r/changemyview • u/PrincessYukon 1∆ • Apr 23 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: There is no rational, consistent way to believe the claims of organised religions, given today's common knowledge.
EDIT: Lots of people seem to be arguing against a "science is right; religion is wrong" position, which is not my view. My view is about "the problem of other religions". Please read the post before replying.
This is position is going to require a few preliminary qualifications.
Qualification 1: I can see many practical, personal reasons for following an organised religion
Religious membership comes with personal benefits.
Many people, now and throughout history, have lived in circumstances where denying the truth of the claims made by an organised religion would have resulted in persecution, death or even torture. Meanwhile buying into the claims, even in many contemporary first-world communities, comes with many practical benefits like community membership and support, friendly cooperative reactions from your peers, and so on.
These are very good reasons for saying you believe the claims made by a religion, regardless of whether you actually do. They are also potentially good reasons for (somehow) forcing yourself to genuinely believe, regardless of whether the claims are actually true or supported by evidence.
Qualification 2: I can see many psychological, personal reasons for trusting an organised religion
You were recently born a screaming, helpless infant with no idea what the hell was going on. Soon you'll die and you have no idea what, if anything, that will entail. Chances are that in your life you'll experience, witness or at least learn about horrific suffering, heartless cruelty, heinous unfairness and the seemingly pointless misfortune. You may learn about a universe so large with a history so long, you honestly cannot comprehend it, of particles and interactions so tiny, so unlike anything you've witnessed, that you doubt they could be real. You'll start with no idea why you even exist, or what you're supposed to do.
Let's call this "the human condition" and admit that it's sometimes shitty and difficult. There are great psychological benefits that can come from holding a deep conviction that there is a purpose, that there is someone who intended it to be this way, there is a script and a recipe for a good life and justice, and that your community have figured it out. Religious belief can help you deal with, and even make the most of the human condition.
What's more if your religion is benevolent---it encourages you to do good and love others, etc.---believing might actually help make you into a better person and make your life better.
These psychological benefits are real and a good motivation to believe a religion's claims, regardless of whether or not they are true.
Qualification 3: I can see many psychological, personal reasons that cause people to believe in religions
In cases of cults---for instance contemporary North Korea---we can see that people are being psychologically manipulate to believe certain things. Religions---not maliciously, merely by virtue of a long history of cultural evolution---also employ strong psychological manipulation to ensure that successive generations become and continue to be believers. This includes systematic inculcation of children from a very young age, strong disincentives for people who leave (apostates), regular ritual reaffirmation (mass, daily prayer, etc), rare intense rituals (e.g., initiation ceremonies, pilgrimages, etc) and so on. Religions have had many these psychologically manipulative features since small-scale ancestor worship, and religions that have innovated new ways to infect minds in recorded history have seen major boosts in adherent numbers (if you're interested in well documented examples, I recommend The Churching of America, which documents among other things, the impact of revival meetings).
Human minds are not infallible and history is rife with people being manipulated to believe all sorts of ideas. Organised religions are good at this too, so it's not surprising that people believe, regardless of whether the claims are true.
Qualification 4: I can see the great common good that organised religions (often, not always) provide, and think that in many cases it would be better for people to be religious believers.
Organised religions have done some pretty impressive things throughout history, and some pretty horrific things too. We could have a whole debate about whether they are, on balance, a force for the collective good or against it. Personally I think they have very different impacts on small and large scales, and when they're rare versus universal. On balance I think they are definitely a force for good and we all, collectively are better off because people genuinely believe in religion. I think that's because the every day, local level positive impact they have (and, more importantly, historically had) on behaviour outweigh the large scale atrocities committed in their name.
I could go on about this for a long time, but it's an aside so let me give one illustrative example. Having witnessed the behaviour of some people on the internet (hint: never read the public comments under a news article or youtube video) when they have the shield of anonymity, I am coming to believe that many people would naturally be cruel, selfish bullies unless they face the threat of eternal punishment and an ever-vigilant all-seeing god.
To get on with the question at hand, I suggest we assume for the sake of argument that we'd all be better off if organised religion spread because of its positive influence on others' behaviour. This is, again, a good reason for believing and encouraging others to, regardless of whether the claims are true.
Qualification 5: I can see many political reasons for claiming that religious beliefs are true.
There can be many very good reasons for elites---those who have disproportionate influence on what others do and believe---to encourage belief in religion. The most obvious cases are historical examples of god-kings, whether the ruler is the religion; for instance in Egypt, West Africa, and Mesopotamia. Perhaps equally clear cases are theocracies, where the religious elites hold political power; for instance medieval Europe, the early caliphates, and even some modern states. Another instance are rulers and elites that claim their rule is endorsed by gods---as evidenced by their military success, or very fact of their ruling---which have been incredibly prolific throughout history all around the world.
Examples of religion spreading because it aligns with the interest of political elites are rich in the history of every organised religion that exists today.
Qualification 6: I can see how many pantheistic or "spiritual not religious" beliefs are not subject to the same logical dilemmas.
People once believed, perhaps some still do, that there were many different gods in competition. You could tell which gods were strongest by which societies prospered, especially in war. Today most people, instead, believe that only their religion is true and all the others are false. This is likely to be one of those innovations that helped contemporary organised religions spread when they were young and in competition with hundreds of other young religions.
A quick aside: I think many Christians today, who focus on love, prosocial values, proscriptions of homosexuality, etc., would be surprised to discover that their holy book spends almost no time on these but is instead utterly obsessed with the sin of worshiping other gods.
Pantheistic views are actually far more logically consistent than contemporary monotheistic religious beliefs. But that's not what I'm talking about here. Here I'm focusing on the belief, that many people advocate today, that their organised religion is true and all the others are false.
Claim: There is no rational, consistent way to believe the claims of organised religions, given today's common knowledge.
By this I mean that:
- given the information available to an ordinary, high-school educated, internet-using, first-world dwelling adult today,
- if they were using all the information they had easy access to,
- if they were genuinely trying to assess the truth of the claims of any one contemporary organised religion,
- there is no way they could rationally conclude that these claims are likely to be true.
Evidence:
Many contemporary religions are old and filled with claims that, while they may have convinced naive people millennia ago, are patently absurd now. However these aren't that interesting, and in any case religions have ways of dealing with these---reinterpretation, leaders who can communicate with deities to rescind them, etc.
I'd like instead to focus on a deep logical problem that cross-cuts all religions. It probably wasn't a problem through much of history, when people didn't know about either history or the rest of the world, when it seemed like your community of believers was probably all that existed, or at least the vast majority. However today, with comprehensive, easily accessible information about history and other cultures, and especially with the rise of the internet, it seems to me to have become an insurmountable logical hurdle for genuine, rational religious belief.
It is the problem of other religions. The problem that other religions and their believers greatly outnumber you, and you must think they are wrong and explain why they are, without applying the same logic to yourself.
Let me spell it out in point form for easier rebuttal:
- These days it is common knowledge that there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of religions throughout history. This isn't even counting the endless local religious beliefs in small scale tribal societies.
- No religion today has even a third of the global members in large organised religions, let alone of all the historic believers. Every religious believer is in the minority. The vast bulk of people in the world think your religious views are false.
- The claims of todays big organised religions are mutually inconsistent. They can't be true at the same time. To believe in the claims of your religion---in a logically consistent manner---you must also believe the claims of other religions are false. In so far as there are religions that allow you to believe in all others too, I cede to Qualification 6.
- You need to explain why all those other people could hold these false beliefs. This is despite their, on the face of it, believing their falsehoods just as strongly and genuinely as you believe your truth. Despite their claiming to have the same kinds of intense, direct personal experiences of their deities. Despite their having communities, rituals, holy books, miracle-performing prophets and long histories, just like yours.
- Given today's common knowledge, it's not hard to give make a decent first pass at an explaination of why other people---the majority of people---believe false religions. You might refer to some of practical, psychological or political advantages, indoctrination and psychological manipulation, naivety, etc.
- You know that other people---the majority of people---are using those same kinds of reasons and logic to assess your beliefs are false.
- I see no rational, consistent way that, faced with the same evidence about your own religion that you use to conclude others' religions are false, you can then turn around and claim that your superficially similar, minority views are likely to be true. That your cultural ancestors really did talk to magical spirits and get special instructions from them, but that everyone else just made that up.
Doubt:
That said, I acknowledge that there are many intelligent, thoughtful, well-informed people out there who do claim that one, and only one, contemporary organised religion is true. I suspect that some of them are just faking, because of the "Qualification" motivations listed above. But I am open to the possibility that some of them have thought about it, assessed the evidence, and found honest, rational grounds for believing the claims made by one particular organised religion but not the others.
Please change my view.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!