In Defense of Religion

This is a paper I just wrote for my Humanities class. The topic the professor assigned was "Religion." He left it very open-ended; partially because the paper was designed to test out our writing more than our thinking skills. I was pleased with the final product, and though I had intended to write another section espousing the benefits of religion, I ran out of time and paper.

Richard Gianforte
Major British Authors
February 3, 2009

In Defense of Religion
Religion is one of the most controversial issues in the modern world. This is partially because the many efficient means of communication have spread knowledge about many different religions. Yet, there are intellectuals and atheists who dismiss religion casually as a waste of time and do not give religion the thought it deserves. There are still others who have been hurt by a follower of a particular religion, or personally had a negative experience with religion in the past. Despite these things, the contemplations of the religious and the acts of practitioners do great good in the world.
This paper will discuss some of the most common critiques of religion in general. It will not reference any particular faith, or delve deep into teleolgocial and doctrinal issues. Instead, it will simply answer, as clearly as possible, a few typical assaults on religion.
The first critique I will address is the assertion that people only believe in a religion on faith, that there is no evidence involved. The clear meaning of this criticism is that anything that is believed on faith is inferior to that which is believed on evidence. In the modernist worldview, propositions should only be believed if they can be proven with evidence or reasoned out logically from what is already known. Since religion is taken on faith, it is less true than science, or even false.
To answer this critique, the underlying worldview must be attacked. It is not true that nothing ought to be believed on faith. We take things on faith every day: we believe the weatherman when he tries to predict the future; we believe our professor when he explains how time shifts near light speed; and we believe news stories about events half a world away. In short, we take things we are told on faith—even things we will never experience or verify for ourselves—because the sources have proven themselves trustworthy and what is said matchs up with reality. This means that humans are constantly analyzing the “believability” of statements they hear, based on whom they hear it from and how it compares to what they already know about the world. For example, most people reject internet scams promising huge profits because the person contacting them is anonymous and they know that money is not free. On the flip side, those same people may enter into a business venture with a trusted friend. Faith is a basis of life.
Therefore, there is some element of faith in everything we think. Not even our senses are perfect; we cannot take what we personally experience as unequivocally true. Senses may be deceived or falsely stimulated. Who is to say that we are not living in a world like Plato's cave, where shadows of real objects are all that can be seen? If, then, everything we think is taken on some sort of trust, it is wrong to assert that the only things that we ought to believe are those which we have experienced or the things that we can reason out logically. It is up to each person to weigh out the evidence for and against a particular statement, religious or otherwise. Religious truth can be as justified and objective as truth in other areas of life.
A second critique of religion is that faith serves as a psychological crutch for the weak-minded. That is, people who are too dumb or too pliable to think for themselves believe in religion because it makes them feel better. They do not accept the facts of life and instead believe whatever they are told, for example bad people will be punished, good deeds are always rewarded in some way, etc. Often the first and second critiques discussed here are paired together; in order to portray the religious as morally good yet ignorant, and adverse to reason and logic.
The answer to this critique is to call foul play. Religion as a whole can not be described by its weakest members. It is incontestable that some people believe religion blindly, because it gives them a sense of security. But I doubt that any worldview would like to be characterized by its worst adherents. This would be like pointing to all the bumbling and ignorant 9th grade chemists and trying to prove that chemistry was a joke no true scientist should take seriously. If religion itself were corrupted, or religion inherently led people to be ignorant, this would be a different matter; but there is no evidence that this is the case. Instead, a wise person must also look at the best adherents and proponents of religion. And indeed, there have been tens of thousands of great religious thinkers who have written millions of pages of coherent, thoughtful, and reasoned religious thought. It is of course hoped that those who wholeheartedly believe a particular religion would analyze it carefully for themselves, but religion as a whole should not be judged because of its bad disciples.
Another very common dismissal of religion is that it is merely a human invention. Critics claim that all the systems of belief that exist in the world were created by humans, for various reasons: some were made to gain control over others, some were made because people didn't understand natural phenomena, etc. Whatever the reason, critics dispatch religion without a second thought because they think religions are merely a human creation.
Yet, most people believe in some sort of absolute truth. They believe existential truths like “I exist,”
moral truths like “murder is wrong,” and they believe truths about the universe like 1+1=2. In very few cases, however, do people discover truth for themselves—they are usually told by other people. For example, most students today are taught about Darwin and evolution. They don't reject evolutionary theory because it was made by a man; instead they believe that Darwin's hypothesis reflects what is actually true. In every field of research and every facet of life, discovery is about finding truth that already exists; and most of the time the discovery is done by someone else. The truths that we know were discovered by humans. Therefore, it cannot be said that a religion should be rejected because it was created by a man. Like a scientific theory, a religion may be right or may be wrong, or even partially right and partially wrong. Intellectuals should not reject religion because it somehow belongs to a different field of study. Absolute truth exists in every field, and even if the only religious truth is “there is no god,” then those who are wise will have taken the time to consider the issue. In summary, the validity of religion must be considered and weighed just like other truth is considered, and should not be dismissed because it is allegedly made by men for their own motives.1
The last critique to be discussed is that religion often leads people to hate those who don't follow their religion. The world has enough hate already, so why do people argue about gods they can't see and doctrines concerning invisible things? Furthermore, religions often try to impose their own rules on others who just want to live without religious interference.
The short answer is that the misuse of something does not make the thing itself evil. For example, a hammer can be used to help build a house, or it can be used to kill someone. Likewise, religion can be used to build people up, or it can be used as an excuse and a motive to kill. The use of religion to hurt is a perversion of religion. Another example will help illustrate: consider a person who loves money above all things. Beyond using money to buy food or live comfortably, this hypothetical person loves it so much that they are willing to kill others to get more of it. Obviously, people would object to this way of life. At the same time, everyone accepts that there is a proper love of money; money is needed to support a family and accomplish other good things. So, there is a distinction between a right and a wrong method to “worship” money. Similarly, there is a right and a wrong way to worship a god or gods; there is some standard for the right practice of religion. It cannot be denied that evil has been and still is being done in the name of various religions, but these deeds are wrong. Defending religion does not mean defending every wild person who claims to have a system of faith that tells them to murder wantonly. Moreover, to focus on the negative is to ignore all the positive things that religion has done and is still doing for the world. Religions as a collective whole should not be judged by the bad eggs, or even collectively. Each religion stands or falls on its own merit because each represents a particular and unique worldview.2
Hopefully, it is clear that religion in general stands up against many of the most common critiques thrust against it. Most of these attacks are very dismissive in nature; and are strong enough to prevent people from even considering any religion (other than atheism) as valid. While many people go to college and study for years, they don't give a thought to anything supernatural or beyond this world. If, after much careful deliberation and study of religion, those same people came to some conclusion about religion (even if they decided on atheism), this world would be a more rational place. In addition, religion ought to be studied by those who believe it already, so that they can increase their knowledge and defend their position eloquently. The worst possible approach to religion is to dismiss it quickly and ignore it entirely.


1 I need to make one distinction—this paragraph attacks the person who believes that religion doesn't deserve any consideration whatsoever because it was “made by men.” This is different from someone who considers all of the evidence for and against religion, and becomes an atheist because he believes that religions are purposely made up by men who know that they are false, or are genuinely deceived. The world would be a better place if there were more people of the latter and fewer of the former.
2 I wish I had more time and more paper to develop this point. My outline shows how I had planned to elaborate on the good things religion does.