All religions cant be right therefore

[Charlemagne_III]

An atheist I know states “Since it is inconceivable that all religions are right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” What would you say to him?

I would say to him that when astronomers differ about the origin of the universe, it is not reasonable to suppose that they are all wrong. When voters disagree about who would make the best President, it is not reasonable to suppose that they are all wrong. When physicians disagree about how to treat a patient, it is not reasonable to suppose that they are all wrong. Etc. etc.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I would say to him that when astronomers differ about the origin of the universe, it is not reasonable to suppose that they are all wrong.

Actually, it is, because the phrase “origin of the universe” is an oxymoron. It presumes that there is a “temporal past” before of the universe, when we all know that “time is a property of the universe”. It is just as incorrect as to start an argument which entails: “what is on the other side of a Mobius strip”? Or “what is inside of a Klein bottle”?

When voters disagree about who would make the best President, it is not reasonable to suppose that they are all wrong.

“Who” makes a good president is a subjective assessment. In my opinion the best president is the one must be dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, where he will do his best to get time off for good behavior. No one, who wants to have power should be given power.

When physicians disagree about how to treat a patient, it is not reasonable to suppose that they are all wrong. Etc. etc.

As long as the process does not work 100% of the time in all possible cases, it cannot be said that the treatment is perfectly good.

But in a sense you are right. One cannot say that all religions are false, just because they disagree. The reasonable assumption is that they are PROBABLY all false, because they cannot agree even among themselves. They all assert, however, that they are the ONLY ones that are right and everyone else is wrong. Too bad that none of them can bring up evidence for their claims.

 

[Tomdstone]

When physicians disagree about how to treat a patient, it is not reasonable to suppose that they are all wrong. Etc. etc.

But do they say that they are infallibly right in their treatment, or do they say that they will do the best that they can? In religion, each side claims it is infallibly right. One side says that Jesus used unleavened bread, the other says that Jesus used leavened bread. Each side says it is right and the other is wrong? After 2000 years of discussions and study, their is no agreement.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But do they say that they are infallibly right in their treatment, or do they say that they will do the best that they can? In religion, each side claims it is infallibly right.

I don’t believe this is correct. Only the Catholic Church claims infallibility. Indeed, almost all of the Protestant religions complain about the Catholic Church’s claim of infallibility, which by doing so only affirms their own claim of fallibility.

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t believe this is correct. Only the Catholic Church claims infallibility. Indeed, almost all of the Protestant religions complain about the Catholic Church’s claim of infallibility, which by doing so only affirms their own claim of fallibility.

I believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church holds that Jesus used leavened bread at the Last Supper and that the Roman Church is wrong to say that He used leavened Bread. Didn’t the Roman Church excommunicate Cerularius, claiming among other things, that he advocated the use of leavened bread?

 

[ccmnxc]

An atheist I know states “Since it is inconceivable that all religions are right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” What would you say to him?

This argument can be parodied to death for those who have the patience. A simple example, though:
“Since it is inconceivable that all the interpretations of quantum mechanics are right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”

Might work as a soundbite, but the logic itself is, well, rather poor.

Heck, even atheism itself can be “refuted” with this argument, as there is a variety of atheistic worldviews:

• Spiritualistic worldviews like Buddhism
• Non-naturalistic non-spiritualistic ones like Aristotelian naturalism
• Naturalistic, reductionistic atheism, etc.

All of these have to account for reality and explain it in some way without recourse to God. And since it is inconceivable that they are all true, then it is most reasonable to assume they are all false.

One might claim that the set of religions is bigger than the set of atheisms, and thus that makes the difference. Problem is, all things being equal, probability dictates that one of the options is more likely to be true in the larger set, which gives the advantage here to theism, not atheism.

Of course, one could claim that all things are not equal, but then your friend’s claim becomes pretty well irrelevant once you start going down that road, since you are addressing positions on their merits rather than making sweeping conclusions about many groups.

 

[ccmnxc]

Too bad that none of them can bring up evidence for their claims.

What counts as evidence?

 

[minkymurph]

What counts as evidence?

When did we come to be so obsessed with ‘evidence?’

So what if there is no ‘evidence.’ If someone believes something and it enhances their life, and they live their life accordingly why should they have to produce ‘evidence?’

What is wrong with trust? What is wrong with going with your gut feeling in the absence of ‘evidence?’ Is this not a life skill? Do we live our lives and make decisions only in terms of f irrevocable ‘evidence?’ Of course we don’t.

Life is not a mathematical, chemical or physical equation. Just because someone draws a conclusion that cannot be supported by ‘evidence’ does not in itself mean it is a bad thing. Respect autonomy. That means if someone disagrees they have the right to do so. It does not mean you agree, and does not mean God will punish a genuine belief. God is almighty and will do what He will.

 

[Tomdstone]

When did we come to be so obsessed with ‘evidence?’

So what if there is no ‘evidence.’ …
What is wrong with trust? What is wrong with going with your gut feeling in the absence of ‘evidence?’ … Just because someone draws a conclusion that cannot be supported by ‘evidence’ does not in itself mean it is a bad thing.

The Muslims say that Mohammed was a prophet and that the Koran was inspired. Should we trust them? Or should we trust the Hindus who say that there are many gods. What is wrong with trust?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Muslims say that Mohammed was a prophet and that the Koran was inspired. Should we trust them? Or should we trust the Hindus who say that there are many gods. What is wrong with trust?

I trust only the God of Love, Jesus Christ, who proved his love in person.

Neither in the Koran nor in Hinduism do I find that God.

 

[Tomdstone]

I trust only the God of Love, Jesus Christ, who proved his love in person.

Neither in the Koran nor in Hinduism do I find that God.

I don’t doubt that. However, the statement made was:

What is wrong with trust? What is wrong with going with your gut feeling in the absence of ‘evidence?’.

The observant Hindu will trust his teachers and go with his gut feeling that Hinduism is the right way.

 

[SuperLuigi]

An atheist I know states “Since it is inconceivable that all religions are right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” What would you say to him?

A linear analysis for a more complex existence.

 

[Tomdstone]

A linear analysis for a more complex existence.

Why should the analysis be linear and not non-linear?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The observant Hindu will trust his teachers and go with his gut feeling that Hinduism is the right way.

If that’s the only God he knows, I think he will trust his God. That doesn’t mean his God is God.

Christians don’t convert to Hinduism because there is nothing in Hinduism that compares to the love of Christ.

 

[Bradski]

If that’s the only God he knows, I think he will trust his God. That doesn’t mean his God is God.

Christians don’t convert to Hinduism because there is nothing in Hinduism that compares to the love of Christ.

Literally, and I really mean literally, how many people do you know who have studied the Hindu religion and Christiantity and then have come to the decision that one of them was the correct choice?

I mean, really…

 

[NovusFidem]

Literally, and I really mean literally, how many people do you know who have studied the Hindu religion and Christiantity and then have come to the decision that one of them was the correct choice?

I mean, really…

I’d say, very few. Comparatively.

How many Hindus go around preaching their faith?

A religion being True of False has nothing to do with how many believe in it. But as he said, those who believes in Hinduism will continue to believe it to be the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything… until they don’t.

Whenever they don’t, they can either be content in not knowing what is Truth, or keep on searching, which is when they will study another religion to check if it makes any sense.

I have a friend, born Catholic, turned non-denominational Christian, now Hindu (I guess. She says she’s a follower/a part of Krishna). If she believes Hinduism makes more sense, then that’s what she believes.