Faith vs. Evidence - Why Religious Tolerance Always Wins
Religious tolerance. This is the ultimate – and positive – message that I try to get across through all my sceptically-themed work. Far from being anti-religious or anti-Christian, my atheism leads me into incredibly unifying territory. In this brief article, I shall explain why religious tolerance is mandatory for all religious believers, whether they place more importance on faith, or on ‘the evidence’.
One
obvious challenge to religious tolerance comes in the form of religious
exclusivism. This fancy term refers to a key belief that is held by many people
who label themselves Jews, Christians or Muslims (monotheists). It is the
attitude that an adherent’s religion is ‘true’ and is the ‘one, true faith’. Everything
else pretty much comes from Satan, or so I’m told.
I
actually support the attitude of religious exclusivism, on one condition. The evidence
must be there to justify it. Of course, the evidence is not there. As I discuss
in my professional work and popular book ( there
was no Jesus, there is no God ), the evidence for the truth of any one
particular religion is extremely poor. As my book respectfully explains, the philosophical
arguments can’t move beyond a ‘mere generic god’, history cannot support miraculous
or supernatural claims (due to its reliance on probabilistic explanations), and
there is absolutely no direct and/or exclusive evidence for the existence of
any one religion’s particular god, or view of god. This is of course a massive
problem for the religious adherent whose belief relies on evidence, not only in
terms of claiming religious exclusivity, but in claiming their religion to be ‘true’
in general.
Thankfully,
the believer has another option – faith. This may sound odd coming from an
atheist (and a scholar!), but I endorse this approach to religion. It certainly
makes a lot more sense than the evidentialist route which fails so remarkably. And
it makes religion more of a religion,
and less of a science. Many religious people actually do feel this way. In
fact, the Judeo-Christian Bible often stresses the importance of faith, such as
the call to have faith ‘as a mustard seed’ (Luke 17:5). And many of the ‘other’
religions (such as Taoism, Buddhism and various Pagan religions) place far more
importance on orthopraxy (correct practice) rather than orthodoxy (correct
belief), as those who follow the work of my fellow Religious Studies scholars
would understand. Now the condition mentioned above still stands. Claims of religious
exclusivism must be backed up by evidence.
Faith
is wonderful, but unlike evidence, it cannot reasonably be used to claim
religious exclusivism. A person’s faith is deeply personal, and subjective. The
Christian’s faith is marvellous. As is the Muslim’s. As is the Hindu’s. As is
the Waterkin’s. Since all these believers have such great faith, and not a
shred of evidence that is convincing to outsiders to their religion, none of
them has the right to claim that their religion is ‘the one true faith’. That
leaves one reasonable option for the religious believer, in regards to their attitudes
towards other religious believers, and even those that are not religious.
Tolerance.
Believe as you wish. But until you have the evidence to justify that your view
is true and all other views are false, you should not live as if your view is
true and all other views are false. We should all humbly acknowledge and
respect each other’s religious and non-religious views.
So let the gays get married.
0 comments:
Post a Comment