One reason to support religion, even if you are not religious, is we gain greater freedom because of freedom of religion.
I contend freedom and the right to it, is not inherent in the individual, but it is the ‘no-man’s land’ between battling ‘authorities’. The more ‘authorities’ the greater freedom we have. In this all authorities are evil. Religion is a authority and ‘state’ is also a authority (actually each branch of government is a ‘authority’), and the press here in the US is also a authority, there are others as well. Each authority has weapons to use to 1: try to expand their power, and 2: to defend their power from other authorities. I contend that freedom is such a weapon that they use, not for our benefit but for their own, to preserve their power.
In nations that combine religious authority and state authority together as one, or the nations that forbids religion all together there is less freedom for the people than states that have separate authorities of religion and state. Thus I contend we are better off as a people if we have religious freedom even if we disagree with the religion.
Ever notice that anti-theists are as much or more “You must agree with with me or you’re a horrible, irredeemable scumbag” than evangelicals?
Dr. Paprika asks about religious literacy, and a number of posters must weigh in to tell us how hypocritical and awful Christians are. The descriptions of Christians here sound like the writers’ only knowledge of them comes from pop culture and very little if any real-life experience.
Or it could be that the constant insults and browbeating has driven away any followers of Christ and only the church-goers are left.
There is a big difference between knowing about your own religion (which you might learn in religious school or worship settings) and knowing about other religions, which you generally learn in an academic setting.
I’ve had some training in both, and I was able to answer all of the questions except the one about Buddhism (my study of Buddhism only involved Zen and was about meditation practices), and two of the sacraments (I missed the Eucharist and Penance, which I presume any churchgoing Catholic would know).
I’d be interested in how people do on a quiz about their own religion vs. other religions. I would expect a practicing believer to understand their own beliefs, but don’t see why they should necessarily know about the beliefs and practices of others.
Anti-theists can be viewed as the reactionary religous conservative counterpart. Equally helpful, knowledgeable, and logical and accepting of differences. An annoyance, but, mostly harmless alone or in small groups.
Someone mentioned biblical literacy and the congregation having faith in the minister. The Reverend that kicked me out actually would tell us every sunday “If you doubt me, study your bible, show me where you think I’m wrong and show me the passages that you think support your position” that laid part of the ground work that lead to my excommunication from his church.
Not all the christians have been driven from the boards, I’m still here.
You quote me, but as I read your reply, I don’t see how you’re responding to me. As to what you’ve written, I’m not really sure what your argument is. If it’s that religion is good because freedom of religion is good, then I disagree. Freedom of religion is good in the same vein as freedom in general is good. It is good on its own merits, regardless of whether or not it is expressed through a diversity of religious thought, or a uniform skepticism reigns and no one gives credence to supernatural claims and everyone, of their own accord, believes only in things that they have good evidence to believe to be true, with no special pleading.
A Christian driven from their own church. Would it be fair to say that every time, or nearly every time, you came up with a passage supporting your position, the pastor was able to come up with another in support of his own, diametrically opposed position?
The quiz was based on many religions. You can play baseball knowing baseball. You don’t have to know rounders and cricket.
The OP is full of it. They state that because students fail a test about multiple religions. They can’t name “even a single gospel”. The OP created a circle jerk, you guys fell for it.
One result of surveys in the U.S. (and some of these surveys include Canada) is that people tend to greatly exaggerate the percentage of time that they go to church. This is apparently true not just for Christians but for other religions as well. The surveys say that the people who claim to belong to a particular religion attend services about half as often as they claim to. That is, if you ask them how often they attend services and compare this with the actual attendance at those services, it’s easy to show that on average they must be claiming to attend services twice as often as they do.
The obvious observation about this would be that this means that they are nearly all liars. I don’t agree with this. Most people (in fact, nearly all people) have more contradictions in their beliefs about the world than you would expect, and this includes beliefs about their own actions. Most people know less about even those subjects that are important to them that they think. Most adherents of religions (including atheism) have thought about their stated beliefs less than you might expect. I don’t consider this to necessarily be a matter of stupidity or evil. The world is complicated, and we don’t have time to figure it all out.
You’re claiming the post was started in bad faith? While the claim that over half of those surveyed can’t even name a single gospel does strike me as dubious, whether it’s actually true, or a poorly supported claim based on the methodology of the survey, or due to a misunderstanding by the OP of the claims in the book, it is of minimal importance to the broader point, which I believe holds true regardless: religious literacy is often lacking, even among adherents to a faith.
It seems to me you should be able to name the Gospels by watching a few episodes of the Simpsons. The book claims about 40% of religion students couldn’t name one Gospel. It sounds odd to me, part of why I started the thread. But I don’t have an axe to grind or personal stake in the argument. The book also claimed 70% of those who say they don’t believe in God will occasionally pray, which also seems high.
The quiz is about several faiths. I would have missed a few things, but easily passed the quiz. Most of the non-Christian questions are pretty basic, but I accept these might be harder. Still, the book claimed many thought Jesus was born in Jerusalem, for example.
Humans have invented so many faiths, fantasies, sects, deities, demons etc, documented in so many scads of holy texts and oral traditions, that it’s difficult for a scholar, let alone an average schmoe, to attain much religious literacy. Our mythologies are near-infinite, still evolving - and seem to resemble UFO cults.
Out in the world, I don’t expect to see more than comic-book-level religious knowledge.
I found the book, Religious Literacy by Stephen Prothero to be very well written. It is an academic treatment and every claim is cited, but that hardly guarantees their general accuracy. I wish people were more intellectually curious than they are. Most of the religious people I know are very nice. A few are nuts. I support the right of people to believe what they want if it doesn’t harm others.
I have spent decades studying engineering, science and medicine. At some level, one is exposed to a lot of facts that they can’t personally verify. People accept a lot of things on faith. Evidence is better, but without some faith one cannot function.
I am sure you believe that, and I am sure you can come up with a bible verse to either support your position explicitly, or at the very least cast doubt on what the “pro” verses really meant.
Which I consider a weakness of scripture, not a strength. Again, you can use scripture to support just about anything, moral or not, true or not.
Religious literacy, then, is of little value, because the words themselves don’t get you anything. It’s the supporting dogma that gives some passages meaning, while stripping or contorting it from others.
Not a secret, did say it in post 54. The book covers a lot of religious debates. Some of the past debates seem very arcane. It amazes me tens of thousands of people died because of exceedingly minor differences in interpreting a religious ritual or scripture.
Trick is knowing where to put that faith. You can put “faith” in gravity because evidence shows its reliably predictable in nature, though difficult to explain at the quantum level. That, however, is a different kind of “faith” than which is based on religious beliefs.