Overviews of world religious studies often reveal a forgotten aspect of the landscape. Rare enough are authors who actually compare the exclusive teachings of particular religions. However, listing really unique aspects of different belief systems is even more neglected, especially if these items could possibly have an evidential basis. For example, how long after the founder of a major world religion dies are his or her major teachings actually written down and recorded, especially such that they can be accurately retrieved? When is the earliest extant copy of the written texts? Often, it is very difficult to even locate these sorts of data. Why is this the case?

The Place of Comparison, Truth, and Evidence in Religion

It is probably the case that many different reasons contribute to the phenomena just mentioned. Oftentimes, religion and truth, or religion and history, are simply considered by many to occupy entirely different categories. They are often treated as strange bedfellows. Perhaps it is even thought that there are airtight partitions between these categories, too.

Religion is just not something which is supposed to be evidenced or compared. Our beliefs are often said to be just that--meant to be held by faith or not at all. Moreover, it is believed to be private--faith is not well-suited for discussion, voting, and certainly not meant to be debated.

Many who call themselves conservatives, liberals, and in-between think this way. Others, of course, take contrary views, and may actually enjoy hearing good religious give-and-take with plenty of clash. But what if the participants are simply speaking “off the tops of their heads” rather than actually being authorities? Who wants to hear someone assert what they do not know? Thus, proper background and research into these areas are some of the prerequisite for the best conversations.

Certainly a huge reason for avoiding logical, evidential, or other sorts of religious comparisons is what many refer to as “political correctness.” It is simply considered to be in very bad taste to teach or even to imply that one religion is in any way superior to another.

Among other problems, such an attitude is held to smack too often of intolerance, and virtually nothing is more despised these days, especially among young people. Someone having an attitude that their religious beliefs are correct, especially if they think that their position is the only truthful view, may be termed prejudicial, narrow-minded, or even considered just plain bigots.

For a number of major and minor reasons, then, it often flies in the face of our modern ethos to attempt to compare, evaluate, or especially to judge one religion by virtue of another. If only one analogy could be used to express these positions, it might be this one: For many people today, religion is only a subjective preference—like choosing one’s favorite foods. On this view, haughty religious views are taken as being exactly akin to someone getting all huffy or even angry because someone dares to prefer apple pie over steak. It is widely held that religious views are completely up to the individual! No one has the right to tell someone that steak is the best, for it is merely a matter of personal preference! The same goes for religion.