I’m happy to admit that there can be differences in degree. But because of the independent differences in perception, and because I’ve only recently started to be able to see past that, I’m not at all sure “religions” are worse generally, or even how you’d measure that. Most arguments I’ve seen on this particular subject completely miss the fact that the liberal frame makes religion’s flaws easier to see.
(Note that in this case I’m making an “I don’t know and for the most part don’t trust others to know” argument, not a “no one can possibly know” argument. There’s a fact of the matter!)
Specifically being narratives about things outside the world rather than inside it is deliberately disconnecting yourself from correction.
An ideology that may pass for an honest model of the world can be corrected by treating it as an honest model of the world and seeing whether it fails in that regard. If it is honest, this provides chances for it to be exposed as a self-sustaining ideology. If it is dishonest, deliberate work must be done to restrict it to the space of things that can withstand that inspection, scaling with the degree or scrutiny it may receive.
An ideology which has its grounding outside the world (all Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, every folk religious tradition I’m familiar with, debatably Buddhism, etc.), has neither of those good properties.
Or in short: Non-religious cultish ideologies are constrained to mimic the form of honesty to be considered honest, while religious ones are not.
I’m happy to admit that there can be differences in degree. But because of the independent differences in perception, and because I’ve only recently started to be able to see past that, I’m not at all sure “religions” are worse generally, or even how you’d measure that. Most arguments I’ve seen on this particular subject completely miss the fact that the liberal frame makes religion’s flaws easier to see.
(Note that in this case I’m making an “I don’t know and for the most part don’t trust others to know” argument, not a “no one can possibly know” argument. There’s a fact of the matter!)
Specifically being narratives about things outside the world rather than inside it is deliberately disconnecting yourself from correction.
An ideology that may pass for an honest model of the world can be corrected by treating it as an honest model of the world and seeing whether it fails in that regard. If it is honest, this provides chances for it to be exposed as a self-sustaining ideology. If it is dishonest, deliberate work must be done to restrict it to the space of things that can withstand that inspection, scaling with the degree or scrutiny it may receive.
An ideology which has its grounding outside the world (all Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, every folk religious tradition I’m familiar with, debatably Buddhism, etc.), has neither of those good properties.
Or in short: Non-religious cultish ideologies are constrained to mimic the form of honesty to be considered honest, while religious ones are not.