Why should religion get a free pass?

"Scientific" doesnt even come into it, helenavm. The question does not relate to being able to scientifically prove religious beliefs - the question is "why do we question the veracity of everything except religion?"This relates very strongly to the point Taz brought up in a different thread relating to religious con-men. Not questioning religion allows dishonest individuals to prey upon the gullible. We know for a fact that slime like Popoff heal nobody - they manufacture artificial "miracles" utilizing slight-of-hand, charisma, and an effect not unlike hypnotic suggestion to convince the gullible and unquestioning that their diseases have been "cured," only to have the effects mysteriously wear off shortly afterwards.Why do we give religious beliefs a free pass? If someone says "I believe that injecting myself with bubonic plague will make me immune to all disease," should we not question such a belief? If someone says "god told me that if I rape a virgin I will be cured of HIV," should we not question that belief?Why is religion granted a free pass? Doesn't this lack of questioning make the complete bullshit indistinguishable from the possibly true? But that's just the thing - we do make legal exceptions for religious purposes. I don't know if you were here yet, but just recently we had a thread discussing a recent news story in which a little girl died as a direct result of her parents' belief in faith healing. The girl had diabetes, could easily have been treated, and she died screaming in pain before lapsing into a coma as her parents prayed and refused to take her to the hospital. And the parents are not being charged with any form of abuse, or even criminal negligence, because local laws allow parents to not take their child to a hospital for religious reasons, including conditions as easily treatable yet lethal as diabetes.So they do produce a harmful result, and we aren't arresting the offender becasue the law itself is making an exception for religion.Why does religion get a free pass, even when demonstrably false and harmful?If one man claims to hear voices in his head, we call him crazy and get him professional help. If a man claims to hear god, we call him blessed, even if what "god" tells him is demonstrably wrong or even crazy (uless the person kills someone, and then we call him crazy again and put him in jail). Why the double standard?If one person beleives in magic fairies or marshmallows that cure disease, we call him crazy, but if several people believe it, we call it a religion and stop questioning it. Why the double standard?Scientology is almost universally mocked as a load of BS, what with their belief in an evil immortal space alien emperor and "thetans," the dismebodied souls of aliens murdered in the Hawaiian volcanoes that are the source of all of man's troubles. But how is this objectively any different from a religion that says a magic fruit and talking snake are responsible for all of man's problems, and that an invisible man in the sky sacrificed himself to himself to make up for breaking the rule he made in the first place?Why the double standard? Why does religion (or sometimes only specific religions) get a free pass?

Let me spell it out for you then:Jimmy hears voices. He hears them all the time, telling him to do things, or giving him secret knowledge (like the time they told him that the dog that barks at him all the time is secretly a space alien).Jimmy has no evidence to prove that his voices exist, but he's certain they do. Nobody else is able to prove that they are not real voices in his head, after all.Is Jimmy sane, or insane? A better question: is Jimmy's belief that the voices are real rational?Another scenario:Tom claims that there is an invisible pink unicorn standing right next to his friend. His friend can't see it, but that's of course becasue it's invisible. The unicorn leaves no evidence of its passing becasue it's magical. Tom's friend doesn't believe Tom, but admits that he can't prove the unicorn doesn't exist either.Is Tom's belief that the unicorn is present rational, or irrational? Why?And now, the double standard:Joe insists that there is an invisible man who lives in an invisible place called "heaven" who created the entire world. There is no evidence suggesting this invisible man exists - Joe explains this by saying "the invisible man wants us to have faith, so he doesn't give us evidence." Joe says that he knows the invisible man is real because of an old book anthology that claims the invisible man is real; also, the anthology claims that its contents are true and that the invisible man never lies, so Joe knows the book is right, even though he has no objective evidence to support his belief. When Evil Atheists say that Joe's invisible man likely doesn't exist, Joe counters with the fact that there is no evidence proving the invisible man does not exist, either.Is Joe's belief in the invisible man rational, or irrational? Why?If you responded that any of these scenarios involved a rational belief but that the other(s) did not, what is the factor that differentiates them? If you claim that beliefs not based on any evidence whatsoever deserve a "free pass" so long as there is no contradictory evidence, do you then give a "free pass" to all three scenarios?If we give a "free pass" to all positions that have no evidence one way or the other, what the heck is the definition of a "free pass," anyway?If you're giving one scenario a free pass, but not others, when there is no evidence either way for any of the three, why does that scenario get a free pass?

Well, at least you're consistant. This now becomes like determining the center of the surface of a sphere - all points are exactly the same.You're basically saying we shouldn't challenge any belief no matter how utterly ridiculous if there is no evidence one way or the other. And yet Christianity (and other religions, of course) does directly challenge the beliefs of all other religions, claiming that the beliefs of Christianity are true and the others are false.And of course you'd be perfectly happy putting our friend the schizophrenic into a mental institution for his voices, wouldn't you? Doesn't that mean you'd support "challenging his belief?" Or should we stop medicating all schizophrenics?And what about the invisible unicorn? Do you believe that the unicorn is next to you, or do you challenge it by saying "maybe, but probably not?"Nearly all beliefs we could identify as completely delusional are simply unfalsifiable fantasies. Ah, apathy. How wonderful. "It won't make a difference, so I won't try."Would you tell your child that Santa doesn't exist? Would you tell your child that fairies aren't real?Or do you give such positions a "free pass," as well? After all, they're unfalsifiable, with no evidence either way.

By saying "What's your evidence? If you don't have any, I won't believe you. And I'll think you're a fucking loon for believing in an invisible pink unicorn."

quote:

---

A person experiencing schizophrenia may demonstrate symptoms such as disorganized thinking, auditory hallucinations, and delusions. In severe cases, the person may be largely mute, remain motionless in bizarre postures, or exhibit purposeless agitation; these are signs of catatonia. The current classification of psychoses holds that symptoms need to have been present for at least one month in a period of at least six months of disturbed functioning. A schizophrenia-like psychosis of shorter duration is termed a schizophreniform disorder.[4] No one sign is diagnostic of schizophrenia, and all can occur in other medical and psychiatric conditions.[4]

---

From the Wiki entry on Schizophrenia. Note that "auditory hallucinations and delusions" are typically unfalsifiable positions - if teh victim believes the voices are being beamed into his brain from aliens, there is no evidence for or against. He simply holds the belief without a rational reason - the very definition of a delusion, and one that applies equally to religious faith.In schizophrenics, the delusional beliefs typically result in extremely odd behavior (as you'd expect if you're hearing voices that tell you to do things), and social withdrawal (as the voices tell you that everyone else is out to get you, nobody else believes you, etc).What differentiates a schizophrenic's delusional beliefs from the utterly insane beliefs of many Christians, such as "speaking in tongues?"Also, schizophrenics are not "locked up" unless they demonstrate the potential to harm themselves or others. Otherwise they are free to live like anyone else, including not taking their medication.I can tell you from personal experience that a paranoid schizophrenic is one of the most frightening things on this Earth. That wasn't the question. Should we not medicate schizophrenics because their delisions are unfalsifiable? We can't prove that aliens aren't beaming voices into their heads, can we? Should we or should we not challenge their beliefs? Note that not challenging their beliefs means allowing even dangerously psychotic individuals to roam the streets without help because we cannot falsify their delusions. And what is that difference, exactly? Be specific. And don't say "one is a mental disorder;" we know that, but the mental disorder is defined by some of the same things that appear prominently in religion: claiming to hear from or even have conversations with entities that may or may not exist, believing in things that do not objectively appear to be real, often withdrawing from society and associating only with those who share the same delusions, disorganized thinking and behavior...Those certainly don't apply to all Christians, but watch Jesus Camp again and see how many symptoms of schizophrenia you see.What's te difference between a schizophrenic and believing in unfalsifiable fairy-tales? That wasn't the question. If I insist that the unicorn is next to you, do you challenge my belief by saying "I don't believe you," or do you say "well, I guess there could be?"Hint: if you reply with the latter, you're saying "there could be" fairies, Santa, goblins, ghosts, dragons, gnomes, and that everyone's imaginary friends "could be" real. And what, specifically, differentiates the two? Specifically, what differentiates the unfalsifiable claims of Christianity from the unfalsifiable claims of an indivdual who believes he hears voices that tell him his dog is out to get him? And why do you give this free pass? Do you automatically respond "maybe" to any and all unfalsifiable claims? Really? I mean, it would make you consistent, but responding "maybe" to a child's claim that his invisible friend Johnny is real isn't exactly rational, is it? You have a reason for believing in your "soul?" What would that be? Do you "like" the idea, do you have a generic and non-specific emotional "feeling" that tells you you have a soul, or did you read about it in a book, or some combination?Becasue none of those are any different from people who believe in fairies or invisible unicorns. Why do you give your favored belief the free pass, but don't believe in any other claims that have exactly the same amount of evidence?

There's very little distinction, helenavm. It's typically a distinction of popularity, meaning "if enough people believe in a completely insane idea, we can't call it insane any more."That's basically the very topic of this thread: if one type of belief based upon no evidence is considered "crazy," why does it magically stop being crazy when we call it a "religion?"Scientologists believe that human suffering is the result of brainwashed alien souls who were carted off to Earth in suspended animation and then dumped into the Hawaiian volcanoes with a few nuclear warheads for good measure. They are frequently regarded as "nutty" for this belief, because they have no evidence to support it.Christians believe that human suffering is the result of eating a piece of fruit, and that their deity sacrificed himself to himself over a rule he made in the first place. This is typically not regarded as "nutty," despite the fact that Christians have no objective evidence to support their belief.Why is one nutty, and the other not? Could it be popularity? Could it be that the majority in the Western world are Christians, and really really don't want to admit that their beliefs have no evidence to back them up?Could it be the exact same reason Creationists like Buzsaw and ICANT constantly try to paint science as being just as faith-based as religion in a giant "you do it tooooo!" argument, so that they don't have to admit that they can't support their beliefs? How so? We don't have the ability to determine the cause of a person's beliefs by scanning their brains, you know. Gve us a few more years. Schizophrenia for example is diagnosed based on behaviors, not on some super-Star-Trek brainscan that tells us whether the voices are "god" or "crazy." Once again: what's the difference between a cult and a religion?Popularity. At some point a movement gains critical mass, and it becomes politically inconvenient, or even socially rude to challenge the group's beliefs no matter how nonsensical because it would "deeply offend" that group. It's fine to call 1, 5, 10, or even 500 people "delusional." It's not fine to call greater than 90% of your own country's population "delusional," even if it's true by the exact same test. Those are not actually common to all religions. Buddhism, for example, does not acknowledge any "higher being." Many religions don't even consider an afterlife. Scientology also does not believe in a "higher being" in the way Christianity does.Or did you mean "common to all flavors of Judeo-Christianity?" Because that's what Creationists usually mean when they talk about religion. The FSM is not a serious religion, helenavm - it's a mockery of religion. It's used as an analogy for all unfalsifiable, faith-based nonsense beliefs. It illustrates that, in the absence of evidence, any and all speculation regardless of how completely insane is equally valid. It is a demonstration that the beliefs of Christians are just as completely bonkers as belief in the FSM, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or fairies, or anything else from imaginationland. And it's rather difficult to have "lasting and widespread cults" for a deity that was only imagined a few years ago. You, like most Christians, obviously didn't get the joke.Your beliefs likely "ring true" because you were raised from birth believing in them, or at the very least surrounded by people who did. You'll note that Christianity is not all that popular in China, for instance, where people don't spend their entire lives hearing about Christian beliefs whether they want to or not. Traditional Chinese religions still hold the majority there. Likewise, in India, Hindus are still the overwhelming majority, and Judeo-Christian converts are extremely rare. 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.Besides that, some of the offshoots of Judaism (Islam and Mormonism in particular) are so incredibly different from Protestant Christianity or Catholicism that lumping them all together in the way you have is not really appropriate. They have some of the very basics in common, but when it really comes down to it, you may as well just lump all of monotheism together. Hell, Mormons aren't even strictly speaking monotheistic. Ask a Muslim why they call Christians "infidels." Your argument is silly, based solely on your personal experiences and not from objective facts.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 becasue they have some undefinable ring of truth to them - you know, becasue my beliefs are not delusional, even though I have no objective evidence for them."The first argument is simply an Appeal to Popularity - it's a logical fallacy. Arguments to not gain logical cohesion or factual correctness by being popular - truth is not a democracy. Whether an argument is valid or not is the same whether 10 people or 1,000,000 agree. Was the Earth actually flat when everyone thought it was a few hundred years ago?The second argument is a bare assertion - and a false one, because your "ring of truth" doesn't gain you converts in areas that are not already highly Christian.You're simply defending your sacred cow, helenavm, and you have failed to provide a reason to give religions a free pass (and it's typically the case that only certain religions are given that free pass).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.That's all. 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.