Religion is wrong.

Aname for beginning this debate. Introduction My opponent makes the rather bold statement that “Religion is wrong. ” Because several of his arguments pertain to what is right or wrong in the moral sense, I’ll assume he means religion is wrong in the moral sense. My opponent substantiates his claim with four distinct arguments: (1) religion is based on faith, (2) religions are dogmatically exclusive, (3) religion is the cause of unnecessary conflict, and (4) religion misguides society in superstitious nonsense. I’ll show how his arguments are either false or unsupportive of his central claim. Faith My opponent declares, “religion is based upon faith,” and defines faith as “a belief in something that has no proof. ” Unfortunately, this is not what faith is. In a broad religious sense, faith is “belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. ” [1] On a deeper level, within Christianity, the Bible teaches that we should test the claims of other people with reason to determine if they are truly from God: “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God” [2]. On this subject, William Lane Craig writes in Reasonable Faith (the title of which would be a contradiction in such a naïve and misunderstood definition of faith), “Reason is a tool to help us better understand our belief; as Anselm put it, ours is a faith that seeks understanding. ” [3] Faith is a strong belief that a certain proposition is true, and this can be supported with rational justification. Let’s humor my opponent’s argument for just a moment, and grant that his definition is true. Even if the religious believed without evidence, how does this show that religion is wrong? How does this show that religion is morally impermissible? My opponent might rebut with the statement that we ought to not accept any unjustified belief. However, we trust our senses on a daily basis without any external justification, or evidence, for doing so – it’s just a basic belief upon which we structure more complex beliefs about the external world. Thus, religion is not morally wrong even if it did concern belief in that without evidence. Now, let’s even further humor my opponent’s argument and grant his definition along with the conclusion that such an act of faith would be morally wrong. Religion is far more than mere unsupported dogma. The existence of God itself is a “subject of philosophical demonstration,” [4] even if that demonstration is not convincing enough for some. Basic belief in the divine is supported by many famous arguments that are debated among theists and atheists to this day. Further religious doctrine is also debated among philosophers. Religious exclusivism My opponent bases his second contention on the doctrine of exclusivism, or that one’s own religion is the only true religion, or that it is distinct in its truth. [5] Religion, and religious interpretation, can be either exclusivist or inclusivist depending on not only the religion but the adherent’s personal view. My opponent fails to demonstrate that religions are exclusivist. Indeed, many religions, even Christianity, which some would suppose is the most exclusivist of the Abrahamic religions, have both exclusivist and inclusivist followers. Christian inclusivism is the doctrine that “people actually appropriate God’s salvation only on the basis of Christ’s work but not always through explicit faith in him. ” [6] Thus we see that religion is not exclusivist in nature. Similar to my opponent’s last argument, he refrains from making the connection between exclusivism and moral impermissibility. Even if we supposed that religion was exclusivist in nature, how do we conclude it’s therefore wrong? Conflict This argument can simply be dismissed on the grounds that it is not religion that causes conflict, but dogmatic religious followers that cause conflict. Indeed, the belief in Christianity is not what caused the Crusades – that was particular followers of both Christianity and Islam. This is an example of guilt by association, through claiming that because religion is sometimes associated with conflict, religion is therefore inherently belligerent. Moreover, religion is also a provider of peace in the world. The Economist has described the Catholic Church as “the largest single charitable organisation in the country” and that “Catholic Charities USA, its main charity, and its subsidiaries employ over 65,000 paid staff and serve over 10m people. These organisations distributed $4.7 billion to the poor in 2010. ” [7] Once again, religion is not inherently belligerent. Existence of God My opponent’s next argument claims that “considering there is no proof for God,” religion misguides society. Let’s take a look at some of the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, mentioned earlier. I’ll state common versions here in sylllogistic format. Cosmological 1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause 2. The Universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause Premise (1) is substantiated by the metaphysical Law of Causation, and through common sense, premise (2) is substantiated by arguments that demonstrate logical contradictions in the actual infinite proposed by an eternal past. The conclusion follows that a nonspatiotemporal cause brought the Universe into being. Teleological 1. The Universe’s fine-tuning is either due to necessity, chance, or design 2. The Universe’s fine-tuning is not due to necessity or chance 3. Therefore, the Universe’s fine-tuning is due to design Premise (1) is uncontroversial, unless my opponent brings forth an alternative theory. Premise (2) is substantiated because (a) reality and physics conforms around the fine-tuning being discussed, so physics could not have caused the fine-tuning, and (b) chance is an absurd hypothesis because of the infinitesimal scale the fundamentals of nature operate on. Thus the conclusion follows the Universe was designed. Ontological 1. If a maximally great being possibly exists, a maximally great being exists 2. A maximally great being possibly exists 3. Therefore, a maximally great being exists Premise (1) is substantiated my axiom S5 of modal logic, which states that possibly necessarily p, then necessarily p, or that if a maximally great being possibly necessarily exists, then a maximally great being necessarily exists. Because we’re discussing a maximally great being, this being would be necessary rather than contingent or impossible. Premise (2) is substantiated by the lack of logical contradictions in a maximally great being, thus rendering it possible. The conclusion follows that a maximally great being exists. Conclusion We’ve seen that my opponent misunderstands what faith is, fails to show that this would result in moral impermissibility even if he were correct, and is unaware of philosophical support for religious belief. We’ve seen that my opponent asserts that all religion is exclusivist without considering the doctrine of inclusivism, and how even if he were correct, this would entail moral impermissibility. We’ve seen that he’s fallaciously employed guilt by association in his religious belligerence argument. We’ve lastly seen that his last argument fails in that there are good reasons to believe God exists. The resolution stands negated. Sources 1. Faith. Dictionary. com. Retrieved 21 October 2012. (. http://goo.gl...) 2. 1 John 4:1. Holy Bible. 3. Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. p. 36. (. http://goo.gl...) 4. Owens, Joseph, et al. St. Thomas Aquinas on the Existence of God: Collected Papers of Joseph Owens. p. 187. (. http://goo.gl...) 5. Yandell, Keith. Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal pp. 106-107. (. http://goo.gl...) 6. Craig, William Lane and JP Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. p. 617. (. http://goo.gl...) 7. “Earthly Concerns. ” The Economist. Retrieved 21 October 2012. (. http://goo.gl...)