Religious Confusion or Religious Diversity Argument
The core idea of this argument is that if God exists and creates finite beings, we would expect God to ensure that they would know how to properly relate to Him.
After all, a relationship with God is seen as profoundly valuable by most theists, and failing to relate to God correctly is often believed to have dire eternal consequences.
So, if God exists, we should expect Him to clearly reveal to finite creatures what He is like, how we should live, and how we can flourish in communion with Him.
This would include revealing the proper way to worship and relate to Him.
But here’s the problem: the world is massively religiously diverse and confusing.
There are thousands of religions with conflicting claims about God’s existence, nature, and character, and about how we should live our lives or attain salvation.
These conflicting religious traditions don’t just disagree on small points but on fundamental issues regarding God and how to relate to Him.
Moreover, many of these divine revelations include what seem like strange or even morally questionable commands.
Examples include religious texts that sanction collective punishment or describe God commanding acts that seem violent or unjust, like the destruction of entire peoples.
This kind of religious confusion and diversity, paired with the questionable content of many revelations, makes it seem like God, if He exists, is surprisingly inept at communicating such critical and eternal matters clearly.
So, the argument goes that if God exists and wants us to know Him and live according to His will, He’s done a poor job of conveying that message. In contrast, naturalism—the view that there is no God—makes more sense of this vast religious diversity.
Different religions are more likely the result of complex social, cultural, and historical factors rather than a divine plan. Under naturalism, it’s not surprising to find religious confusion, but under theism, it seems puzzling and unexpected.
This leads to the conclusion that religious diversity is better explained by atheism than by theism.
Now, one could argue that despite this diversity, there are common threads across religions—like a sense of the sacred or a belief in the supernatural—that suggest there might be something divine.
However, this alone doesn’t address the deeper issue of why God hasn’t made His will more clearly known, especially when so much is at stake.
One way to illustrate the issue is to think about a parent with children. Imagine these children are left alone, and they’re arguing about which one gets to use a toy.
They’re bickering and causing strife because each child believes the parent told them something different.
Now, if the parent could easily step in and clear up the confusion but doesn’t, we would question whether this parent is acting responsibly.
Similarly, if God exists and could easily clarify how to worship or relate to Him but doesn’t, it raises questions about His goodness or competence.
On theism, this level of confusion is unexpected.
But under atheism or naturalism, it’s perfectly expected, as religions would simply be human constructs arising from cultural and social factors.
This is the general outline of the Religious Confusion Argument, though responses and counterarguments certainly exist.
Page Created 9/17/2024 0150