The opinion was expressed on Wednesday that all religions are crazy and that they are all crazy to congruent degrees of craziness. I would like to address this claim, but I shall treat it as two separate claims and thus respond to them in that manner. As a preface, I consider myself an atheistic agnostic.
"All religions are crazy."
This is an un-nuanced understanding of religion. I would proffer that such a view is strictly incorrect but I shall refrain from doing so until some terms are clarified. It seems that the term 'crazy' requires some elucidation by means of definition. Furthermore, was the intent to ascribe craziness to all religions themselves or the institutionalized forms thereof? My objections to this view will be applicable to both religions themselves and the institutions. In what manner are religions crazy? The most obvious answer would be that maybe they, the adherents thereof, believe in something for which there is inadequate evidence? I, for one, do not contend that this is sufficient to call someone crazy. Seeking a supernatural answer to questions for which science is thus far insufficient is not, I think, necessarily crazy. The tenets of Christianity, the teachings of Christ, for example, are mostly very sane.
"All religions are equally crazy."
Equally nuanced. There is much sense in comparing the relative sanity, while we're still using that term, of religions. There is a marked difference between the sensibility of reformed Judaism compared to some orthodox, conservative protestant sects. Scientology, for instance, strikes me as significantly more inane than many other religions.
------
Disagreeing with the ontological position of people of faith does not afford us the privilege to categorically dismiss them as insane. It is insulting and demeans us as much as it does them.
