It has been said that there are as many religions, as many gods, as there are people. Obviously atheists and other non-religious folk would disagree but the point is plain:
  1. There are lots of religions
  2. Even within religions, conceptions of God differ

We thus ask ourselves: why should this be and what does it mean. I see 3 clear reasons why religious concepts abound:

  1. Religions are complex ideas
  2. Religions are descriptive
  3. Religions describe the intangible

Religions are complex ideas

Unlike simple concepts like arithmetic we cannot describe a religion’s premise in one sentence and devise an experiment to test it.

Religions are descriptive

Religions are rarely hypothetical theories but descriptions of God and the supernatural. Humans hardly ever agree on descriptions of things. Try describing your best friend Peter to someone and see how another person would describe them – there will be some overlap (he is a 27 year old Male) but not 100% consensus. There may even be disagreement and contradiction (IS Peter a funny guy?).

Religions describe the intangible

Religions deal mainly with subjects which cannot be contained in a laboratory and tested. We’re dealing with the meaning and purpose of life, the nature of humanity, the afterlife, morality and the nature of God. We can’t test these things once and for all and resolve differing views.

Thus, because religions are complex, descriptive and (mostly) unverifiable we can expect many differing views. (Atheists and agnostics would prefer we be silent on such issues and are irritated that religions proclaim with certainty what is, in the agnostics eyes, pure speculation.)

What Does All This Mean?

Now, what shall we conclude concerning the multiplicity of religions:

  1. All are equally true (Pluralism)
  2. All are equally false (Classic Atheism)
  3. All are equally indeterminate (Agnosticism)
  4. Each should be analysed logically and evidentially

My (potentially unpopular) answer would be 4: we need to look at religions individually. Only laziness or ignorance could answer otherwise. It may not be easy but all other answers have serious problems:

  1. The religions cannot all be true because they contradict each other. Christianity says that Jesus was crucified and Islam denies this. Buddhism says (in effect) that God does not exist or is impersonal, Islam says he is One and impersonal and Christianity says he is personal and triune (three persons, one being). They can’t all be right.
  2. The religions cannot all be false because the evidence for the theism as opposed to atheism is overwhelming (admittedly not all religions are theistic). I am not aware of any new evidence in favour of the no-God hypothesis except that it’s trendy and considered “intellectual” to be an atheist. To KNOW that there is no God you’d have to know everything about everything. The folks who say all religions are false cannot have analysed all religions due to the sheer number. The “all are false” conclusion is rash, arrogant and ignorant.
  3. The agnostic stance is untenable in my opinion because it results not from careful consideration but from ignorance and laziness. It also seems illogical to say “I KNOW that WE CANNOT (or do not) know”.

I believe we can and should consider each religion on it’s merits, group similar ones to keep the workload down and use common sense to find likely candidates. We should not let the multiplicity of ideas force us to assume all are right or wrong just as we should not assume the millions of numbers mean that 1 + 1 cannot be solved. Some things, like reality, are either true or false and not a matter of taste.

Related Posts