Top 5 Misconceptions about Religion

[Quintessence]

If you had to write a list of the top 5 misconceptions about religion, what might go on your list? Or, if you prefer, just contribute some ideas - things you hear people say about religion that you consider to be misconceptions (and why).

Here's one misconception to kick things off:

• Religion is dogmatic; that is, all religions have a body of doctrines that are proclaimed by a central religious authority that must be accepted by its adherents without question to qualify for membership (see Dogma - Wikipedia).
  • Examples of non-dogmatic religions: honestly, most of them, when one looks outside of (non-progressive) Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
  • Why it makes my list: I'm a practitioner of a non-dogmatic religion (Druidry) and have affiliated with other non-dogmatic traditions (Unitarian Universalism, contemporary Paganism) for a long time. There are also philosophical complications related to the idea of dogmatism that I find problematic in its application as a construct for understanding human cultures (notably, the fact that nobody is 100% pure in adherence).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

One misconception is when atheists make the case that "Religious people are dangerous", but then show that they're really only talking about conservative Christians.

 

[JustGeorge]

That religion and science must be at odds with each other..

 

[JustGeorge]

One misconception is when atheists make the case that "Religious people are dangerous", but then show that they're really only talking about conservative Christians.

I find some don't really understand that being religious does not necessarily mean being Christian...

 

[Quintessence]

I find some don't really understand that being religious does not necessarily mean being Christian...

I very nearly put "Religion does not equal your understanding of some particular tradition of Christianity" in the OP for my kickoff example because of how common this is. It probably drives me bonkers more than any of the other misconceptions, but even so, I'm not sure it would make my list because it is more of an unfortunate cultural shorthand than an actual misconception. I would like to think folks know religion =/= their understanding of Christianity. But a lot of the major misconceptions about religion more broadly do come from applying some understanding of some Christian tradition to all religions (like assuming dogmatism).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Religion makes you a better person - There are too many religious arses out there.
Religion is need for a fulfiling life/No religion makes leads to depression and nihilism - Doesn't look that way once you get to know some atheists.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

That religion and science must be at odds with each other..

You beat me to this! A website that I enjoy is called Judaism and Science.

 

[JDMS]

My biggest ones are similar to yours.

1) That there are 4,000 religions all claiming to be true. Most do not claim that they are the sole truth, and other religions are wrong.
2) That there are 4,000 religions claiming that if you believe in the wrong one, you'll be punished. Yeah, no. Most don't care about "belief" in their faith at all, and very few have the concept of salvation per se.

These two really coincide with the idea that religion = Christianity.

And additionally...
3) That religion came from stupidity, and that it was made up by stupid people in the past. That's just blatantly untrue. Religions came about in vastly different ways, but to say that it was just humans' ignorance is, ironically, very ignorant. Acting like religion is a stupid concept is dismissing the fact that it is an extremely powerful political and social tool in the hands of intelligent people.

4) That everyone in the past was religious (also related to the idea that historical people were stupid). This is not true, as evidenced by any minor scrutiny in historical texts. Just like today, a lot of people were skeptical about religious "truth". Even though many of them didn't have all the answers, a lot of people could still sus out lies when religion was used as a tool.

 

[Audie]

One misconception is when atheists make the case that "Religious people are dangerous", but then show that they're really only talking about conservative Christians.

Same misconception from you, but
about atheists.

Except for I doubt you can find such a silly
atheist as you described.

 

[Audie]

My biggest ones are similar to yours.

1) That there are 4,000 religions all claiming to be true. Most do not claim that they are the sole truth, and other religions are wrong.
2) That there are 4,000 religions claiming that if you believe in the wrong one, you'll be punished. Yeah, no. Most don't care about "belief" in their faith at all, and very few have the concept of salvation per se.

These two really coincide with the idea that religion = Christianity.

And additionally...
3) That religion came from stupidity, and that it was made up by stupid people in the past. That's just blatantly untrue. Religions came about in vastly different ways, but to say that it was just humans' ignorance is, ironically, very ignorant. Acting like religion is a stupid concept is dismissing the fact that it is an extremely powerful political and social tool in the hands of intelligent people.

4) That everyone in the past was religious (also related to the idea that historical people were stupid). This is not true, as evidenced by any minor scrutiny in historical texts. Just like today, a lot of people were skeptical about religious "truth". Even though many of them didn't have all the answers, a lot of people could still sus out lies when religion was used as a tool.

All of those are based on the Vice of overgeneralizing.

 

[Quintessence]

Probably another one I would put in my top five is this one:

• Religion means theism; that is, all religions are theistic or accept some particular god-concept as essential to their understanding of reality and it is correspondingly essential to religious beliefs and practices.
  • Examples of non-theistic religions: several Eastern religions (notably, some flavors of Hinduism and Buddhism), various alternative religious movements (i.e., some flavors of Satanism, Paganism, UUism).
  • Why this makes my list: discussions so routinely assume religion must be theistic - and make particular assumptions about what kind of theism - this can't not be on my list. Plus, the diversity of theism makes this connection problematic on other levels by combining the mess that is attempting to define religion with the mess that is attempting to decide what gods are (or aren't).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Same misconception from you, but
about atheists.

Except for I doubt you can find such a silly
atheist as you described.

I don't see myself as having any sort of problem with 80% of atheists on this site, including you (I like your sense of humor).

However, there are a few which make up the vocal minority, that I usually might be best steering clear of. But many of them don't post much anymore.

But as for people like you, @lewisnotmiller , @It Aint Necessarily So , etc.... sorry if I did give that impression. It's something I need to work on.

 

[osgart]

That religious people fear death, and believe and have faith out of wishful thinking and fear. That's just not true.

 

[danieldemol]

That religion came from stupidity, and that it was made up by stupid people in the past. That's just blatantly untrue. Religions came about in vastly different ways, but to say that it was just humans' ignorance is, ironically, very ignorant. Acting like religion is a stupid concept is dismissing the fact that it is an extremely powerful political and social tool in the hands of intelligent people.

Why do you conflate the terms ignorant and stupid?

Plenty of smart people are ignorant but willing to change their minds in light of the evidence as it becomes available.

Also why would the power of something as a social tool mean it was necessarily intelligent as opposed to say potentially just being a potent means of control?

In my opinion.

 

[JDMS]

Why do you conflate the terms ignorant and stupid? Plenty of smart people are ignorant but willing to change their minds in light of the evidence as it becomes available.

Also why would the power of something as a social tool mean it was necessarily intelligent as opposed to say potentially just being a potent means of control?

In my opinion.

I was describing common sentiments, and misconceptions, not my own personal belief. I do know the difference between ignorance and stupidity. But many do not. And even then, for those who do make the distinction, they often claim religion comes ignorance, when again, that isn't necessarily true. Religious adherents may follow certain religions out of ignorance (one of many reasons, to clarify), but very few major dogmatic religions were created/shaped by religious leaders without intention.

As for the second part of your question, I would say that it takes a certain amount of intelligence and coordination to create/influence/spread a dogmatic belief that can drive millions of people to do or believe certain things (referring to dogmatic religions, not others). It takes a certain amount of intelligence to keep up lies. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to continue to make an ancient religion appealing in modern times.

EDIT: actually, that's funny I exclude non-dogmatic religions, because that's simply untrue. They can be used too. Even non-dogmatic religions like Shinto have also been historically used manipulative tactics to garner money, political influence, and even spread nationalism. Did you know that Shinto was used to justify the Japanese oppression of Korea? Religious leaders, who were also government officials, essentially sold he lie that the Korean people are the descendants of Susanoo, a rather unpopular and wayward kami who shamed Amaterasu, the sun kami and symbol of Japan. Despite the fact that Shinto is non-dogmatic, they still used the religion as an excuse to incite war and motivate soldiers. I guarantee you that the people who invented that lie didn't genuinely believe that Koreans are the children of Susanoo. So yes, religion as a whole can be used intelligently to push an agenda, dogmatic or not.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

While I don't think this is a full misconception, I think that greater discussion could sometimes be achieved if people consider the possibility that Jesus wasn't actually God, but the Old Testament was something else entirely. However, that doesn't mean everyone has to believe that Jesus isn't God, but rather, when making the connection of Jesus being God, that they provide evidence supporting their conclusion if it's relevant or on-topic to their claims and subject.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Another misconception is believing that religious group X or Y has a different opinion on things which have absolutely nothing to do with the religion and customs and beliefs of the religion, than everyone else.

Here is an example of a question that's relevant: "What is Catholic's view on abortion?"

It matters because the religion tends to say things on the subject. But it kind of gets murkier when people ask things like:

"What is Catholic's view on owning Nike shoes?"

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Another misconception is when people speak of Christians in America, but relate all Christians to Republicans/right-wing. (There are a lot of US Christians who are Democrat).

 

[Heyo]

That religion and science must be at odds with each other..

That people can be religious and scientists at the same time.

Religion (almost all of them) are based upon the belief in magic. Science is based in the belief that there is no magic. People can compartmentalize - but without some doublethink, there is no way to be a religious scientist.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That people can be religious and scientists at the same time.

Religion (almost all of them) are based upon the belief in magic. Science is based in the belief that there is no magic. People can compartmentalize - but without some doublethink, there is no way to be a religious scientist.

There are mildly more God-believing scientists than non God-believing. Just because someone like Stephen Hawking has contributed a lot to the field, doesn't mean all scientists share his views there is no God.