Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism?

[MBuzzy]

Given that religion is based largely on faith, the belief in unproveable tenets, destructive criticism is pointless; it often devolves into a meaningless argument based on "I'm right because my religion says..." sent back and forth between participants in an increasingly heated fashion. In addition, many people base a great deal of their self-concept on their beliefs, and deriding those beliefs derides the person as well.

And is this is the biggest reason why criticism of religions is so taboo. Partly because of how it is being given and partly because of how it is being received...and in either case, it is usually because the people are too emotionally involved to have an open mind.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Kacey, that last post was so off base I can't even begin to count the ways it makes you seem foolish. (sorry couldn't resist).

Really, Kacey, you make an excellent point.

I think the context of religion almost demands destructive criticism. In a context where saying the majority is wrong means you get labelled as a heretic, there is no room for true constructive criticism.

It's not like you can say 'gee, whiz, father. why couldn't we believe in evolution? i mean, sheesh, genesis was a poem. aren't poems supposed to be metaphorical?' and then have that thought examined on its actual merits.

 

[Ray]

One of the biggest differences between science and religion is the criticism....or examination and how it is taken. Based on the scientific theory, if you disprove something, it is dismissed and forgotten. Look at all of the scientific truths that have been believed as fact, disproved and completely dismissed. Science has a way of evolved based on criticism and testing.

Science is a tool to help us understand the universe. It's just a tool, nothing more.

But when you criticise or examine a religion, it is much less likely to change to adapt. It is all based on the assmuption that the words in the bible are all truth.

Do you think that "love your neighbor" should be changed? How about "do not steal?" Maybe "do not murder?" Or is it the part about a God or gods that should be changed in religion? Or perhaps some of the "histories" in scriptures?

How much has religion evolved, adapted and changed in the past 50 years? Or 100 years....or 1000 years for that matter?

Mine still says "love thy neighbor as thy self." So I don't suppose it's changed much.

...but if the person whose beliefs are being criticised has an open mind enough to listen and understand what is being said. I find that when you do criticise, the fault is more often in the receiving person jumping to the defensive and not listening to a word that is said.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I should open my mind and consider the possibility that my neighbor should not be given compassion; that everyone and everthing in this world should be for my benefit; that I should create the greatest number of possible offspring and destroy the offspring of those who would compete for resources with my offspring. In this way, I can ensure that the strong who survive to evole are inheritors of my dna. That would be darwinism at its best.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

ray, with all respect you're going a long way to prove buzzy's point.

instead of offering rational debate, you're reacting emotionally and not really addressing the issue.

of course nobody wants to evolve past 'don't steal, don't kill and fer cryin out loud be nice to each other'. well, from time to time in history people have. can't help but notice most often those people have done so in the name of their god.

but there are many other facets of religion that should be debated rationally. taboos against premarital sex, homosexuality, wearing clothing of mixed fibers, eating pork (all forbidden in epistles) should be examined and subject to informed debate. the idea that murder gets you into heaven (as believed by some muslims) or that one should stand by and watch a child drown (as believed by some buddhists) should all be approached with rational consideration.

dogged emotionality doesn't prove your point. it simply alienates people who might have agreed with you moments ago.

speaking as a man of faith, please stop helping the other side.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's a fact. Anything if not maintained falls into disorder. Do you think we have to maintain such simple things as our lawns and homes yet something as complex as our universe needs nothing to bring it to order?

The answer is complex, but I would say that a creator does not have to exist in order to bring our universe into order. The current state of physics pretty much shows that it happens all by itself. Here is a good book on the matter...

The Fabric of Space and Time by Brian Greene.

No, I don't think so. Not anymore than acknowledging the opposite would be critical of those beliefs. Again, it's semantics. An examination of evidence does not equate criticism of a belief.

What if the results happened to contradict something you believed in very strongly? What if the results were so clear that people would think that you were a fool for continuing to believe in whatever you believed?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I think you put far too much "faith" in science.

 

[MBuzzy]

I think you put far too much "faith" in science.

The same can be said for other people's beliefs in religions. But I believe this is a debate on the issues, not on any one person's beliefs.

We are in fact arguing the point that it is acceptable to criticise other people's beliefs.....not their right to have them.

 

[MBuzzy]

Ray,

As stated, this is a very emotionally charged subject. But please don't believe that I - or anyone else is advocating for eliminating morality. Morality can come from a number of sources, religion, the law, personal beliefs, experience....all over. In fact, every religion on the planet has some basis of religion. Although each of them believes they are the most correct.

As Bushido stated, this is not a debate on morality or the rules governing morality put forth by religions. It is a debate on whether it is acceptable to question someone's beliefs. We all have an equal right to HAVE beliefs, but should be ready to defend them.

There are some things in many religious text that were put there to protect people from themselves that have no religious basis and there are also things put there to help explain the nature of the universe. Science is simply another possible explanation of the nature of things. Science just seeks to put concrete data behind them and doesn't rely on faith.

Science does NOT delve into morality....and you shouldn't look to science to give you a moral compass. That is instilled by your parents, society, your church, or by no one. I grew up in a Methodist church and between them and my parents, I was given a very strong sense of morality and right and wrong. But I am also an engineer - which means my analytical mind looks for the explanation with the most credibility and proof.

I strongly believe that science and religion can peacefully co-exist...with a few obvious "disagreements," they both give people different things. Although both sides should strive to have as much understanding as they can for the other....

P.S. Just throwing this out there...My comments are all from an objective point of view. I have tried very hard to not include my own opinions.

 

[Cryozombie]

One of the biggest differences between science and religion is the criticism....or examination and how it is taken. Based on the scientific theory, if you disprove something, it is dismissed and forgotten.

I almost agree with this, because in theory its correct. But lets not forget that in science, a lot of science "fact" is really "science opinion" or "science theory" that is simply accepted by a group of the scientists peers. (whats the Sun made of? The theory is Hydrogen and Helium, right? But can we PROVE that? Or is it taken as fact, because its the best answer we can come up with based on current technology? I'd say the latter... no one can actually gather a sample and TEST the sun's makeup... yet science has PROVEN its makeup...)

Also, often certain things are proven or disproven, only to have the approval/disproval thrown away because they are unpopular or contradict someone of stature, or you run into cases where two scientists come up with opposing data, and you need to decide which camp you are in... in those cases science is hardly exact and therefore things "dissmissed or forgotten," it becomes a matter of FAITH in the scientific methods the guy you believe is right used.

 

[MBuzzy]

That is completely correct, there is a point when you have to have faith in the scientific method. And there are many things that we take as truth that are still just theories. But there are also theories that have a lot of evidence behind them...we just don't have conclusive evidence. But we do label them as theories and you can choose to believe or dismiss them.

The beauty of the scientific method is that if something is disproven, it is eliminated....now if the masses choose to not believe it...like the shape of the earth or the theory of gravity......that is just a failing of society.

I will submit that science is not without its faults. It is easy to fake tests, jump to conclusions, perform tests only to back up your theories and dismiss contradictory evidence, the list goes on of the flaws....but religions do have their own list of flaws.

That is why each person must make their own decision based on the evidence given to them as to what they should and should not believe.

 

[Andrew Green]

Which is why there is the need for verification, one scientist making a claim means nothing, it needs to be tested and verified by others.

Religion can not make the same sort of claim... although I would find it amusing for Christians to seek verification of the trinity through Islam and Buhdist doctorine (or any other groups)

I really must be missing something here, but I can't for the life of me see how "science is not absolute, it changes and evolves and no one can be sure of any of its claims" is a fault compared to "religion is absolute, God does not go 'oops, made a booboo, need to update that bible'"

Allowing for progress in our understanding of the universe is something I would consider a big plus, not a negaitve...

Everyone "places faith" in science. Science is what makes our current life possible. We depend on vehicles to get to work, electricity to power our homes, and the internet right now to make posts. Yes, I have faith that science got electricity more or less right, and can do useful things with it. Show me the same level of evidence for God? Show me any evidence? Show me one practical, useful thing that can be done with it?

High level science is, yes, a lot of speculation. Theories about what might happen if...? or how did that happen...? and there are differeing opinions on a lot of things, and yes, there are conflicts. And if you look at science 200 years ago it was no different, there where opposing views, different hypothesis, and experiments showing evidence towards conflicting theories. SInce then, a lot of those conflicts have been resolved, in another 200 years I imagine most of the current ones will have been resolved, and others will come up.

Science does not claim to have the truth, it claims to try and figure it out.

Religion claims to have the truth, based on ancient scriptures.

This is a big difference, and one that people trying to discredit science tend to blur, and like to claim that science is falliable, therefore it requires faith, therefore it is a religion.

This is nonsense.

I believe the sun will rise... well the earth will spin, revolve, etc and the sun will appear to rise, tomorrow, and the next day. Is this "faith"? In a sense I suppose it is, I have no absolute proof for this, merely inductive logic that it has always done so in the past. But what justifies my belief that inductive logic will continue to work in the future?

So because I believe the sun will rise, I have faith, therefore I am religious in my beliefs about Ra? umm... I mean the sun... yeah, not Ra, the sun

Sorry, but science is faith in the same way as religion is a very poor argument.

 

[Jade Tigress]

What if the results happened to contradict something you believed in very strongly? What if the results were so clear that people would think that you were a fool for continuing to believe in whatever you believed?

I ask you that same question.

 

[Tez3]

Given that they leave us alone ie don't force their views on us, don't cause wars etc why would we actually care what others believe?

 

[Ray]

Everyone "places faith" in science. Science is what makes our current life possible. We depend on vehicles to get to work, electricity to power our homes, and the internet right now to make posts.

With the possible exception of the internet, those items are not the result of science. They are the result of cold-hearted businessmen. We know all about Edison's approach to science, he had only one true, pure scientific discovery (the edison effect, the glow that allows TV screens to work--he logged it and saw no way to make $$ from it so forgot all about it).

These guys weren't trying to describe or learn more about the universe. They had a vision and molded the resources to fit their vision.

Pure science is pure discovery, learning and understanding.

Show me the same level of evidence for God? Show me any evidence?

Many things in my life are subject to the scientific method. The "if and then" and reasoning to solve problems, etc.

I believe the sun will rise... well the earth will spin, revolve, etc and the sun will appear to rise, tomorrow, and the next day. Is this "faith"? In a sense I suppose it is, I have no absolute proof for this, merely inductive logic that it has always done so in the past. But what justifies my belief that inductive logic will continue to work in the future?

It is nice to know that the earth spins and moves around the sun. It is nice to know that the sun moves around the center of our galaxy. We learn these things because someone tells us (like teachers and parents) and we believe them; not all of us have the opportunity nor the desire to prove those facts as scientific truths.

Why? Because it doesn't make a difference in most of our lives. The most part of my life would be the same whether we believed the world was flat, or round -- except for satellite TV and other communications.

If I believed that bad spirits (unseen living things) made people ill and that certain chemicals could kill the bad spirits OR if I believed that germs (unseen living things) made people ill and that certain chemicals could kill the germs then I am still left with a medicine man to give me chemicals (and/or other treatments). If the medicine man cannot make me well and I die, then it is either "God's will" or it is "there was nothing we could do to save him" and there is little difference to me.

I adore science and believe the scientific method is a great tool. I wish I had more time to explore, as I did when I was younger.

My religiousity came later in my life and it provides a different set of tools than science does. It has a different purpose. Science tells me about the world I live in; religion tells me how to live in the world.

Yes, we should question and critique our religious beliefs; and our scientific beliefs and our "where the heck did you get that idea" beliefs. "The unexamined life is not worth living."

 

[Cryozombie]

Sorry, but science is faith in the same way as religion is a very poor argument.

SAndrew, that wasn't the point of my post... I was referring to this which I quoted in it:

Based on the scientific theory, if you disprove something, it is dismissed and forgotten.

And saying BECAUSE a lot of what is taken as fact in the scientific community isnt fact you get camps that cant always agree therefore often "disproving" things don't make them go away... just that you have to choose sides. Hell, there are STILL people who believe the earth is flat.

 

[Andrew Green]

And saying BECAUSE a lot of what is taken as fact in the scientific community isnt fact you get camps that cant always agree therefore often "disproving" things don't make them go away... just that you have to choose sides. Hell, there are STILL people who believe the earth is flat.

Historically no one believed the earth is flat. Visibily it is not. Ships dissapear over the horizon, the horizon is curved. By Antiquity it was pretty much common knowledge of educated people that the world was a sphere.

Ptolmeny & Aristotle, the two most popular models of the universe from that time both but the earth as a sphere in the center of the universe. That it was believed to be flat before Columbus is a myth, and anyone that believes that now is dellusional.

However, that things are disagreed upon in science was exactly what I said, disagreement occurs, overtime it is resolved. When Coppernicus put the earth orbitting the sun, there was disagreement, and there was really good evidence to support both sides.

Now, all the evidence to support the earth in the middle has been refuted due to better observational techniques (more powerful telescopes did it).

That is the general process of science. Todays disagreements will most likely be resolved and consensus reached. New ones will come up. Things that are disagreed upon, and not just by a handful of conspiracy theorists that are not real scientists, are not considered facts.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
-Immanuel Kant

Man for a lot of lip service on how its "OK to be religious" a lot of people are pretty transparent on their real opinion on the subject. Thats why I have very little trust in people who "say" they aren't striving to remove every semblance of religion from public life.

 

[Andrew Green]

Religion, or lack there of, should be personal choice, not public policy.

Whenever policy is written based on religious reasons I would call that a problem.

 

[Ray]

Religion, or lack there of, should be personal choice, not public policy.

Whenever policy is written based on religious reasons I would call that a problem.

If you and another person agreed on a public policy, and you do not know the reason for that person's agreement then how much does it matter?

 

[Andrew Green]

The reason for the policy does matter, and if there is no reason for it then religious ones, is the policy fair to those who do not have those religious views?

Majority rules is not a good way to do this, as, well, majority rules. Let's say 80% of a country is Atheist, and they decide, and vote to ban the Christian bible as it is a source of violence and obstacle to science. Are they right in doing so? Vote is 80% to 20% mind you.

I find it odd that one of the things the US seems to object to in the middle east is the law system in some areas, being based on Islam (religion). There is agreement there on the system, does that make it right too... Let's say, Stone a woman to death for commiting adultery? (BTW, stoning for adultery and other crimes is instructed in the Old testement as well)

Blasphemy has been good cause for excecution for a good chunk of Christian history as well.

Are these laws "right"? They where agreed upon, but is that enough?