's effectiveness?If religion didn't bring comfort in times of distress, I don't see how so many people even today would even bother to give it any attention. The fact that so many people wind up in churches after disasters and tragedies seem to show that people are getting something beneficial from it. Therapy is still an option for those that seek it, and that's fine.

quote:

---

Psychologist had to say "look, this works because of x, y and z and here is how it works....".

​

The vicar (for example) say "look, this workss because of x, y and z and you must beleive it....."

​

Do you see the difference?

---

I don't really understand what you are refuting. I have no beef with science, or psychotherapy. These are fields based on empirical evidence. Religion is not.I think Catholic Scientist made my point better than I was able to:

quote:

---

Catholic Scientist wrote:
Yes, religion gets a free pass. and it is ok for it to get a free pass for claims that are not falsifiable.

​

If the claim can and has been falsified, then it shouldn't get a free pass.

​

But for things like believing in the soul, or reincarnation, or whatever "spiritual" belief that we cannot know if are true or not, they should get a free pass as religion because, what else are we suppose to call those beliefs?

​

They are religious by definition.

---

quote:

---

Catholic Scientist writes:
Do you consider a belief to be nutty simply because it lacks empirical evidence?

​

I only consider them truly nutty, when they have been falsified yet someone still actually believes them.

​

Percy writes:
I think you could exhaust entire threads establishing the criteria for a belief to be considered nutty, but I don't think we have to establish those criteria to be having this conversation, so I'll just say that I think your lone criterion doesn't cover enough ground. For instance, going back to an example I used earlier today, the idea that there really are little green men living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri is nutty but certainly not falsified.

---

Certainly if modern psychology is a valid science, it can help explain distinctions between beliefs based on mental illness(nutty) and beliefs based on faith (not nutty, unless the position is that all religious people are mentally ill).It should also be able to determine whether the faith itself is a product of a mental illness. It seems to me that beliefs that fall into this category clearly DON'T get a free pass. Witness the FLDS group in Texas, and the cult led by that Michael Travesser that thinks he's the second coming. Or the suicide cult several years ago that believed that their souls would be spirited away by a comet.My point is the beliefs that get a free pass are usually the ones based on beliefs that are common to all religions, such as belief in some higher power and/or an afterlife.Some beliefs DO seem to ring more true than others. If this were not the case, why are there so many believers in God/Allah/Jehovah etc. and no long lasting and widespread cults to the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?The following article does a good job of addressing this.It's a NY Times article from last year about the work of Scott Atran, who posits a Darwinian approach to religious beliefs. It makes sense whether you are religious or not, IMHO.Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - The New York Times

quote:

---

Rahvin writes:
There is no "inherent belief" in the Judeao-Christian deity as you are claiming - this is solidly proven by the fact that missionaries typically have a difficult time gaining converts in non-Christian areas. Popularity is irrelevant to any connection to objective reality.

---

I wasn't claiming anything about the Judeo-Christian deity, just deities in general. I was making the argument that most peoples have religious beliefs, and the ones most commonly held are the ones that ring the most true to the culture they're in, and therefore will get a free pass, where the ones that seem nutty to the culture will not. I guess I didn't make that clear enough, since you seem to think I was only defending Christianity.The article I posted before (Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - The New York Times ) talks about possible evolutionary origins of mankind's need or ability to believe in higher powers and souls and such, that our brains somehow may have evolved to accept certain beliefs that help us cope with mortality and loss, and coexistence.If that has any basis in reality ,it would explain why common religious beliefs get a free pass, because we may have evolved to accept the supernatural mores of our respective cultures. Or it might be complete BS , I posted it hoping someone more educated than myself might have an opinion on it.

quote:

---

Rahvin writes:
Your argument, as best I can tell, is that "Common beliefs get a free pass even if they are identical to beliefs commonly identified as delusional, because they are popular. Also, they are popular because they have some undefinable ring of truth to them - you know, because my beliefs are not delusional, even though I have no objective evidence for them."

---

Yes, that is part of my argument, that the most common sort of beliefs get a free pass where they are commonly accepted. I am not claiming my own particular beliefs have more of a ring of truth than anyone elses, just that certain ideas seem to ring true for a given society, and that those get the free pass, where the "nutty" ones do not. Since I'm not a scholar of all world religions, I'll have to assume that the other religions you mentioned are given free passes where they are most commonly accepted.

quote:

---

Rahvin writes:

​

The fact is, religions are given a free pass because the majority of the world is religious, and to admit that one religion is essentially a mass delusion would mean that your religion could also be a mass delusion. This is unacceptable, and accusing a significant (or majority) percentage of the population of being delusional is socially and politically unacceptable even if it is factually correct - and so religions are granted a free pass.

---

And there might be a reason why the majority of the world is religious, even if it has nothing to do with the existence of a higher power. The article I posted talks about some theories of how mankind's belief in a spiritual realm might be a function of our brain chemistry which evolved over time. That might be an alternative to the mass delusion hypothesis, and it does explain how religious beliefs can seem plausible where other sorts of fanciful things seem less so, even though the lack of scientific evidence is the same.

quote:

---

Rahvin writes:

​

Religious beliefs are completely indistinguishable from delusional beliefs except in their popularity, and rather than affirming any sort of connection to reality, this simply shields them from criticism behind a wall of political correctness.

---

If you know of a study where average religious people and people suffering other delusions usually associated with mental illness are compared side by side, I would certainly be interested in reading it. Edited by helenavm, : No reason given.