The fundamental flaw in religion as I see it

[KevinFinnerty]

I should start off by saying that I consider myself agnostic, as I acknowledge the possibility that there may be a higher power out there somewhere but I certainly wouldn't say I believe in a god.

Now, I could write volumes about how preposterous the notion of religion is (for this discussion I will focus exclusively on the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), but the fundamental flaw I referred to in the thread title revolves around one question for you religious people out there: why exactly did you choose the religion that you adhere to? In other words, why have you chosen to follow Christianity instead of Judaism, or Judaism instead of Islam, etc.?

On the one hand, religious people like to emphasize that empirical evidence of any kind is not needed to believe in their religion, and that faith in the face of this lack of evidence is virtuous. However, a person must have some rhyme or reason for picking one religion over another, right? I mean, people don't just pick their religions randomly, do they? Of course not (you'd probably be stoned to death in many Muslim countries for even suggesting such a notion).

The one incredibly fallacious line of reasoning that I want to discuss which people to tend to use to justify their belief in a given religion is that they believe because they like the message that the religion sends out. You might hear a Christian say something along the lines of, "I believe in Christianity because I read the Bible and that Jesus preached a lot of things that I agree with and did a lot of really great things for a lot of people." However, preferring the tenets and principles of one religion over the others does not make it more likely that the events and information the religion describes are actually true. It's reverse logic; you're basically saying to yourself, "It would be really great if this were true, so I will believe it is true." For people who think this way, ignorance really is bliss.

To state the fundamental flaw I mentioned earlier a little more clearly, the fact that faith in the face of a complete lack of evidence is a requirement in the Abrahamic religions makes the whole thing a paradox. Consider this situation: two people live identically pure and altruistic lives, except one believed wholeheartedly that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins and all that jazz, while the other believed nothing of the sort, claiming that it would be foolish to believe such a concept over other concepts like those put forth in Judaism or Islam, which are presented with the same degree of evidence (or lack thereof). Would a supposedly just and loving God who does not possess human characteristics like arrogance and pettiness really send the first person to eternal paradise, and the second to eternal damnation, even though they lived identical lives with regards to how they treated themselves and others? Herein lies the fundamental flaw in religion as I see it, and its only one of many flaws in the idea of religion as we know it. I'll probably discuss the others in separate threads, as this post has gotten kind of long.

KevinFinnerty Reviewed by KevinFinnerty on 07-07-2007. The fundamental flaw in religion as I see it I should start off by saying that I consider myself agnostic, as I acknowledge the possibility that there may be a higher power out there somewhere but I certainly wouldn't say I believe in a god. Now, I could write volumes about how preposterous the notion of religion is (for this discussion I will focus exclusively on the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), but the fundamental flaw I referred to in the thread title revolves around one question for you religious Rating: 5

[hempotalogist]

For me, I am a spiritual person, based mostly on life's experiences. I've lost many loved ones, people very close to me, I watched them die.

Real life experiences > mental gymnastics and criticisms on Abrahamic thought

Seriously, what are you trying to say here?

Have you tried Kundalini Yoga?
Have you tried Reiki Healing?
Have you studied Native American rituals?

LOL at only making an analysis of Abrahamic religions.... you have to make an analysis of EVERYTHING.

I was agnostic/atheist for 15 years. My spiritual practice is not a naive POV. Why do atheists only criticise Judeo/Christian dogma? Does this have to do with personal indoctrination?

Dude, go do some kundalini yoga... and no, you don't have to be ghey.

I haven't met an atheist that practices this stuff... cuz it's fucking awesome!

:hippy:

[delusionsofNORMALity]

what you see as a flaw in religious thought is actually one of the major reasons for its survival throughout the ages. once you strip away all of the happy thoughts and mumbo jumbo you can see religion for what it really is, politics at its basest and most primitive. instead of nationalism and economics, it deals with absolute truth and immortality. with nothing concrete to offer its adherents, it bestows upon them the promise of heavenly favor and the knowledge that they are amongst the few and are therefore better than those who choose to follow another path. the clerics and hierarchs of the true faith need not justify their decisions, they need only point to the heavens and remind the faithful that they rule by divine right and that their words are the words of god (or gods or flying spaghetti monster or whatever).

simple, perfect, infallible. the creation of the cult of elitism based not on achievements or even intent, but on a simple choice of deity.

[Oneironaut]

Most people simply adopt the religious beliefs of their parents. It makes good evolutionary sense for children to believe what their parents say. If children did not have this built-in willingness to accept what their parents say, they would be more likely to disregard their parents when they are being warned of a real danger. When a parent says "Watch out, there's a tiger!" or "Don't touch that flame!" or "There's a cliff behind that bush!", it's a good idea for the child to simply believe their parents because they haven't had enough experience with the world to know what's dangerous and what's not.

So children are naturally gullible. Tell your child that a fat man delivers presents to them every year with a fleet of flying reindeer, and the child will believe you. Tell your child that a magical fairy will replace their lost teeth with money, and the child will believe you. Tell your child that a gigantic bunny rabbit is going to leave chocolate eggs in a basket for you during the night, and the child will believe you. Tell the child that a magical god-man died for our sins and that you'll burn eternally if you don't believe that, and the child will believe you.

The thing about religions is that they're not just arbitrary belief systems. They have evolved over time, just like you and me. A religion that has ideas that people are willing to accept will spread far and wide, whereas a religion that has less successful ideas will die out. For instance, if there was a religion where one of the beliefs was you can't talk about the religion to anybody, that religion would get nowhere. If there's a religion where you have to go out and actively evangelize, that religion could easily spread around. If there's a religion that says all sex is wrong always, the followers won't have any children, and they'll have to rely solely on converting people. On the other hand, if you have a religion that urges people to be fruitful and multiply, that religion will have many more supple young minds to prey on.

One of the best features for a religion to evolve is the feature of being emotionally comfortable. People aren't going to be attracted to ideas that make them afraid; they're going to go after ideas that make them feel better about themselves. That's why so many religions promise that you have an immortal soul; that completely takes away the fear of death (or, at least it's supposed to...most religious people I know succumb to their natural fear of death anyways).

Most religions also have some sort of built-in automatic cosmic justice system. People don't like seeing bad people go unpunished and good people go unrewarded, so people believe concepts like heaven/hell and karma which guarantee that justice will eventually be served in the grand scheme of things. The monotheistic God concept is especially popular because it personifies that "ultimate justice" concept. It deludes the believer into thinking that an all-powerful father figure is looking after them and their families, making sure everything turns out all right in the end.

These are very emotionally powerful concepts, and usually strongly reinforced by the child's social network, so they are deeply ingrained in the child's mind before they can really examine the other belief systems that are out there or critically think about the tenets of their own religion. They don't even want to think about the possibility that they might be wrong. The idea of giving up God, giving up eternal life, giving up ultimate cosmic justice is just too scary for them, so they take those ideas to the grave.

[hazetwostep]

hempo points out a big reason for many people choosing the particular religion that they do and that is "personal experience." my belief in a god stems from experiential reasons.

now many just follow it because of being raised with certain beliefs or whatever... that wouldn't cut it for me.

the beauty of personal experience is that nobody can take it away from you... except you.

[Oh My High]

Why exactly did you choose the religion that you adhere to? In other words, why have you chosen to follow Christianity instead of Judaism, or Judaism instead of Islam, etc.?

I'm an atheist but like 95% of atheists I was raised in a religious background (in my case, evangelical Christianity) and used to believe in god. I spent five years as an agnostic, which I see as a period of transition people go through before they accept full atheism. It's a logical process to go from theism to atheism because it's based upon the evaluation of logic, reasoning, and evidence. It's blind to cultural bias. However, my point is theists cannot say the same. Christians would be Hindus if they were born in India and Muslims would be Mormons with those silly magic underpants if they were born in Salt Lake City. They believe what they believe because of their emotions shaped by their cultural biases. It's easily anticipated someone will say "But that's not true, what about people who switch religions?" Same difference, the choices are made out of emotion and not rationality.

Oneironaut:
It makes good evolutionary sense for children to believe what their parents say. If children did not have this built-in willingness to accept what their parents say, they would be more likely to disregard their parents when they are being warned of a real danger. When a parent says "Watch out, there's a tiger!" or "Don't touch that flame!" or "There's a cliff behind that bush!", it's a good idea for the child to simply believe their parents because they haven't had enough experience with the world to know what's dangerous and what's not.

Yes! And I'm always reminded of how Richard Dawkins worded it: you can't have children being skeptical to stay away from crocodiles.

[Coelho]

Yes! And I'm always reminded of how Richard Dawkins worded it: you can't have children being skeptical to stay away from crocodiles.

Very nice quote!
Anyway, like the skeptical children who does not believe their parents advise and are eaten by the crocodiles, im sure that sceptical people who doesnt believe in God will burn forever in hell... the logic is the same...

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I think what truly makes religion the ultimate political rallying point, is the total lack of accountability of leaders to their people. God is supposed to be suppreme ruler of the universe, the guy who bestowes our most important moral codes of conduct and thought, yet unlike an elected national leader there is no questioning the success of the policies and social strategies of the supposedly infallable diety.

Instead we have a world with the most horrifically greusome diseases, terrible wars, mass ignorance, mass greed, pedophiles, rapists, murderes, global warming, genocides, you name it. The holy scriptures endowed to us are supposed to guide us to an enlightened life, yes, but these teachings are god's plan to guide the world in the rigth direction. Yet his previous strategies have obviously failed, his holy scriptures are obviously not enough to remedie the worlds problems and reach the most terrible people, nor does he provide adaquate evidence of his existence, apparently only to punish those of us with critical thinking skills who have lived in a world that consistantly shows we should only believe something with ample evidence.

If god was indeed omniscient, omnipitant, infallable in all his reasoning, he'd have this world in far better condition than it is. The monotheists rationalize these attrocities by blaming the fallability of man, yet just as a parent is responsible to bring up their child properly, God is responsible for bringing up humanity properly. That's not my opinion, that's what God's already tried to do with holy scriptures. And the scriptures and churches have failed, humanity does not have its values strait, it does not have a clear idea of how to achieve a beautiful world, and God has failed to improve his strategy to reach all of us.

Why do you think churches and mosque's have said for so long that you must never question the almighty authority? Because if we did question his performance, we would have voted in a new guy by now.

[Quincyboy]

I'm an atheist but like 95% of atheists I was raised in a religious background (in my case, evangelical Christianity) and used to believe in god. I spent five years as an agnostic, which I see as a period of transition people go through before they accept full atheism. It's a logical process to go from theism to atheism because it's based upon the evaluation of logic, reasoning, and evidence. It's blind to cultural bias. However, my point is theists cannot say the same. Christians would be Hindus if they were born in India and Muslims would be Mormons with those silly magic underpants if they were born in Salt Lake City. They believe what they believe because of their emotions shaped by their cultural biases. It's easily anticipated someone will say "But that's not true, what about people who switch religions?" Same difference, the choices are made out of emotion and not rationality.

Well then according to you the only rational and free minded choice would be to be an atheist and that is where your argument is flawed

It is true that there are many regions of the world susceptible to a certain religion and cultural bias does influence the percentages of religions but that would raise the question of how religions started. If what you say is true then there couldnâ??t be any other religions since humanity was all born in the same region and also the fact the you assume everyone in India is Hindu and everyone in salt lake city is Mormon makes you look like an asshole

Religion serves one purpose and one purpose only, to explain the unexplainable, that is how the first religions were started and why they were mostly polytheistic. as the human mind expanded and began to explain these things religions became more and more hard to refute and as more and more people began to believe in certain religions other people saw the opportunity to use this to their own gains (this is where all the politics the apparently forms the basis of every religion comes in)

Blind faith is one of the most important aspects of the major Abrahamic religions but even though you wouldnâ??t like to admit it is also a major aspect of atheism

if an atheist didnâ??t truly with all aspects of his being believe that it is impossible for there to be a god then he wouldnâ??t be an atheist so you sir have blind faith that there is no god, and if your a scientific atheist then there are even more things that you blindly believe in called theories

the major flaw of religions is that they are man made and there has yet to be something thought of or created by man that is perfect including your argument

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

It is true that there are many regions of the world susceptible to a certain religion and cultural bias does influence the percentages of religions but that would raise the question of how religions started. If what you say is true then there couldnâ??t be any other religions since humanity was all born in the same region and also the fact the you assume everyone in India is Hindu and everyone in salt lake city is Mormon makes you look like an asshole

Dude, no need for the name calling.... you asshole! (j/k ) . He didnt' actually say all people of these places are the same religion, just the very true point that religion, at least initially, is based on which culture you were born into. He also never said that new religions couldn't come up, that people don't rebel, or that one can change faith, he's just talking about the general population for which the religion resides. Does a poster really need to specifically state ".... or he would be Hindu if born in India. And by that I mean if he was born into a Hindu family, and no sihk's or muslims tried to convert him, and etc etc etc..." The basic point is there, you're blowing it out of proportion for not going into uncessesary specifics that are a given.

Religion serves one purpose and one purpose only, to explain the unexplainable, that is how the first religions were started and why they were mostly polytheistic. as the human mind expanded and began to explain these things religions became more and more hard to refute and as more and more people began to believe in certain religions other people saw the opportunity to use this to their own gains (this is where all the politics the apparently forms the basis of every religion comes in)

Well I totally agree with you that religions were invented to explain the unexplainable, but how did they become "harder to refute" as we learned more? Thunder was attributed to a blacksmith of the gods one time, stars were explained as pinprick glimpses into heaven, neuro-chemical imbalance later explained what christians initially thought was the work of demons. If anything I'd say religion becomes more and more difficult to justify as human knowledge expands. Of course once you explain one thing, they move onto the next thing we haven't yet explained and say "well how could that possibly work by itself? I don't know so that proves god did it!".

Blind faith is one of the most important aspects of the major Abrahamic religions but even though you wouldnâ??t like to admit it is also a major aspect of atheism

if an atheist didnâ??t truly with all aspects of his being believe that it is impossible for there to be a god then he wouldnâ??t be an atheist so you sir have blind faith that there is no god, and if your a scientific atheist then there are even more things that you blindly believe in called theories

Sorry but my BULLSHITOMETER is through the roof. I can't count how many times I've heard the argument that atheism requires "faith". It's a typical theist tactic, yet another, to try and put religion on equal grounds of rationality with science.
Religion is a matter of faith, faith in the unseen and the unproven, faith in the existence of things and beings unverified. Atheism is not "I KNOW there's no god!", atheism is a rational decision to not believe in god until there's is ample evidence to do so. The very notion that you have to have "faith" for non-belief is rediculous. If I say gremlims have a mining colony at the center of the sun, can you disprove it? Do you need to have faith that the gremlims aren't there? Or are you just rational enough to know it's illogical to believe in the gremlims without evidence of them?

If a lack of belief in god requires faith, then it's no more faith than a lack of belief in everything else imaginary. In which case, God has no more credibility than the tooth fairy or the flying spagetti monster. It baffles me to this day that millions have now become convinced that "faith" not only applies to belief, but lack of belief as well. This is a very typical example of people who don't understand that atheism is not knowing there isn't a god, it is knowing god is no more plausible than everything else that doesn't exist, until god has been proven or at least has some supporting evidence.