The Position of Religion in Society

One of my major issues with religion is the undeserved high status it has in society.

When someone devotes their life to the study of religion, people think they must be wise. They ask for their advice.

But if, instead of studying a holy book like the Bible or the Quran, someone devotes their life to studying Harry Potter or some other book, they would be mocked by society.

If we had "Harry Potter scholars" in parliament, there would be protests. If a politician said that they believed that Harry Potter was real, their career prospects would plummet.

Intellectually, Harry Potter and the Bible share the same status. But socially they don't.

Where are the people flocking to the scientists on the weekends? Scientists are one of the few people who devote their lives to studying reality on its own terms.

Astrologers used to occupy advisory positions. Important decisions would be made after sacrificing a chicken and analysing its entrails. We recognise this as seriously stupid, and yet we still do more or less the same thing.

If someone found out that their doctor believed in Zeus, they would rush to switch their doctor.

Part of why I'm an anti-theist is that I feel the same horror people feel about relying on astrologers for important decisions but for relying on prayer and religious figures.

I think that, based on the weakness of the evidentiary case and the wildness of the claims, religion should be similarly marginalised in society. And that science should venerated almost as much as religion is.

To me this is almost a paradox. The least qualified people to ask for advice are the ones that are asked the most for advice. And the most qualified people are the ones that are asked the least. But some other, equally unqualified people are rightfully marginalised.

Part of what makes this especially bizarre is how society treats scholars of different religions. People act as though people who have devoted their lives to studying any of the major religions are somehow equally wise and qualified to give sermons about the important issues, more than a random person who likes to read scientific articles and doesn't invoke supernatural causes. Even though they don't believe in those other religions!

I can get people viewing those who studied their religion as wise. But Christians treating Gurus and Dalai Lamas and Imams as wise? Even many atheists seem to fall for this.

If every week people filled a hall to listen to me give a sermon about important issues facing society today, society would view that with confusion. I'm just some guy, what do I know that all these people don't? Even if I carefully fact-checked everything I said and provided far more value than any preacher ever has.

But an Imam giving relationship advice to the entire Muslim community in an area? No one blinks an eye.

This is similar to what I discussed in my previous article on Socially Percieved Plausibility.

It may seem like I'm trying to poke fun at religion by comparing it to Harry Potter. And whilst that is partially true, there is an important difference between the two. Whilst I personally got bored whilst trying to read Harry Potter, many people enjoyed it. For many people it is their gateway drug to reading. JK Rowling, from what I have heard, taught tolerance, diversity, and equality in her stories, and helped develop modern values.

Holy books, on the other hand, have far less enlightened values. They were written by Iron Age, slave holding peasants.

But socially it's considered wise for to try to look for good lessons there, and silly for people to look in Harry Potter or some other work of fiction.

If we look for good metaphorical lessons in scripture, then every piece of literature should be on the table. We should be going through the best sources available. We should encode an updated version that reflects the insights of the most intelligent and thoughtful in a comprehensible way.

What moral lessons do we expect to learn from flat earthers?