How Can Any Religion Be True When They're All So Divided?!"

[modeller]

There are thousands of relgions and cults in the world.
Christianity alone has 41,000 How can any of them claim any validity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

[Old_Geezer]

One might ask how can the cutting edge of science be true when they're all in disagreement as to what is so.

It's all just best guesses until there's solid proof.

[jim360]

I think OG's point is essentially correct. You can't assume everything is false because they all contradict one another -- it merely means that most of them are certainly false, or perhaps not completely right. Even so it's still a strong reason for arguing against religions in principle, as they have had, and still have, the power to be very divisive.

[naomi24]

OG, your analogy is flawed. Science is adapable - religion isn't.

[jim360]

Even religion is adaptable, although perhaps it shouldn't be since the Holy Books haven't changed.

[Old_Geezer]

The only reason religion is less adaptable is that it's difficult to prove it wrong. When proof is shown for a particular point then they adapt before too many centuries pass.

[Kromovaracun]

"One might ask how can the cutting edge of science be true when they're all in disagreement as to what is so. "

Is this really true though? Scientists disagree on things that are relatively detailed, but certain principals are accepted by virtually everyone in the scientific community as decisively shown by the available evidence - evolution, relativity etc. Those matters of detail which disagreement arises over are resolved by people carrying out experiments, doing research etc. to see what works and what doesn't.

I don't see how any of that is even remotely comparable to religion...

[jim360]

It's surely comparable in the context of the question. The implication is, or seems to me, that if there is any disagreement every party must be wrong. Then OG's point, and mine, is that this somewhat simplistic logic is flawed.

[LazyGun]

"The only reason religion is less adaptable is that it is difficult to prove it wrong"

Really? Thats the only reason? Not sure I think that represents a true picture. I would say the over-riding reason that religion is less adaptable is adherence to scriptural doctrine and tradition. If you believe in god for example, then you believe in the bible or the koran, don't you? And since your worldview and belief is affected by such holy dictats, that is surely why you are slow to adapt, not just because you have not been shown proof.

And for some, the adherence to scriptural doctrine is so overriding that they reject the evidence in favour of dogma. This is the worldview of Young Earth Creationists.

It is also the reason why you get some commentators, some people in the public domain, describing homosexuality as a sin. This is why, until relatively recently, the Mormons thought the colour of your skin marked out how evil you were....

[Old_Geezer]

Recalling a recent thread here, do you like your space stringy or loopy ? How do you feel about symmetrical reality ? Suppose you couldn't ever find a way to decide between the options, wouldn't the situation be comparable ?

[LazyGun]

When you have fundamental questions about the nature of time and space and all that jazz, you will get competing hypotheses, offering their version of a theory that best fits observed evidence for what it is.

i cannot think of any religion that would allow such internal competing ideologies to question the fundamentals that way - and when you do get such questioning, it tends to lead to schism and war. That mindset does not lend itself to adaptation, it seems to me...

[Old_Geezer]

Science also changes slowly. No one jumps to support the maverick the moment they suggest something different. Their views are accepted when the arguments against them have been shown false.

But I think we stray from the point. It is conceivable a religion has the true picture, even more conceivable that they all have some of the true picture buried in a mire of supporting belief. It is simply one option that they are all totally wrong.

[Old_Geezer]

LazyGun you seem to be looking at one religion at a time. Lump all religions together and then you have your competing ideologies.

Hmm ... I'm contributing too much to this thread. Think I'll bow out now :-)

[Kromovaracun]

"Suppose you couldn't ever find a way to decide between the options, wouldn't the situation be comparable ?"

It would, but is that really the situation we're in on those questions? Scientists don't just choose their side randomly, they'll choose it based on what approach they think is best for solving the question - and that in the long run will be vindicated by whichever one ends up producing results.

I don't see that choosing between religions has an equivalent process, unless of course you're just doing it on a personal level to see which makes you happiest (though that's a very different question and has nothing to do with which one of them is true).

[woofgang]

Lazygun,I believe in god, have never read the koran. The trouble with the bible is that while it is bound as a book, it is actually a library, poetry, political satire and historical tracts of more or less validity (think Geoffrey of Monmouth) and some philosophy, some myths and legends and so on. I don't believe in it or in its infallibility any more than I believe in the infallibility of the contents of my kindle. Please don't confuse belief in god with membership of an organised religion.

[woofgang]

I settled on my religious beliefs on the basis of what makes me "best", strongest, kindest (that one was a struggle) most creative, most able to live in the world and make the world better.

[society]

Woofy, you just explained exactly how I feel about religion and God, the whole shebang. :)

[woofgang]

wow.society...are there two of us sensible people?

[jim360]

I could say the same for my atheism. It makes the most sense to me. The one thing that often troubles me about these debates, though, is that one side or the other usually ends up trying to claim the moral high ground. If you arrived at your faith honestly, after serious thought, then I don't see how I'm in any position to criticise you for that.

[LazyGun]

@Woofgang - Thats a fine and dandy way to view the bible. You and society are to be commended for being more sensible than the rest of us.

Whilst you might have an enlightened approach to the books that underpin the tenets of organised religions, not everyone who believes in those religions has the same enlightened view.

Organised religion might have the capacity to adapt, but the pace of adaptation is glacial. And disagreement over matters of faith can lead to schisms which are often long lasting and can be violent. Witness Sunni versus Shiaite violence, or catholic versus protestant. Or witness the friction between competing religions - ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Darfur, or the violence in Nigeria between Christians and Muslims, or in Egypt.

These things are taken seriously, and people become very resistant to change. Young Earth Creationists flatly reject evolution, flatly reject the evidence that the earth has been here for millions, billions of years.

So I do not think that you can draw an equivalence between the adaptability of science, say and the adaptability of religion.

Note- I am not talking about individuals here- I am talking about the religions themselves. I know several eminent scientists who are religious, just as I know of muslims who are completely relaxed around christians and vice versa.

Criticising the institution should not be taken as a criticism of an individual.

[jno]

that's hardly an argument. There might be a million and 999,999 are wrong; that doesn't prove that the other one is.