# Is religion a form of ignorance? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003 "2017-10-27T17:35:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/122 "2017-10-29T20:46:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Really? There are no churches in your area? :dubious:Try googling one, and walking in. or fly to Italy and visit the Vatican. The Pope is on TV a lot, do you think he’s a fake news thing? Nobody here said the pope, churches or religion are not real. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/123 "2017-10-29T20:55:21Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > Again,your reasoning is faulty, and your facts are made up. Your claim that the ONLY response to contradictory information was denial or “moving the goal posts,” is wrong. > > All you are doing here, is repeating poorly expressed insults. You are yourself, denying factual information as a part of your insult attack. That is, there are voluminous examples of religious people adding to the insights of science, but you pretend that non exist. First, he was clearly talking about the small subset of scientific discoveries that directly contradict the Bible or official doctrine, not all “insights of science.” Nor did he say that the ONLY response is those two choices — the way people can compartmentalize their knowledge never ceases to amaze me. It’s also true that up to a few centuries ago, scientists in the western world had no choice but to profess their faith in the Bible, whether or not they actually believed it, since heretics were liable to be tortured and/or executed. That said, denial and/or moving the goalposts is indeed the most common way that Christians today deal with Biblical nonsense. Liberal Christians here try to pretend that (for example) Genesis is obviously meant to be allegorical, but it wasn’t obvious at all until scientific discoveries made a straightforward interpretation untenable. The claim that most Christians considered the scientific errors in the Bible to be allegorical until there was a 19th century overreaction to Darwin, and that most Christians before then didn’t believe that Adam and Eve were created rather than born, or that the worldwide Flood happened, or that the Exodus occurred as related, is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/124 "2017-10-29T21:04:30Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I [encountered recently](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2017/10/22/one-sides-hate-one-hope/) the following distinction between religion and superstition: > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m reminded again of Wendell Berry’s distinction between religious faith and superstition. Faith, he says, is belief in things which cannot be proved. Superstition is belief in things that have been disproved. Religious belief, in other words, involves things that may or may not be true, while superstition involves belief in things that are demonstrably false. By that definition, belief in the Bible is superstition. The historical parts are full of errors, the scientific parts are exactly what you would expect from Bronze Age authors, and the New Testament is full of promises and predictions that have failed. In fact, even in this allegedly Christian nation, many states now prosecute and imprison parents who depend on the promises of Jesus to cure their sick children. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/125 "2017-10-29T21:29:15Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Nobody here said the pope, churches or religion are not real. Maybe not, but if so their wordings have been very loose and open to that interpretation: "_However, almost nothing in the word of religion can be proven as demonstrably true…"_ "_Except for lack of evidence, NOTHING is representative of “all of religion”-there is no “all of religion”."_ ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/126 "2017-10-29T21:48:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Maybe not, but if so their wordings have been very loose and open to that interpretation: > > "_However, almost nothing in the word of religion can be proven as demonstrably true…"_ > > "_Except for lack of evidence, NOTHING is representative of “all of religion”-there is no “all of religion”."_ Religions of the world are well documented and established institutions. Nobody has disputed that. Religious doctrine, on the other hand, is almost exclusively the domain of faith and ritual. Very little is based on accurate historic evidence. What documented evidence does exists, is often contradictory or independently unsupported. So you have your work cut out for you with what’s been a matter of liturgical record. Never mind the supernatural claims made by various religions. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/127 "2017-10-29T22:03:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Really? There are no churches in your area? :dubious:Try googling one, and walking in. or fly to Italy and visit the Vatican. The Pope is on TV a lot, do you think he’s a fake news thing? I never said artifacts and people don’t exist; I am saying the basic tenets of religion cannot be demonstrably proven. I think you’re quoting me out of context and I’m not sure why. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/128 "2017-10-29T22:06:18Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > I never said artifacts and people don’t exist; I am saying the basic tenets of religion cannot be demonstrably proven. I think you’re quoting me out of context and I’m not sure why. Yes, that is what you are saying _now_ but did you not post \*“However, almost nothing in the word of religion can be proven as demonstrably true…” “That’s a good quote. However, almost nothing in the word of religion can be proven as demonstrably true, so it might as well be the same thing as superstition. I’d better be good because the Invisible Man in the Sky is watching, and I’d better not step on a spider because it might make it rain. Those that believe what they choose to believe will brook no denial, despite mountains of evidence that what they believe simply cannot be. I regard Religion as Literature—imaginative morality tales about how things came to be, but obviously not literally true.”\* ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/129 "2017-10-29T22:07:30Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > First, he was clearly talking about the small subset of scientific discoveries that directly contradict the Bible or official doctrine, not all “insights of science.” Nor did he say that the ONLY response is those two choices — the way people can compartmentalize their knowledge never ceases to amaze me. > > It’s also true that up to a few centuries ago, scientists in the western world had no choice but to profess their faith in the Bible, whether or not they actually believed it, since heretics were liable to be tortured and/or executed. > > That said, denial and/or moving the goalposts is indeed the most common way that Christians today deal with Biblical nonsense. Liberal Christians here try to pretend that (for example) Genesis is obviously meant to be allegorical, but it wasn’t obvious at all until scientific discoveries made a straightforward interpretation untenable. The claim that most Christians considered the scientific errors in the Bible to be allegorical until there was a 19th century overreaction to Darwin, and that most Christians before then didn’t believe that Adam and Eve were created rather than born, or that the worldwide Flood happened, or that the Exodus occurred as related, is absurd. Ay, there’s the rub. If Genesis is allegorical and Adam and Eve are mythical, then Original Sin must also be mythical, meaning that there is no need for an actual saviour to save us from Original Sin. Such a simple argument too, really. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/130 "2017-10-29T22:19:20Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Ay, there’s the rub. If Genesis is allegorical and Adam and Eve are mythical, then Original Sin must also be mythical No, if Genesis is allegorical, it’s an allegory _of_ something, and that something may well be true. “Genesis is allegorical” just means that Original Sin can’t be blamed on the literal eating of a literal piece of fruit. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/131 "2017-10-29T22:45:35Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > Again,your reasoning is faulty, and your facts are made up. Your claim that the ONLY response to contradictory information was denial or “moving the goal posts,” is wrong. > > All you are doing here, is repeating poorly expressed insults. You are yourself, denying factual information as a part of your insult attack. That is, there are voluminous examples of religious people adding to the insights of science, but you pretend that non exist. > > Enough of this. Do you deny that the Catholic church has moved the goalposts - the ones who used to think that geocentrism was a core tenet? And good for them, which was my point. I was not talking about particular people. I personally have know two ordained Catholic scientists, both top rate. Are you telling me that the Catholic church never believed in the literal existence of Adam and Eve? That would be an odd belief right there. So, what facts did I make up already? Perhaps your anger comes from not having a good defense. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/132 "2017-10-29T22:52:27Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > No, if Genesis is allegorical, it’s an allegory _of_ something, and that something may well be true. “Genesis is allegorical” just means that Original Sin can’t be blamed on the literal eating of a literal piece of fruit. Genesis - the creation of the world part - can easily be allegorical with no harmful effects. But if you think that original sin came from human choice, not directly from God, you need some humans to screw up. In Hebrew school we learned the Adam and Eve story as a kind of just-so story - why we die, why we have to work, why childbirth is painful, why we hate snakes. So it being an allegory is okay - but Jews don’t have original sin. You see, if every person born of man and woman is a sinner without exception - even as a baby - God must be responsible. Unless our common ancestor is responsible, which makes it our collective fault, not God’s fault. So without Adam and Eve, you got a big problem. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/133 "2017-10-29T23:02:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, that is what you are saying _now_ but did you not post \*“However, almost nothing in the word of religion can be proven as demonstrably true…” You should try reading your Bible some time. In the NT God never does anything of a global nature - not yet, anyway. Someday, perhaps, as in Revelations. God does in the OT. But in the more or less historically accurate part, during the time the Bible was being written, his participation was on the level of his participation in football games. If Judea won God did it, if Judea lost it was because the king (or his father) or the people were being bad. Back when things were not historically accurate, God did much better, like in the Exodus or the Davidic kingdom. Both of which we now know did not happen. David may have existed, but not his empire. For being divinely inspired, the Bible gets a lot wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/134 "2017-10-29T23:15:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29) > > Max Planck,Robert Millikan,Werner Heisenberg,Freeman Dyson and so forth. Not 300 years ago. Did any of them mention God in their papers, like scientists did 300 years ago? Was religion related to their work at all, like it was 300 years ago? Why do you think the percentage of scientists who are atheists is much higher than in the population as a whole? I suspect few grew up that way. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2017, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/135 "2017-10-29T23:23:56Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I [encountered recently](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2017/10/22/one-sides-hate-one-hope/) the following distinction between religion and superstition: So, you now admit that literalists are superstitious, since they believe in creationism which has been disproved, and believe in Noah’s Flood which has been disproved. That’s a start, at least. How about belief in the Exodus, which has also been pretty much disproved archeologically? ---
**Author:** ![somepumpkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@somepumpkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/somepumpkin)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/136 "2017-10-30T01:27:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, I dont. How do _you_ KNOW it’s not real? > I have doubts certainly. First thing I would go-on is my personal experience. Secondly, I could reference all of the things I’ve read and learned. Thirdly, it has to be taught by one human to another human (what’s divine about that?). Nothing I’ve read or witnessed comes close to affirming religion’s self-proclaimed “truth”\*. But I don’t want to attack religion. For all the harm it causes, there’s still good within. I’ve seen it and experienced it. However, the good is awash in a sea of incredibility, because the religious continue to demand that we believe in their specific higher power(s). It might behoove religious institutions to abandon such trickery and tell the gospel as it is; a way to get through life that is helpful and positive for all involved. It doesn’t matter that it’s true. What matters is whether it works for you. _God_\*, angels, heaven, St. Peter, creation stories, karma, rebirth, etc. \*\* any of various deities. ---
**Author:** ![TaoPilot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TaoPilot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaoPilot)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/137 "2017-10-30T04:05:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > My goodness. The _exact_ same thing could be said about this thread- whose purpose is to mock religion. And you chose to enter this thread. If I chose to enter a church and then complain about the Christians being in my face, then that’s just my fault. But Christians are in our faces in every facet of life outside of the church. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/138 "2017-10-30T04:11:57Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > No, if Genesis is allegorical, it’s an allegory _of_ something, and that something may well be true. “Genesis is allegorical” just means that Original Sin can’t be blamed on the literal eating of a literal piece of fruit. And yet that’s EXACTLY what Original Sin refers to according to the catechism. There’s no salvation from allegorical falls from grace. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/139 "2017-10-30T06:23:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But another is KNOWING that you hold the right beliefs about the afterlife. > > No one can \*know. \* > > But hard core atheists preach their beliefs. They try to convert others. They hold their belief in the absence of any proof. Do you hold a firm belief in the non-existence of a 9/11 conspiracy? Would you try to “convert” others to that belief, in the absence of any _proof_ that there was no conspiracy? I don’t know that there’s no afterlife. What I do know is that there is no evidence that there is an afterlife, there’s good evidence that our consciousness is linked directly to our brain and therefore would die with our brain, and that either one of these facts would entirely justify me rejecting the idea of an afterlife. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Once you are such a hard core atheist that you mock those with faith, you have a religion, like it or not. This is just downright incoherent. > [@](#): > > why do you feel a need to mock other’s religion? Because beliefs inform actions. Because when people believe things that simply are not true, they can and often do make actions based on those beliefs, and the consequences of this are often quite staggering. If you believe that blood transfusions are evil because you believe the magic sky fairy says so, then a bunch of conditions become a lot more lethal than they ought to be for both you and your children, for _no good reason_. The result of this is dead children. This is no different from the people who believe, without good reason, that homeopathy is all they need to cure their pneumonia, and whose children die as a result. Earnest belief does not suddenly make it okay. And even with more moderate sects, these kinds of harms do not spontaneously disappear. Catholics oppose condoms and sex education in AIDS-ravaged Africa. Evangelicals oppose sex ed and vaccines against STDs. Christianity has only just come around to the idea that gay people should have equal rights, and not literally be legally prosecuted for existing. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Our understanding of morality must first be pinned to an understanding of how the world works. Religions get in the way of that. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/140 "2017-10-30T13:16:10Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > “Genesis is allegorical” just means that Original Sin can’t be blamed on the literal eating of a literal piece of fruit. > [@Biffster](#): > > And yet that’s EXACTLY what Original Sin refers to according to the catechism. There’s no salvation from allegorical falls from grace. IANAC and have not studied the Roman Catholic catechism (or any other), but I [googled it](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm). Near as I can interpret it, it teaches that Original Sin comes from an actual act of disobedience by the literal first human beings, but that act was not literally eating a piece of fruit—that part is symbolic or allegorical. > [@](#): > > The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. > [@](#): > > The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Again, IANAC, and I am not committed to any particular interpretation of Genesis. But I reject the notion that the only way something can be true is at the literal level. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2017, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003/141 "2017-10-30T13:24:33Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Our understanding of morality must first be pinned to an understanding of how the world works. Religions get in the way of that. Something that religious people and atheists can agree on: religions (and religious people and organizations) can and do teach things that are wrong, harmfully wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-a-form-of-ignorance/800003.md?page=8)