[Back to Religion]

When talking about a religion or belief system, please be particularly careful to ensure that any comments are fair and helpful.

Introduction

It is sometimes claimed that religion is all about rejecting reason and choosing instead 'blind faith' or irrationality.  But, when you actually examine most religions, and most of the people who follow them, it is hard to reconcile such claims with the reality.  There are significant differences between the world's religions - between their claims, and also between the impact they have on their followers.  So there are rational grounds for examining religions and choosing between them.

There are many different religions in the world: according to Wikipedia, "There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide, though nearly all of them have regionally based, relatively small followings."  There are four major religions, and (again, according to Wikipedia) only 2.4% of the world's population follows a religion outside the main four.  But truth can't be determined by numbers, and smaller religions can offer valuable insights and perspectives.

Whatever you believe about the nature of reality, it would seem hard to operate on the basis that your direction in life, and your eternal destiny if you have one, is a matter of pure chance.  There may be choices to make, but there are always reasons for making the right choices.  Simply being born into a religion is not sufficient justification for blindly following it all your life: you have to test, to question, to probe, to examine.  Christians, and many others, believe that if you seek for God - honestly seek for Him, and keep seeking - then you will find Him.

Since most religions put forward a basis, a reason for following them, as opposed to some other, it follows that we can compare their varying claims, and consider how well they make the case for claiming our allegiance.  This may seem an unreasonably large task - but, while there may be around 10,000 distinct religions, they all fit into a small number of fairly distinct categories.  Over many years of talking with people about religion in general, and about their religion, I have found that five categories is sufficient for most people; for the sake of convenience, I'm going to call them 'communal', 'historical', 'philosophical', 'revelatory' and 'syncretistic'.

A distinction is sometimes made between 'credal' and 'non-credal' religions, but this is less helpful: Christianity is the only significant credal religion, and even then there are significant non-credal Christian traditions.  Other religions may have a creed, as in a simple statement which the adherents are supposed to affirm, but there is generally little or no doctrinal exploration of these creeds: they are simply taken as a given.  In contrast, Christianity has produced many significant (and much longer) creeds, and a great deal of theological effort goes into exploring, explaining and comparing them.  Similarly, works of systematic theology are mostly Christian, and are rarely produced by any religion other than the Abrahamic faiths.

The Groups

Communal

These are the religions which do not invite you to join them.  In fact, very often, they say the opposite: you cannot join us because you are not one of us.  We believe these things because it is what our people believe; it is what distinguishes our tribe, our region.  It is part of our identity.

Technically, Hinduism falls into this category: it is, quite simply, the religion of the Hindu people.  This explains why it is so confusing to the outsider - there is no doctrine, no religious practice which all Hindus agree on, only a sort of family-likeness linking an indeterminate number of beliefs and practices, and a fondness for certain ancient texts.  But, to be fair, large parts of the Hindu religious tradition fit very nicely within the philosophical religion territory.

So they are generally not interested in making converts.  And even if you get interested in one, or tempted to join because the sense of belonging is so powerful, or the rituals so attractive, you have two or three problems. First, you cannot really join: you would only be pretending (it's the old 'the people who moved into our village 20 years ago are still outsiders' syndrome); and secondly, you cannot really believe in such a religion unless you have been brought up to believe it all your life.  And thirdly, it's not really about believing in anything: it's about belonging to the community, doing the things the community does, and living with the community's traditions and values.

Someone who has always believed such things may believe that the great creator god actually lives in the fork of the big tree at the bend in the river, or that wearing a bracelet with this pattern on it will protect you from evil spirits, but exposure to a wider world makes such beliefs ultimately impossible to sustain - in part, because there is no actual basis, beyond the tradition; and in part, because, as we have noted, it's not really about believing things anyway.  You may blame the Christian missionaries for the decline in tribal religions in many places, but in reality the decline in their religion would have been much the same whichever really foreign group first made contact with them.  And these religions live on, as best they can, in the rituals and traditions which the people manage to sustain despite the onslaught of the modern world.

Historical

Historical religions are based on some event or events in history.  You know it is true, they say, by looking at what has happened - by considering the facts.

With these religions, we have a reason for choosing between the various possibilities - a reason which can be understood, and shared by most people.  Since the religion is based on historical events, there are essentially only two questions:

• Did the event or events really happen as described?
• Is the meaning of what happened clear?

It is possible to conclude, by examining the historic evidence, that the event never actually took place, and that is sometimes my conclusion.  On this level, the historical religion can be very like the revelatory religion: one says "Believe me because God has spoken to me alone," and the other says "Believe me, because God has performed a miracle for me alone."

I suppose it is also possible to conclude that the event really took place, but it does not justify the interpretation being placed upon it. I can't immediately think of any examples, but please feel free to suggest a candidate.  So, in theory, I could invite you to join me in worshipping the god of the deluge. I can point you to the facts of the floods in England in the Autumn of 2000 as proof of this god's activity.  You would probably conclude that the floods really took place, but they do not prove the existence of any such god.

So most historic religions can be dismissed fairly safely.  In my investigations, I have only found two religions which pass this test of plausibility: Judaism and Christianity. One rests on the Exodus, the other on the Resurrection. Again, if you can think of any other candidates, please let me know!

Philosophical

Philosophical religions have no need to worry about historic events: just think about it; consider the issues, and you will come to the conclusion that what we teach is true.

How can we choose between the philosophical religions? It ought to be easy. It is not easy, which would appear to be one compelling reason to reject all of them.

It is quite nice to have just one wise man who tells you, "Just listen to my words. You will believe what I tell you because I see things as they are, I tell you the truth, and you will recognise the truth when you hear it."  It is quite an attractive thing to hear, and an attractive approach to respond to.  It subtly flatters the hearer: you are wise/level headed/perceptive enough to recognise Truth when you hear it.

But we have the old problem of the watches: a man with one watch knows the time; a man with two watches is never sure.  (Of course, this illustration dates back to the old days of mechanical watches: it doesn't really work in the era of electrocial and synchronised timepeices - but the message is still valid.)  A man with one Guru may find the Truth; a man with two Gurus is in the middle of a battlefield.  Unless the two Gurus say exactly the same things (it never happens!), you have to choose between them: they cannot both be right - one has to be more right than the other, one must have a deeper insight into the truth than the other.

Of course, not all philosophical religions have a founder Guru, and sometimes the Guru is a figure in the dim and distant past.  But it's easier to talk about the teachings of the Guru, rather than some philosophical tradition. 

It makes no difference whether the Guru is telling you to believe in a god or not to believe in a god, whether you are to believe in a creator god, a cosmic consciousness, or nothing at all.  A philosophical religious leader can teach atheism as easily as anything else, and more easily than most.  I know that most atheists strongly object to atheism being described as a religion, but it is clearly a religious position; and, as a religious position, it is just one option amongst many.

But how do you choose between them? If it is not obvious that one is not telling the truth (and if it were, you would not be asking the question) then the claim they both make - accept this teaching because it is obviously true - falls to the ground. They cannot both be right, but they can both be wrong.

Revelatory

Revelatory religions are much like the philosophical ones, but they have a charismatic founder rather than a Guru; let's call him a Prophet - it is usually a 'him'.  Their basic claims must essentially be the same: "Believe me!  Follow me!  I alone can reveal the truth to you."  The message is not, "Believe my words because they are True," instead it is, "Believe my words because they are inspired by God."

The same problem arises: you can follow one prophet, but you can't follow two. The history books tell us about thousands of such men.  Your Prophet tends to be the one you met first, either directly or through his followers, but 'first encounter' is not a reliable method for determining truth.  Unless you have some way of testing their claims, there is no way to choose between different Prophets, and they rarely offer any test.  So, like the philosophical religions, if you have no reason for choosing between them, you have no reason for choosing any of them.

Syncretistic

Syncretistic religions teach that all religions are different routes to the same goal. They may be faster or slower, you may prefer one to another, but in the end they all come down to the same thing.

It should be fairly obvious that choosing between syncretistic religions is a bit of a non-starter.  While there may be grounds for choosing one syncretistic religion rather than another (I enjoy the rituals more; I feel more comfortable with the culture, etc.) there cannot be any grounds for saying one is better than any of the others in any absolute sense.

And the more you look at the claims of any syncretistic religion, the less sense they make. If you push the idea, syncretism will polarise in one of two directions.

• Either it really does not matter what you believe (and hence what you do), or it does matter.
• If it does not matter, why bother believing or doing anything? This is a counsel of despair.
• If it does matter what you believe and do, then syncretism must be wrong, because all religions cannot be equally true.

All religions cannot be equally true, since they teach you to believe and do different things.  Of course, there are points of agreement, especially some obvious moral precepts, but there are also significant and non-negotiable points of disagreement.  One says you have to be vegetarian, and another says you have to eat some meat.  One says that killing people is sometimes acceptable, and another says it is never right.  One teaches about a single God, another teaches about many gods, and another says no gods exist.

I have hear many people suggest that 'deep down' all religions teach the same thing. Every time, I ask them what this 'same thing' they have in common is; when they are able to offer something, I easily list a number of popular religions which don't share this common golden nugget.  At this point, they either tie themselves in knots explaining why those are not proper religions, or they change the subject.

I recently heard about a Westerner who was visiting a particular third-world country, talking about religion with a member of the indigenous population. The Westerner said he believed that all religions were basically the same. The local replied, "Don't tell me all religions are the same! If you had come here a hundred years ago, before the Christian missionaries arrived, I would have eaten you!" He knew the absolute difference between the two religions.

It is helpful to distinguish between the syncretistic belief that all religions are true, and the belief that all religions have truth within them. The first belief is (it seems to me) absurd; the second belief just common sense. Of course, few people from most religions will actually go so far as to say this, but they almost all believe it none the less.

I sometimes enjoy talking with members of a syncretictic religion about this topic. They often retreat quickly from the 'all religions are true' position and revert to 'all religions contain truth'. At which point I agree with them, and point out that I have yet to meet a follower of any religion who does not agree on this point. When the Jew says there is one God, I agree with him (and when I say it, he agrees with me); when the Buddhist says that actions have consequences, I agree with him; and so on. The follower of the syncretistic religion then usually tries to argue that their religion thinks that other religions contain more truth than my religion thinks, but as there is no agreed standard unit of religious truth, it's a bit difficult to follow anyone down that road. And, unless you think that doctrines become true through being voted on or believed by the greatest number of people, it is hard to see the relevance of such an argument anyway.

But, to be honest, it is hard to argue with these people. Syncretistic religions appeal to nice people who don't want to think too deeply about the issues involved, and who respond warmly to the first syncretistic option that comes along. "Ah! That's just what I have always believed!" is the common reaction. But simply believing it doesn't make it true, and ten minutes spent with any decent book on comparative religion will convince you that many of the world's religions are fundamentally different. They cannot all be true, so no syncretistic religion can be true either.

One final point: all syncretistic religions are not the same.  You may find, on examining a syncretistic religion in detail, that it is really an elaborate sham.  Often they teach, to paraphrase George Orwell, "All religions are true, but some are more true than others."  And, in the end, they teach you - of course! - that one religion is truer than all the others; and it is, surprise surprise, this one.  At which point, you discover that it is not syncretistic after all, and has to be judged on whichever basis it presents for claiming itself as the most true.  Which, naturally, leads you into one of the other categories...

Alternatives

People are always trying to find an alternative to the world's religions.

Mistaken

"We should not choose between any of the world's religions because they are all wrong."

Some people will say that all religions are completely wrong, but that is an astonishing claim.  It would be hard to find any belief system which is 100% wrong; and as noted above, atheism is one of the belief systems which you would have to reject on this basis.

And this objection only has weight if you have examined them all and found valid reason for rejecting each one.  Nobody actually takes this route: it is, in my experience, only ever used by people who have already decided, for some reason, that all religions are basically the same, and they don't like any of them.

But a religion is simply what happens when a group of people find some truth which they choose to build a life upon.  Whatever you are choosing to build your life upon, unless you want to keep it entirely to yourself, then you have your own religion, whatever you call it.

Barbaric

"All religions belong to mankind's barbaric past. We have grown past the point where we need such things."

It's a nice line. People have been teaching it for centuries. There has probably been no point in recorded history when some people were not teaching this.  It was particularly popular at the time of the Enlightenment.  But it is no truer now that when it was first proposed.

Some religions are barbaric, or contain barbaric elements, when compared to today's standards.  But this is certainly not true of all.  To name but two, both the Buddhist and the Christian religions teach a standard of being human which is far higher than you will find in most societies and human institutions today.

And as for not needing such things any more - this idea ran out of steam long ago.  It's easy to find photographs of two bits of graffiti on a wall: the first says, "God is dead. Nietsche," the second, "Nietsche is dead. God."  The one is no more than wishful thinking, the other is simple fact.

At the end of the 19th century, many people believed in science and progress; they confidently proclaimed that the 20th century would see the death of religion across the world.  At the end of that century, religion was stronger and more dominant in world affairs than it had been for a long while.  If mankind has 'grown out of the need' to believe in God, we are certainly showing it in a very odd way.

Confusing

"We should ignore all religions because they all claim to be true, and they can't all be true."

This is not an argument - it is barely even a position to adopt in an argument. It is an assumption, but an assumption which falls to pieces as soon as you look at it in detail.

You may as well state that reading a murder mystery is a waste of time, because you have a crime with many suspects: they all had the motivation or opportunity to do it, so it is obviously impossible to choose between them.

I do not want to suggest that choosing a religion is the same as solving a murder mystery story,  but some sort of parallel exists. And it is a much better analogy than many of the alternatives I have heard used, such as the problem of making a winning bet on the roulette table ("Bet on the wrong god and you end up damned!") - at best, a simplistic and inaccurate parody of religious belief.  There may be choices to make, but there are always reasons - good reasons - for making good choices.