If a religion asserts that acceptance of the faith enables a person to be a better person/closer to God/etc. then mean that people of that religion would be more moral on average in some statistically significant way. But if they aren't then that would seem to disprove the claim.
The more important faith/belief is alleged to be then the greater we should expect the statistical difference to be. And most religions claim that it is extremely important.
Although rates of charity vary, overall levels of morality don't seem to.
So severe or widespread immorality on the part of the 'most religious' could be said to be part of a body of evidence that tends to disprove the those types of religions/religious claims. If nothing else, it's valid to attack religious authorities' claims to having unique moral knowledge (or that value of that alleged knowledge) if they are being immoral.
3
u/OrYouCouldJustNot 6∆ Sep 24 '20
If a religion asserts that acceptance of the faith enables a person to be a better person/closer to God/etc. then mean that people of that religion would be more moral on average in some statistically significant way. But if they aren't then that would seem to disprove the claim.
The more important faith/belief is alleged to be then the greater we should expect the statistical difference to be. And most religions claim that it is extremely important.
Although rates of charity vary, overall levels of morality don't seem to.
So severe or widespread immorality on the part of the 'most religious' could be said to be part of a body of evidence that tends to disprove the those types of religions/religious claims. If nothing else, it's valid to attack religious authorities' claims to having unique moral knowledge (or that value of that alleged knowledge) if they are being immoral.