Is there justification for looking for flaws in a religion?

[Boojatta]

Poll question: Is there justification for looking for flaws in a religion?

[panader0]

1. Playing chess in Afghanistan is not a waste of time. Is it? Really?

All religions are flawed, because they represent only a small slice of the pie.

[stray cat]

2. Yes - it gives many people a feeling of superiority to denigrate people's beliefs

that differ from their own. So it inflates self esteem. Seriously it is worth investigating facts behind beliefs but most importantly behind your own personal beliefs. So many just like to trash other people and never test their own bias to a similar extent.

[Boojatta]

3. Are you suggesting that to look for a flaw is to denigrate?

For example, could a company's quality control department be renamed "Denigrate R Us" without confusing people?

I would think that there's a difference between a potential flaw and a definite flaw. Coincidentally, the extra ingredient needed to convert a potential flaw to a definite flaw is justification. This thread begins by asking "Is there justification...?"

[msongs]

4. if a religion is responsible for the rape torture and murder of people.... nt

[Occam Bandage]

5. I am not convinced that such a thing as a "flaw" could exist in a religion,

any more than it could exist in a Pollock.

[ZombieHorde]

6. If a religion does not do what it is designed to do, then it contains at least one flaw.

For example, if a religion is designed to grant its followers magic powers, such as telepathy, but fails to do so, then the religion contains at least one flaw.

[Occam Bandage]

9. I am confused by the word "design" there.

I don't think religions are designed any more than languages are.

[Boojatta]

11. I presume that ZombieHorde had an idea and that it's possible for the idea

to be expressed without confusing you. For example, ZombieHorde had to represent the idea in language and although it may be somewhat inappropriate to say that ZombieHorde "designed" the message that you replied to, it's not outrageously inappropriate. How about the word "formulated" or "composed"?

[Occam Bandage]

14. All three of those words would, I think, be appropriate when referring to a particular message.

None, I think, would be appropriate when referring to the development of the language in which the message was written. For similar but not identical reasons I do not believe it is appropriate to say that religions are designed, composed, formulated, or anything else that implies creative intent, and therefore I do not believe it is appropriate to claim that they may be flawed.

It would be like saying that a species of animal is flawed. It's only a meaningful statement if you're imposing a standard of judgment that is unrelated to either the creation or the sustaining existence of the judged.

[ZombieHorde]

16. What if the words "is designed" was replaced with the words, "honestly claims" ?

So then my original statement would be changed to, "If a religion does not do what it honestly claims to do, then it contains at least one flaw."

My example would then be changed to, "For example, if a religion honestly claims to grant its followers magic powers, such as telepathy, but fails to do so, then the religion contains at least one flaw."

By "honestly claims", I mean the claim is not an attempt to hoodwink believers. The claimer honestly believes the claim.

I don't think religions are designed any more than languages are.

How did Scientology come to be?

[Occam Bandage]

20. Then the religion is making claims that are literally false. Which is rather common in religions.

I don't believe that's a flaw, any more than it is a "flaw" that a wolf kills other animals in order to live. It's an adaptive trait that allows it to survive in its environment. I suppose that maladaptive traits (such as the Shakers mandating celibacy among all adherents) could be considered flaws, but only if you declare that survival of a religion is a virtue.

As for Scientology? Scientology is to religion what Esperanto is to language.

[Boojatta]

12. How do you interpret the following?

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

Source:
Acts 10:14 to 10:20 (King James Version)

To me, that looks like a rather strong hint that, according to "Acts" (a "book" or chapter of the New Testament), the kosher dietary laws are flawed in the sense that they should be simply ignored and not merely revised.

[Occam Bandage]

13. ...

A particular religion founded by a particular religious reformer finds, in accordance with that reformer's belief, that the root religion's interpretation of a shared religious corpus is flawed. I do not think that is a flaw in either Christianity or Judaism.

[Boojatta]

19. "the root religion's interpretation of a shared religious corpus is flawed"

If a religion interprets a corpus and the interpretation is found to be flawed, then why doesn't the flaw transfer from the mandated interpretation to the religion that mandates the flawed interpretation?

[Occam Bandage]

21. Certainly it does.

I would not object to the claim that Christian theology finds Judaism to be flawed. There is a difference, however, between "X believes Y is flawed" and "Y is flawed."

[Random_Australian]

7. I'd accept boredom as justification enough. Running around yelling at everyone that they're wrong

would take a little more justification.

[kwassa]

8. but do you justify on the left margin or the right margin?

Either could be flawed when you think about it.

[rug]

10. It's an imperative.

As it is for most human endeavors.

[NOW tense]

15. Perhaps we should just look at the truths and move on.

I feel that religion itself is static and should be advanced as living documents instead of relearning what we new thousands of years ago. Take the truths of all religions and advance the spiritual self.

[ZombieHorde]

17. How should one determine which aspects of any particular religion are true? nt

[NOW tense]

18. It is a personal thing.

I can tell you that feeling that everyone is going to some place called hell if they don't agree with me is not one of my truths.

[cosmik debris]

22. Is there justification for overlooking flaws in a religion? n/t