Truth And Accidents Of Birth

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Why has religion spread among peoples almost invariably by force and science by evidence and argument?

Scientists in Israel, in India, in Iran, and in Iowa all believe that the theory of relativity accurately describes our universe.

On the other hand, relatively few people in Israel believe in the reality of Shiva. Relatively few people in India believe that the story of creation told in Genesis is true. Relatively few people in Iran believe that Jesus is the beloved son of God. Relatively few people in Iowa believe that Mohammed was the merciful prophet of the one, true God. Geography has nothing to do with scientific truth, but geography has everything to do with religious truth.

Why should this be so if religious truth, like scientific truth, is justified belief and not simply biased, irrational belief?

Anyone?

One poster asserts that he doesn’t “deny that other religions [besides just Christianity] have truth” and I don’t doubt the sincerity of his claim for one second. But his claim cannot be true when it comes to the propositions that distinguish Christianity from Islam, from Judaism, from Hinduism, and from all other religions. About those propositions, the undeniable fact is that the poster and other Christians must believe that followers of those other faiths are mistaken just as followers of those other faiths must believe that Christians are mistaken in their beliefs about those same propositions.

The important question is why does each believe that the others’ claims are mistaken?

Is it because the world’s community of believers examined the evidence presented by each religion, listened to the various arguments given to support each religion, and then that most people in Israel came to the rational conclusion that Judaism is most likely to be true, while most people in India came to the rational conclusion that Hinduism is most likely to be true, while most people in Iran came to the rational conclusion that Islam is most likely to be true, and while most people in Iowa came to a rational conclusion that Christianity is the religion most likely to be true? Is, then, the fact that they live in different areas of the world only coincidental to their conclusions?

Or does the bias of geography in large part determine their belief about which religion gets it right?

Fairly obviously, it’s the latter.

But why should one’s place of birth play such a central role in what one believes is really true about the world if one’s conclusions are rational and based solely on evidence and argument?

2

We can only grow the way the wind blows

-Rush

3

Rush? RUSH?

lol

I’d be more impressed if you’d quote Rush Limbaugh (although in fairness, not that much more impressed :slight_smile:).

4

What’s wrong with quoting Rush, especially when the lyrics describe exactly what you’re talking about?

5

If you choose not to decide, you’ve still made a choice.

6

It doesn’t apply to what I’m talking about unless you believe that the wind in Iran AND in Iowa AND in India AND in Israel just happen to blow in exactly the same way to produce the belief among scientists in those different geographic locations that the theory of general relativity is a largely accurate description of our world and then that the wind just coincidentally blew in different directions in those locations when it came to producing beliefs having to do with religion.

Doesn’t that line of argument seem a bit convenient? . . . even to you?

Have you never considered the fact that Christianity and Islam, just to pick on two religions, propose fundamentally different propositions to describe the nature of god and that whether one believes or disbelieves those propositions has more to do with where one was born than it has to do with evidence or argument?

Why should a person’s birthplace determine truth?

7

‘We can only grow the way the wind blows’ means that your birthplace largely determines your ideology. Not even necessarily your birthplace, but what culture or family in which you were brought up. It’s a simple analogy: the tree has no choice. As much as we might like to think otherwise, the large majority of the population has little choice in what religion they believe. They were born and live in a world with the wind blowing one way, and that is the only way in which they can grow.

Going back even further, the events and environment that caused each culture to develop is also the ‘wind’. It shaped the major religions of today. Why the ideologies differ is largely a geographic issue.

The song goes on to say that our current situation in the world is like we’re back in the dark ages, that the plague of religion resists science.

So the song is very applicable to the situation.

The simple answer: one’s conclusions aren’t rational and based solely on evidence and argument. People blindly accept the religion of their birth, at least initially. Once they’re indoctrinated, they’ll find ways to defend their religion against any other. It’s rationalization, not rationality.

8

Then we agree. Religious belief, for the most part if not entirely, is irrational belief.

9

Quite. Now, apologize to Rush :slight_smile:

10

RC–This argument employs the genetic fallacy. The conclusion suggested is based solely on the origin of religious propositions rather than their veridicality. The argument fails to assess the religious claims on their merit. The premise that place of birth influences religious claims doesn’t have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claims in question. Regardless what culture the religious claims originated from they may be true. That some believe them because of an accident of birth doesn’t make them false.
You suggest that all religious claims are false or that if one is true the rest must be false. You ignore the possibility that they all may contain both truth and error. That would mean that they can each be evaluated in terms of the degree of truth they possess. It would require an actual investigation of the truth of their propositions rather than prejudicial dismissal.

11

Felix,
Firstly, religion is generally not adhered to on purely logical grounds. The grounds include faith, popularity, and authority, all of which are technically falacious. In that case, a discussion of the corellation of place of origin to belief system is not fallacious because the greater debate is not a logical one, but an epistemelogical or ontologial one. Besides, the claim is true de facto: It seems that most people do believe because of where they are from, regardless of whther they should.

Second, by the same argumnet you propose, no religious person should make their conclusions about other religions, either. There are thousands of religions, and short of “an actual investigation of the truth”, any adherence is merely “prejudicial dismissal” of the possible “degrees of truth” that may exist within them.
Furthermore, as an epistemic claim, it is fine to say that religion is a bad epistemic approach by virtue of the fact that it is a religion, not to mention by virtue of the fact that there is a clear social bias in religious beliefs.

12

Carleas–The atheist is unable to formulate a logically valid argument that disproves God’s existence. So instead he constructs rhetorical arguments that seek to weaken belief in God. His goal is to discredit religious belief any way he can. Hence RC’s argument.

Isn’t the issue here once again whether or not God exists? If God exists it doesn’t matter if an individual believes that God exists because of faith, popularity, or authority, logic, or observation. Her place of birth and culture are likewise irrelevant. She is still correct. The same applies if she is an atheist and God does not exist.

According to my position, no religion should be dismissed as totally untrue without investigating its claims. All could contain some truth. Conclusions about the truth or falsity of a religion’s propositions would have to be investigated on a case by case basis.

Please note that your assertion “it is fine” to reject religion simply because religion itself is a “bad epistemic approach” is completely unsupported. You haven’t even defined what you mean by religion.

13

Felix-

This has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, at least for me. It is more a desire to enlighten people as to why they’re shouting at a Muslim at the top of their lungs with complete commitment and faith, and how that Muslim shouts back with the same. It’s because they’re both wrong about the same thing: that they are completely right.

The big three in the western world, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, believe just that. There may be some truth in them, but as a whole I have to reject the religion and anyone who believes they are 100% right. Believing they are the one true religion is an integral part of their system, so it becomes difficult to distinguish what may be true in the religion, or even just plain good.

14

Felix, I haven’t tried to support that it is a sound claim that religion is a bad epistemic approach, only that such a claim is valid (that’s what I meant by “fine”, as you were making accusations of fallacy. Sorry for being unclear). Regardless what the definition of “religion” is, it seems to entail a certain set of characteristics that could be enough to reject all religions because they fall under the umbrella “religion”, just as one can logically reject all things that fall under the umbrella “fallacious arguments”.

As for a logical disproof of god, the jury is still out. I’ve been meaning to make a thread to that effect, this might be just the challenge I need.

15

Yes, agree completely. This thread is about religions, not gods.

And yes it is entirely possible that some or all religions espouse some truths. [Just as an aside, since I believe that there are such things as “moral truths,” I believe that most of them if not all of them probably do.]

However, what is undeniable is that the propositions espoused by various religions which differentiate those religions from other religions cannot all be true if those propositions make contrary claims. The truth, as much as relativists may not want to hear it, is that some religion is right and that all the rest are mistaken or that they all are mistaken. Logically speaking, what cannot be the case is for contrary claims all to be correct.

Babe Ruth is the all-time MLB home run leader. Hank Aaron is the all-time MLB home run leader. Sammy Sosa is the all-time home run leader.

Any one of those claims may be correct, but at least two of them are necessarily incorrect. It’s also possible that they are all incorrect (which is the actual case in this example).

16

Felix, my argument makes the logical point that IF religions make a claim or claims which differentiate them from all other religions, then only one religion, at most, can be correct. If religion A says that X is true and if religion B says that Y is true and if religion C says that Z is true AND if X, Y, and Z are contrary propositions, then only one religion is correct and the others necessarily must be mistaken OR they are all three mistaken.

OTOH, IF there are no claims which differentiate two religions, then they are not two religions. They are in fact the same religion.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are different religions which make contrary claims. In regard to those contrary claims, at most, only one of the contrary claims can be true but all can be false.

17

I agree that religionists who claim 100% certainty about their religion may be mistaken. But what about the generalization that “believing they are the one true religion is an integral part of their system”? Is that true of all of religious adherents or some of them? If only some, is it a sound basis for rejecting all? Are all non-Muslim religionists shouting at all Muslims? What do we know of the demographics behind these assertions? Aren’t you simply basing your rejection of religion on over-generalizations and stereotypes?

In my opinion, the totalizing thought process behind rejecting religion “as a whole” because some religionist think they have a lock on the truth is much like the thinking that says “my religion is 100% right and all others wrong.” Both ignore the ambiguities of religions as they actually believed and practiced in the real world. But, of course, it’s your choice. :sunglasses:

18

Even approached dogmatically each religion concedes part of the truth to others. Many have some creedal assertions in common. So if one is true, that doesn’t necessitate the others be false. One of the religions might be truer than the others. But even is that is so, the others can still possess some of the truth. (Not recognizing Barry Bonds are we? )

19

Based on my reply above we can see overlapping spheres of consensus between religions is possible even on a strictly dogmatic level. Thus, Islam says that Jesus is a prophet and not a savior, and Christianity says that Jesus is both a prophet and a savior. We can see that they both agree that he was a prophet. The religions appear to disagree about whether or not Jesus is a savior.

However, viewed in terms of the perspectivally instead of dogmatically, the apparent truth conflict breaks down. The Christian church receives Jesus as prophet and savior. Islam receives him as a prophet. As a Christian, I can say he is my savior because I receive him as such. The Muslim doesn’t so for her he is not. So Jesus is a savior or not depending on one’s perspective.

Recognizing that there are major areas of objective agreement between the religions and that some apparent disagreements are perspectival rather than substantive, one can begin to see that religious adherence is not the zero sum game you are portraying it to be.

The deeper one looks, the more religions have in common. They view reality as multileveled. They teach us that things are not as they seem. The unseen world is greater than then the one accessible to our five senses. Something more than the ordinary senses is needed to apprehend the spiritual dimension. Discipline and training is needed to perceive the spiritual realm. So the meta-context of religions is the same.

Adherents to one religion or another may be unaware of the common core they have with fellow religionists. That is regrettable since we have an ontological basis which could be a source of unity and peace. The enemy of religion may wish to emphasize the differences between religions and to obscure the similarities. I see that sort of thing as a polemical divide-and-conquer strategy.

20

Quite right, it is an awful lot like that. There is one difference, though; I recognize that I’m wrong. No one has the right answer, not even me. Ironically, however, this is the most correct answer.

It’s true of the institution. People who reject part of their religion aren’t truly that religion, they are their own. For the most part, I respect these people a lot more than those who blindly accept their religion. Most often, people who don’t agree with everything in their religion are also those that believe the same thing I do, that no one has the right answer. They just happen to know the teachings of their particular religion already and just aren’t ready of taking the step of abandoning it or are comfortable with the fact that they may hold an irrational belief in a religion, but it works for them.

It was an example of what I was talking about: two theists battling it out. No, of course not everybody of every religion is fighting with everyone else of every other religion. Although, at least for true Christians, they should be; the Bible calls on them to evangelize. I don’t really know what the demographics would have to do with these assertions, except maybe that poorer people tend to believe in God more often and with less questioning and might be too ignorant to shut their mouth about it in certain situations.

These are three conflicting statements:

  • Jesus was a prophet, but not the son of God, and only Jews are going to heaven."
  • Jesus is the son of God and only through him can you reach salvation."
  • Jesus was not the son of God, but he was a prophet among many, including Mohammed, the prophet of the one true God. A good way to get to heaven is to kill infidels and die doing it, but other than that Allah decides if you’re going or not.

At least two of the three of these statements, which are part of the very basis of their respective religions, must be wrong. Therefore, yes, it does negate the religion as a whole. If what the religion is founded on is wrong, then the religion is false. It may have some nice teachings, but it’s largely a lie.

No, either he is the savior of all people as your religion professes, or he is not. It can’t be true for one person and not for others according to Christianity. If you believe there are many paths to getting to heaven and Jesus is one of them, good for you, but that’s not being a Christian. Each strict Jew believes they know the only way, each strict Christian believes they know the only way, and each strict Muslim believes they know the only way.