(June 19, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(June 19, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: "Johnny, Suzie...you're both old enough now to know that mommy and daddy believe a certain set of myths about a being that cannot be proved regardless of our best efforts to do so, and we freely admit that these beliefs are both confusing and contradictory in relation to the claims of other myths being taught by other parents around the world. When you're older, we hope you will choose to embrace these fables, but we will certainly understand if you choose to become an atheist instead."
70% of the rest of humanity teaches their children a religion that you most probably consider wrong (full of myth and superstition).
But you are unable to see that yours is really no different.
And you even know this is true, because if you were born in Iran to Muslim parents, you would now be a Muslim, arguing Muslim aplogetics. You would believe Islam is true just as strongly as you now believe Catholicism is. And you would be supporting your beliefs with the same sort of flawed logic and holy text quotes.
I have already responded to this classic "geography" objection. But it deserves to be re-posted, and I'll juice the formatting so it looks nicer.
Religious Beliefs are a Product of Geography
The idea that “religion is just a product of geography” sounds like a great argument for atheism. Initially.
However, just because someone is born in a place where they fail to discover the right answer about life’s important questions does not mean there is not right answer. This goes for any kind of truth claim. For example:
• If you were born in the year 1715 instead of 2015, you would probably have supported the enslavement of native Africans.
• If you were born in 2015 BC, you probably would have denied that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
• If you were born in modern North Korea, you probably would believe that democracy is evil.
But none of these facts proves that slavery is moral, that the sun revolves around the Earth or that dictators are a great idea. All they prove is that large numbers of people can be wrong.
For all of our political, scientific and ethical beliefs, we would say that even if other people disagree with them, and do not live in places that teach these beliefs as truths, that does not mean these beliefs are false. We can put forward rational arguments to defend these beliefs and then say that those other cultures who disagree are simply mistaken.
If we can do this for disputed ethical, scientific and political beliefs, then why not say we can put forward rational arguments for religious beliefs that are not universally believed but nonetheless true?
