If you had inconclusive evidence that a certain religion was wrong, would you share it?

Question

OK, hypothetically speaking. you stumble across a piece of evidence that is beyond any degree of bias or contention, 100% valid and beyond the shadow of any doubt.

This piece of evidence shows that one religion is correct, or perhaps that all religions have got it wrong so far, or perhaps (and I know this isnt realisitic) that there is no God and religion is pointless. Now, by definition this then shows that a LOT of people in the world have been getting it wrong. It means thousands of years of culture, of human development and the rest of it are based on nothing. It also takes away 'faith' as this conclusive bit of evidence no longer leaves any shadow of a doubt.

Now, my question to you is - at what price the truth? With factors like civil unrest, disbelief, the inevitable loss of faith as for once there is certainty, the 'ending' of 'incorrect' religions and many other implications it is plainly not a decision to be taken lightly.

But would you do it? Would you share it?

Oh by the way, I am not trying to advocate any view, nor am I targetting any specific religion. Lastly, this IS purely hypothetical.

To take away some of the aspects that are preventing people (and quite correctly too) from answering the question - what if there WAS no response to this evidence? What if it was beyond any response except to concede it is correct and true?

Again, this is hypothetical. I guess this is a question about ethics rather then religion but hopefully you agree, its something interesting to think about.

DOH! Yes I DID mean 'conclusive'. I restructured my question after writing it and missed that out...

Cheers for pointing that out.

Answer 1

Religion is not based on evidence. It would not make a dent.

Answer 2

Quite a lot of people would probably vehemently despise the individual that turned that evidence over to the media, but not only that I think it's wrong to do so. If you really think about it, religion is faith, plain and simple, and some people are so fragile that kicking that crutch from beneath them would shatter their world. Also, whether some like to admit it or not, political morals are based on religion. Religion defines morals, you can't argue that it doesn't all you want but the evidence is right in front of you. All other mammals will kill their own, yet for us it is illegal.

I could not bring myself to break it to the media. I might share it with a few individuals but making it a widely known thing goes against my ideals. I may be athiest but I understand how important religion is to so many people. If you could prove it false I think you'd find later that some fanatics would be attacking you, but also a lot of people would find that they wanted to commit suicide because that would mean there wasn't anything left after life.

Depression would be at al all time high, economies would fail. So on and so forth. Worse case scenario of course, but still, it's a scary thought.

Answer 3

Firstly, we should make clear of the word religion. In the world today there are thousands of associations claiming themselves as religion, and it is really hard to tell how long they will exist.
While there are a small number of world religions existing for centuries based on the Holy Books revealed by God Himself.
Nobody can prove to the believers of the religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam...that the Torah, the New Testament, the Quran are false. In our time, God revealed more Holy Books through Baha'u'llah.
More than that, true religions are accepted by the majority of mankind as divine moral code for their decent living, and nobody can prove the reverse. Some small groups of people may have personal reasons to hate religions, but divine truth cannot be denied.

Answer 4

LOL! I have had your question on my watch list since about 10 minutes after you posted it, and I kept wondering if I should point out the difference between inconclusive and conclusive :) Kudos to you for not being grumpy with someone for pointing it out.

I have given this question a lot of thought. Please understand that in my personal view, truth and knowledge are almost at the pinnacle of my personal pantheon, followed closely by the firm belief that the search of both brings consequences which can be, in some cases, earth and psyche shattering. Still, I pursue both, and I am personally prepared to pay the price.

With that said, I must answer your question with a no. I would not share it. I would be very interested to see it and know it myself, but I would most likely tuck it away, and keep it close.

The reason I say that is because I think that a person's belief or disbelief in God is one of the most intimate and personal attributes of humankind. I respect both a believer's faith in the Divine and an atheist's equal faith that there is no God equally, regardless of how I, myself, choose to believe. As such, I could not, with clean conscience, disturb the balance of either. I may be willing to pay the consequences for knowledge, but I do not feel prepared to make that decision for others.

I do agree with what someone else stated previously. Faith is, by definition, a belief in something that cannot be either proven or disproven by any means. It just is, and those who truly have it cannot be shaken. It's those whose belief is wobbly, and not quite faith, that I would be concerned with.

In all honesty, this one particular hypothetical is the only one in which I can picture myself keeping my mouth shut. I would sing out if I had conclusive proof about everything else: that women are, in fact, very inferior to men; that race is not a construct, but a reality which shows that some people are, in fact, lesser beings that others; that the writers of the Enlightenment whose philosophies so influenced the Founding Fathers of my country were just doing it as a joke; that the laws of physics are not actually laws, but subject to change on the whims of the object being affected; etc... But on this one subject, religion, I would keep it to myself. I have seen people lose their faith, and it is the most disorienting, devastating, horrible thing to watch; I cannot imagine what it is like to experience it. I would not willingly do that to anyone.

Answer 5

First of all, you presumably mean conclusive evidence. Inconclusive evidence means that you cannot come to a conclusion based on it.

Given that no other underlying "reason" has caused as much bloodshed, warfare, prejudice, hostility, persecution, superstion, suspicion, hatred and downright bloody minded, bullish intimidation of people over the last few thousand years as religion - particulaly the monotheistic variety - I can't see that proving it all to be a load of bollocks could make things any worse.

Take the trouble caused today at the British airports, for example, or the ongoing troubles in Israel, or the war in Iraq, or the Balkans, or half of Africa, or just take a walk around your home town and listen to the words being used by one set of youths against another.

The Catholic church is both the richest and bloodiest establishment in the world. Not bad for a faith following a guy who preached love and sharing...

Apart from all this, I have spent my life being looked down upon, preached at, having religious "truths" thrust upon me by various religious types all claiming to have access to greater wisdom than I based on their belief in their God. I would love to see their fanatical faces if such a peice of evidence could be found to prove that they are, in fact, wrong. If it did prove one religion to be right, though, I'd have some explaining to do to the big guy in the nightie, though!

Answer 6

I would share it because I would want people to wake of from the dream of religious tyranny, hate, and oppression that has clouded and shadowed every major religion in one way or another at virtually every point of history.Without religion people could embrace reason and I think that would end more then 80% of all conflicts in the world.I do believe that the evidence does exist today in the form of free thinking and reason.When a person uses both to their full potential then they can easily see that all religions are based on the need for easy answers, control, and fear.

Answer 7

The whole thing about religion is that you have faith in something you can't actually prove. My standpoint is that choosing a religion is very personal. Who am I to think that mine is the best, the only one? I don't agree with anyone from any religion trying to convert someone to their way of thinking and sometimes it's downright criminal. In some countries people can be executed for changing their religion. Do you want that on your conscience? I certainly don't.
By the way, I suspect you mean conclusive evidence and not inconclusive. Inconclusive evidence is what we all have regarding any religion.

Answer 8

That music is efficient means music is efficient. Has this guy or woman listened to Howard Shore until eventually now? Or Hans Zimmer? How approximately Klaus Badelt? If the capability of music have been a level of the fact of what it supported, i might say there's a much greater effectual probability that someplace accessible are a Gimli and a sharp-ear and a ranger, working approximately attempting to guard the halfling.

Answer 9

Religion is all about faith. If you prove a God exists, faith is then no longer required (there's evidence), and without faith, the religion fails.

Did that make sense? I think what I'm saying here is that it makes absolutely no difference what evidence you have, however compelling. People will believe what they want to believe, irrespective of proof to the contrary.

Answer 10

Yes , however most religious types would just say somthing like,
"Its in the Bible so it must be True" and not actually listen to a well informed argument, so I am afraid your argument will fail as they wont even attempt to listen due to their ill informed out dated views.
The Bible Is over 2000 years old, in that time it has been translated, edited, copyed re-translated, altered, and so forth, so it cannot be described in any shape of form as an accurate document.
Good luck,

Answer 11

It doesn't matter whether you share it or not. People of faith would discount it as false despite what they see with their own eyes, look at evolution.

Then you'd probably be subjected to death threats and general harrassment. Still, if it were me, I'd show someone who would show everyone, that way the word would still get out but I wouldn't be shot by some fanatic who thinks I'm the anti-christ.