Why should religion get a free pass?

Maybe, it can be, but that doesn't mean it should be. You don't put anything up as a lens through which to view anything unless you have a legitimate reason to do so. Of all the ideologies and concepts in the world, only religions and diet plans have ever been allowed to be used as a "lens to view the world" without any legitimate backing: of everything else is demanded solid, rational reasoning. I have to say, as a religious person myself, this is completely wrong.Even as my religion explains to me the purpose of life and where I'm going, they don't do a very good job of making it make sense. In fact, I'm pretty sure they go out of their way to make it not make sense. After all, if it made sense, it would just be mundane and not divine, right? For example, have you ever heard things like "I don't know how I survived that car accident" or "I don't know how I managed to pay all the bills this month," which are then immediately attributed to God's love for that individual?When I try to provide a legitimate answer to such questions (which is considered tactless in religious circles, by the way), it is often taken as an attempt to undermine their faith, and people get offended and/or accuse me of being unfaithful (which I still take as a insult--so it usually works).That's why religion always gets a free pass with people like Humphreys: not because the religion is necessarily worth anything, but because he is afraid that doing so would incur the wrath of God.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

For the simple reason that God's presence or absence does not change the answer I get when I add two plus two: whether or not God made it that way, that is still the way it is. If looking through the lens doesn't make it look any different from not looking through the lens, why look through the lens? See above. When we talk about gravity, we see things falling to the ground in such a way that the motion is roughly predicted by Newton's laws of motion (and predicted better by the tweaking of these laws by Einstein and company). Who cares if it's angels pulling things toward each other, the Spirit of God heaving things around, or just an inherent property of matter? The effect is the same, and Newton's and Einstein's equations still hold in their respective spheres. Likewise, evolution still works the same, whether or not I add "because God did it that way" at the end of my explanations. Therefore, looking at it through the "God-did-it" lens doesn't make a difference. I don't know where you're from, Helenavm, but here in the United States, we spend a lot more time worrying about how people feel than I think we need to. When you spend all your time worrying about how you feel, you start getting the impression that your feelings are more important than reality.Do you think God ever gets tired of hearing people whine to Him for answers? Do you think He ever wishes people would just try to figure it out and leave Him alone? He's got to feel like a complete failure we he sees us Americans (His creations) complaining that science hurts our feelings.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Hi, Buzz. You know my ego wouldn't just let this one slide. How is biblical fundamentalism any less expectant of a free pass than any of these other religious groups you've named? Here’s how Larni defined “free pass” in the OP: As I understand it, the requirement of accepting the Bible as 100% truth, even when snakes and donkeys start talking and when water turns to blood, is demanding a “free pass.” If you refuse to provide evidence for your claim, you are demanding a “free pass.”I’m not even going to attempt to explain (nor pretend to understand) how Christ’s Atonement actually accomplishes what it does, and I have never been given a satisfactory answer from anyone, including God. This, to me, constitutes a “free pass”: my leaders and my God have basically told me that they are not going to explain it to me, but that they expect me to believe it and apply it to my life anyway. They often expect me to believe when a prophet makes the claim that he has seen an angel, and members share their testimonies, in which they claim to have witnessed a miracle, when in fact they did not even consider the possibility that the event was easily explanable by non-miracles.In terms of this sort of doctrinal issue, you’re absolutely right: the Mormon religion asks us to believe something that it will not even attempt to prove. But, if you seriously believe that your religion is different, you are either deluding yourself or indoctrinating your congregation (probably both).-----But, for other claims, such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon, my church has never demanded me to accept it without question. In fact, the Mormon Church funded archaeological expeditions in Mesoamerica in the 1970's to entertain questions about the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. They were a flop, and the Church kind of tried to prevent it from becoming a big deal, but some people still can’t let go, and claim to have found all sorts of Book of Mormon artifacts in Mesoamerica.More recently, a Mormon researcher named Rodney Meldrum released a video presentation about the Hopewell hypothesis for the Book of Mormon's geography. I personally like much of Meldrum’s conclusions, but we don't have definitive proof yet, nor can I defend it without using the Book of Mormon, which I can’t prove is actually an artifact from that civilization (though I, of course, believe it is).-----Look, Mormons use the scientific method! We used to think the Book of Mormon took place in Central America (only God knows why we were so stupid, though: Joseph Smith allegedly found the Golden Plates in frickin’ New York!), so we set out to test our hypothesis by looking for artifacts that supported the Book of Mormon version of Mesoamerican history. When that failed, we looked to another hypothesis, and this one looks a lot better than the last one (though it's still admittedly weak).Granted, it's still based on apologetics, but it's not a "free pass" by any stretch of the imagination. Our Church is even willing to admit when we made mistakes: the Book of Mormon’s wording has been changed in several instances to reflect a better understanding of the material than the original writer or translator. (We won’t be this open-minded in relation to the big, fundamental issues though, I’m afraid).Of course, I must admit to you that not all Mormons think in this fashion, and probably the majority are just brain-dead, blind-faith automatons. I suspect, based on my dealings with people from several religions, that this is the case for other churches, as well.But, in this case, the "free pass" is what the individual gives, not what the church demands. I suspect that neither your church nor mine demands on any significant scale that the membership not question what is taught to them. But, you surely have to admit that a lot of people in your congregation give your sermons and the Bible a “free pass” anyway. Why do you think they do that?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.