Why aren't religious claims subject to the kind of criticism we apply to every other kind of factual claim?

Question

This is a follow-up to a question I asked yesterday:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag8N4gcnTumjSJTCIbLkTaEgBg

Tho I obviously knew that question might offend some people it wasn't my intention to be needlessly controversial or offensive, I asked it because I'm legitimately terrified of this phenomenom.

If I make a factual claim, that something exists, or that some course of action is the right course of action, I'll naturally be expected to justify my claim with argument or evidence. Yet it seems we give religion a free pass on this. We have Moslems strapping bombs to themselves, Jews colonizing the west bank and gaza in a 40 year war because they believe god promised them the Palestinian territories, Christendom spreading superstitious dogma throughout the third world and perpetuating human suffering. Yet we still view religion as being somehow exempt from having to defend their claims in a way no other kind of truth-claims are. Why do we allow this?

To be clear, I'm not anti-religion. I'm anti-dogma. Dogma is by definition an assertion without reason or evidence. There are theists out there from every faith who will engage in debate and try and defend their beliefs - those people, while their arguments might not convince me, I respect and welcome to the table. The remaining 99% of theists have no interest in this, they don't seem to feel it's necessary to justify their claims. I don't want religion outlawed, I just want it to be subject to the same kind of public discourse and criticism we apply to all other kinds of claims.

brendan k: I recognize the existence of god (probably) isn't falsifiable. But that's no reason to believe it. That's exactly the exemption I'm talking about - we need evidence for positive claims in normal discourse, not negative claims.

jemhasb: The difference with evolution/dinosaurs etc isn't how compelling the evidence it is, tho many would argue its very compelling. The difference is that by design it opens itself up to criticism, criticizing the THEORY of evolution or any other scientific theory is not only accepted in science, its expected. We don't subject religion to the same kind of critical analysis. As for your various claims:

1. Israel vs Palestine. It's changed hands so many times nobody knows whats going on. Either side can make a reasonable land-claim at this point. My point isn't that Israel do or do not have valid land claim, it's that the guiding principle in it is all is a religious belief that the land is promised to them by god, which makes rational debate impossible, and this religious axiom is never critically examined.

2. 'Real' christianity - the crusades, the spanish inquistion etc can all easily be justified with reference to the bible. The bible countless vicious attacks on.....

....on homosexuals, women, sanctions slavery. We have this weird perception nowadays that all these guys somehow weren't reading the bible, it's all in there. Moderates are just people that don't believe in the bible, or cherry-pick what they like - which surely involves admitting it's not a divinely inspired text.

3. AIDS/HIV yes. There are various other causes too. That doesn't make it any better or any less of a concern that catholic priests are preaching the evils of condom use to villagers with no other source of education of information. They're both part of the problem.

Waycyber: It's not the ethical ideas that are dogmatic. It's the assertion that those ideas are being dictated by god.

Nata: It's irrelevant because religion has insulated itself from rationalism by just 'declaring' itself immune. What I want to know is why we let them get away with this groundless immunity claim.

littleminx. Yes, secularism IS intolerant of beliefs. That's the whole point of it - it expects justification and argument to back up a belief. If no such justification exists, it's dogma.

fathermartin: Criticism may rise out of opinion (it may not), but it's only tenable when it does some damage to the thing it's criticizing. I may have the opinion that the world is made out of chocolate, but a process of argument and exchange demonstrates I'm wrong. We don't subject religion to that same process of argument, we give it a free pass in the name of respecting peoples beliefs. We don't give that 'respect' to ANY other kind of belief.

icecream: All perfectly valid criticism, science screws up ALL the time. It's constantly being revised and rethought, and mistakes will continue to be made. The difference is that it's a public dialogue - critical analysis and public discussion is central to it, and no scientist in their right mind would expect to be 'respected' by not being subject to criticism. Religion does not admit to the same process of analysis, we don't take it apart. A bit maybe, but there's a woeful lack of this, especially in the media.

Veritas: I don't think, or at least I certainly don't assume, that rationalism can prove anything. What I do think is that where rationalism can't give us evidence for something, we don't know anything about it. Yet the religious claim is that we do know this stuff, and that IMO is a groundless claim where its made without any justification or evidence.

Jeeves: I'm not suggestion highly intelligent and analytical people can't be religious. I'm just suggestion they compartmentalize. You're right of course that Newton was deeply religious - but he never made any attempt to apply his scientific method to his religious beliefs, and that's what I want to see.

Newton produced incredible work, but he gave up on understanding planetary orbits believing that it was the work of god, thus impossible for man to decipher. What would have happened if he didn't stop? What would have happened if he questioned his religion in the same way he did his science, if he didn't write off such things as the unfathomable hand of god? Where would our knowledge be now? Those same orbital patterns were deciphered and understood later, using Newtonian mechanics, but it took hundreds of years.

Chris: Thanks for your considered answer - your intelligence belies your age. But I do disagree with you on the issue of falsifiability (simple falsifiability, in philosophical logic it gets more convoluted). Not being able to disprove something simply isn't grounds for believing it. My pink yeti example from the other day probably wasn't a good one, because theoretically you could account for every square inch of my attic thus disproving the pink yeti. But what about a pink yeti that disappears whenever an observer is in the room (human or otherwise). What about, for that matter, all the other gods of every religion and mythology? You need to demonstrate evidence that something does exist to believe it, not that it doesn't exist.

You're somewhat right that Christianity gets a bit of criticism - I'd argue not enough in the media, but it does get some. What little criticism we allow we only allow because, here in the west, it's 'our' religion. When it comes to the other Abrahamic...

religions, Judaism/Islam, we offer virtually NONE, especially in the media - because we seem to view this as some form of racism, or a disrespect for peoples beliefs, culture, etc. IMO we need to get over that and subject all these faiths to critical analysis, just like this discussion does. Which is the central point - my beef isn't with theists like you, precisely because you engage on this topic. You're in a minority, most theists from any given religion not only do not want to open up their beliefs to criticism and analysis, they don't even feel that doing so is any kind of requirement in terms of better understanding and shaping their own beliefs. The public desperately needs that kind of dialogue - and all the religion related crap that's going on unchecked around the world, and has been going on for a long time, is evidence of that.

Answer 1

How many things do you believe with little on no evidence? Evolution is based on "evidence" which can be explained differently, The information on how dinosaures hunted on the basis of their skelitons. There is no God / god. etc.

Christians make factual claims, some on the basis of fact and some on the basis of faith.

The Jewish people colonised the land of Israel long before Palistine was even thought of FACT.
The original Temple (Solomon's) was on the some sight as the Dome of the Rock FACT, no matter what the arabs say.
REAL Christianity uplifted and improved the lot of all the nations it was introduced to.FACT
AIDS/HIV is spredaing fast throughout many nations because in these nations sufferers are told by their sharmans to have sexual relations with a child and the purity of the child will cleans the impurity of the sufferer FACT.

You prove what you say with evidence but this means no faith, what a loss.

Answer 2

We need to look at the whole issue from a different perspective.

The religions you see today are the excretion of a function to develop few spirituals. Some religions are totally just imitations and they don't produce anything useful. Let us call them the futile religions.

Each religion is trying to prove they are the best and in the process they are using all their abilities to disprove the rest. There is the religious wars going on around the world.

Let us come to Jews. Muslims cannot accept Jews as an authentic religion because they are the imitation of Jews. So the aim of Muslims will be destroy Jews. If Jews are allowed to live peacefully in their land the whole middle east will have peace. But the Muslims will not allow that.

Secondly the growth of Israel is another issue and it is attracting the jealousy of their neighbouring countries.

Read this Bible Verse (Zech. 12:3)

On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.

I am not a supporter of any religions as it is today. But I observe happenings in comparison to any religious books. That is the reason I quoted above Bible verse.

Answer 3

I criticise and question it regularly. Then people accuse me of being offensive/ insensitive to others' beliefs. But I'm not the one knocking on people's doors selling Watchtower, or hassling them in the streets, or telling them how to live their lives... I'm simply disagreeing or questioning that which they cannot prove.

Since the existence of God cannot be proved by any scientific measurement or observance through any of the five senses, it is logical to presume a lack of God, rather than an existence of God. All our knowledge about the world - and indeed the universe - is based on providing a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis and revising the hypothesis where it appears to be wrong. At every turn, where "God" has been the theory explaining a phenomenon and later it turns out to be something else, religous types twist the story so that God cannot yet be ruled out. Seems like clutching at straws to me. I'm happy in the knowledge that I will not ever know everything and will one day be gone - and probably forgotten. Perhaps that is why I don't need God.

It seems to me that many religious people are, in fact, characteristically atheist. When you consider that in pursuit of their own monotheistic beliefs, they immediately disregard and reject the beliefs of every other religion and therefore the existence of many other Gods, they actually do not believe in a lot more God related material than the ammount they do believe in. Consequently, we are not so different - I simply reject one more God than they do!

Answer 4

The more I read the answers the more I realize yours is a non question. There are no claims that go criticized, religious or scientific. Criticisms rise out of opinion. Religion rises out of opinion.

Your problem is that religion has been around longer, more people have those opinions, children all over the world are raised with them. I assume your opinions are based on science you were raised with. It will change as new knowledge comes along. Its a principle of scientific research that theories can not be proved right, only tested to see if they are wrong. I think few people question the laws of gravity. It seems self evident. It is also self evident that we did not create ourselves, I think its obvious to most people that the universe enjoys order but if you think its just a big accident, I am free to critize and say I find that opinion to be irrational. Its my opinion, you are free to criticize it in turn.

Answer 5

Well I'm a Born-Again-Christian and I can gladly claim that Jesus is real and alive in my life today. Some people are blinded by the devil so the truth is distorted. I can't say I'm surprised, just look at the world today and you can see how everything is getting out of hand.

The most important thing you have to do is put your faith in Jesus Christ, not a thing for the weak or cowardly. I served in the Armed Forces and have had near death experiences both in civilian life and in the Army. I am not afraid of death, because I know because Jesus is alive in me that whatever happens to me, I shall be with Him in Heaven, for Eternal Life. I have seen atheists, read the Bible and end up being Saved, but then there is no such thing as an atheist, because when you are in a life or death experience, guess who they call on?......Yes...The Lord Jesus Christ. I've seen it all too often

Also, nobody can tell me that there is no god, because I have a personal Relationship with Christ and you have to experience that to know The Lord. Forget muslims, and any other false religions, the only true way to Heaven and to God is through Jesus Christ. You can go to the graves of Mohammed, Buddha or any other false prophets and dig up there remains, but go to Christ's Tomb and it's empty, why?....Because He Rose From The Dead. There is too much proof of His existence, that only "The Fool Says in His Heart, There Is No God" Psalm 14 verse 1. You have to get right with God if you want answers.

Answer 6

There is a school of thought - the late Steven Jay Gould was one proponent - that simply because religion is faith based and counter-factual, it lies outside of the realm of science and is therefore not subject to critical thinking. Many other sceptics hedge around challenging religious assertions for fear of giving offence, or feel that there is just no point engaging with theists and credophiles because they are impervious to logic and arguments, and just deny any obligation to justify their beliefs and claims.
I myself fall into the other camp. Douglas Adams made a very good speech once, quoted by Richard Dawkins, pointing out the inconsistency that it is perfectly okay to challenge someones thoughts on politics, economics and other big issues, but apparently not on religion. As you say, religion is impacting on our lives more and more in the 21st century, from the faith-inspired policies of neo-cons, to the anti-science wedge tactics of the Intelligent Design proponents, thorough to terrorist atrocities. Given this, it is not okay to just say a persons religion is a personal thing and leave it at that. We should be challenging and exposing, and supporting others in so doing.

Answer 7

It is very obvious; most of these aswers reveal a total lack of historical knowledge. The belief that the only source of information concerning religion, is to be found in the Bible. A very inacurate conclusion One must remember all of the dealings with Jesus (the Christ) took place during the Roman Empire.. There are records from that era which indicate what was taking place. To the extent, there is a description of Jesus given by Pontius Pilot. A very concise one at that.
To answer your question; there are very few (if any) factual claims which are of the specificity of singular involvement.. They usually involve theory or a law of nature.. When dealing with belief, it remains a very personal thng. It has no need of evaluation or scrutiny.

Answer 8

guesswest777 poses a valid question; one that is desireous of sound reasoning backed by a thorough scientific double checking of sources in order to come to a logical conclusion that can be independently verified by another's observations.

Given: "There is nothing in this world that divides humanity more than religion. And there is no religion that divides humanity more than Christianity. These are not words to offend, these are words of truth, and behind these words of truth lie the truest understanding of humanity you may ever hear." Didymos Judas Thomas

Having said this, I think it appropriate, that in order to arrive at a conclusive study of religious claims being held to a higher standard, then it would be appropriate to go to the source of the creator of the Scientific Method. Surely one capable creating so sound a tool; an Occums Razor if you will, that would enable mankind to go to the moon, create the micro chip, make great strides in science, medicine and technology, sure this mind is of sound ability to determine what is real in religion and what are factual events that can be determined by others as well.

Of course that abilty goes to none other than the father of Science himself, Isaac Newton, who more than any other in the last millenium, literally moved man out of the cave: horse and buggy, candle light and a short life span.

Given that back drop of achievement, shall we then assume so credible a character should not possess the ability to deliver sound reasoning to satisfy even the most skeptical among the masses? Of course one would have to preclude that the one reading the material is both intellectually honest and curious enough to read the entire document, in order to arrive at a rational and just conclusion.

Newton spent fifty years of his very productive life in studying the codes of the Bible. Some (a brief sketch can be found toward the end of this ten page document on-line here). I pray that you do take the time to read it.

http://www.triumphpro.com/2006,_bible_codes,_newton.htm

Answer 9

What sort of proof do you want. I can tell that all the fact in the Bible have been proved true including the fact that there is one day that took longer than it should have. Proof can also be found by the aplication of the priciple. I cannot see gravity but I can prove does exist. The difficulty that we have is accepting the evidence that is there to prove that all that is written is true!

As for the land of Isreal think of it...If God does exist and we know he does and you can prove that. And He did give that land to Isreal which he has, perhaps that's why to this day, that although they are outnumbered...they are still there inthe 1st and only nation ever restored to a people!

Answer 10

You seem like a very determined person, and this is a huge debate that, had it not been in a religious context, should have belonged in the Philosophy section.

Personally, I believe that people are free to practise their own beliefs and faiths up to the point where it affects someone else in a negative manner, at which point they need cold, hard, solid evidence to justify their actions. Bringing human suffering on the world for one's own biased, shaky reasons is intolerable, but sadly prevalent in today's society.