The question is fatally flawed, in my opinion. It stretches the definition of “true” past its breaking point. Either there is evidence to support the claims made by one or more religions, or there isn’t. Let’s look at each of these possibilities in more detail:

If there is no evidence for something, how can it be “true”? What would “true” even mean in this situation? You couldn’t seriously expect everyone in the world today to accept this on someone’s say so: there would always be someone saying “oh, really?” As long as there are people who demand evidence before accepting something as “true”, you could not say that religion is “true” in any absolute sense.

To truly have everyone accept a religion as true, you would need to impose mind control from a very young age, so that adults end up believing whatever they were told. This is the world of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, of totalitarianism, and of fundamentalist religion. In other words: in the absence of evidence for a proposition (religious or otherwise), you would need to brainwash people to make them believe it was true; to the point where you would wonder whether the people were still human as we understand it today. In even the most theocratic societies today, you will find unbelievers: they might not be able to say so out of fear for their lives, but that’s a different question.

On the other hand: if a religion’s claims were supported by evidence, then how could you call it a religion at all? There would be no need for faith, the very cornerstone of religious belief. The very idea of evidence is a scientific one, and when you investigate evidence, you go where it leads you. If a dogma says one thing, but the evidence says something else, you could not stop someone investigating it without imposing mind control in some form. Even if one scientist is satisfied to stop investigating at some particular point and say “OK, it’s true”, another would pick up the research and carry on. In other words, if there is evidence, the evidence will be studied, and the field would be better described as a scientific one, rather than a religion.

Logically, then, it’s a bad idea to use the words “religion” and “true” in the same sentence!

Posted: May 16th 2011

See all questions answered by brian thomson

Catholicism is true and everyone knows it? The Pope would have supreme power, and everything would go through him. He would outlaw all abortions, contraception other than complete/partial abstention, and homosexuality. He would allow only heterosexual couples to marry.

Everyone would go to Confession/Mass and eat the wafer, including lapsed and liberal Catholics. How could they not? Everyone would financially support Catholic schools, churches, and hospitals through their taxes. We know that is what god wants us to do so we better do it.

We would be the same people, but we would worry about being who we are. Is the Pope pleased enough with us? After all, he holds all the strings to the eternal being, and he knows through his hot line what this being wants.

There would be no discussion via Physics involving the natural origin of the universe. Science would be totally superseded by Catholicism—no need to study or do science. Just go to god’s rep on earth for answers. Such important questions would be: Are our loved ones in eternal bliss or not; Do we have to wait to find that out until we are dead and reborn either to be with god or not to be with it; Why are people still starving on earth or if they are not, why did god not put an end to starvation earlier, etc.

Such an situation makes the present North Korea seem like paradise.

Posted: May 14th 2011

See all questions answered by logicel