Unsolved problems in religion

While the difficulties facing the world's religions are as unique and numerous as the belief systems themselves, there are a number of common issues worth noting.

• Disconnect from Science: Potential conflict with science and education may arise as academic bodies of knowledge become increasingly authoritative, and increasingly divergent from certain religious beliefs. If certain demonstrable facts are brought into contest, some may question the validity of the remaining portions of a religious work.

• Harmony Strained: In an increasingly interconnected world, collaborating individuals or groups may experience incompatible faiths, or be subject to beliefs and/or practices that have been traditionally intolerant or unaccepting of those held by their neighbors, friends or co-workers. In these cases, they may be forced to choose between the re-interpretation of their own beliefs and their continued participation in group and integrative activities. In some cases, this may include the possibility of being subject to public or private sanction, or even forced (or chosen) exclusion from such activities.

• Inability to Settle Debates: Many religious texts deal with events in the distant past, or concerning the indeterminate future. Often, no currently living person can offer first hand-authority or evidence to resolve disputes over the authenticity and nature of such religious events.

• Evolution of Culture: As adherents become socially and culturally distant from ancient practices or lessons, many faiths encounter strong debate over whether they should participate in modernization of program and/or philosophy to attract youth, or whether more traditional practices should be maintained. As certain religious beliefs become less socially acceptable, adherents must also choose between maintaining unpopular beliefs or advocating a looser or revised interpretation of their religion.

• Interpretation of Texts: Because most religious works are maintained by written or oral culture, they are subject to semantic interpretation. Adherents often argue over the meaning and interpretation of the language used to describe the details of the belief system. When reading a work, or listening to a sermon, each person inherently formulates his or her own unique mental model to interpret feelings and associations regarding each and every word and event that is described. This problem is further exacerbated by subtle or even significant changes in the meaning of individual words and phrases over the course of time and between cultures. The translation of religious texts between languages and by multiple authors may result in further ambiguity and room for interpretation.

• Human Influence: Because the actual practice of religion in the hands of humans, in certain ways it may be manipulated by humans. Those with authority and or control, such as monarchs or religious leaders may presently, or may already have purposefully or inadvertently manipulated views or practices relating to dogma to suit their personal and political interests or opinions. This may result in the distortion of historiography, and a general difficulty for adherents to distinguish the origin of various aspects of their own belief system. This is also an often cited reason for various forms of religiously justified persecution.

• Integration of Beliefs: In many tribal and rural cultures, modern missionary-based religion faces a difficult, and often unique task of integrating with existing tribal beliefs and customs.

• Belief as Faith: Most religions are inherently faith-based, and (by definition) advocate their beliefs on a platform that does not rest or rely on logical proof or material evidence. In scientific cultures, this can create difficulty, as current adherents try to formulate logic and evidence to justify their existing faith-based beliefs, and potential adherents seek logic and evidence as a criterion for acceptance. Such 'crossing of realms' has lead to much debate and confusion.

• The Ability to be Wrong: Because religious beliefs are so foundational to a person's belief system, they may become increasingly inflexible with time. Each day that a person practices a particular belief or uses a particular religious paradigm as a frame or reference it becomes more a part of who they are. Over time, a person will use such beliefs as the basis for numerous decisions, they may advocate that belief to others, and they may come to depend on it during times of need. Therefore, in some cases persons may become increasingly reliant on the necessity of that belief to be true as they currently understand it. The historical cost and psychological damage of changing to or even deeply considering an alternative viewpoint could be so high as to completely eliminate the possibility altogether. Even in the face of clear and contrary evidence, a person might have "faith" and believe till their death that what they currently think is true. This power works both for and against any particular religion. It is a component from which strength in faith is derived, however it also may have negative effects on the learning and adaptation process, the ability to understand, tolerate, and relate to others, and to make sound tactical decisions. Additionally, this phenomenon may hinder adherents of one faith from gaining converted followers from another.

• The Universal Truth Paradox: A paradox exists between a number of religions that advocate that only their religion is right (and in some cases those who disagree may be subject to some after-life penalty). Given certain irreconcilable differences between these religions, and a wide variation in belief systems, it is required that either:
   – Truth is entirely relative, and there is no universal truth
  or
   – Truth is not relative, but yet millions or billions of people must still be completely wrong about this aspect of their beliefs, due to contradiction between incompatible belief systems.
  In either case, a large portion if not all of humanity seems guaranteed to be wrong.

• False Prophets: Any man or woman may say that he is being spoken to by a god, but only that individual will know what he or she is feeling. Others may believe in and have faith in his or her feeling and experience. In this way, either purposefully or inadvertently a person may convince others that they are a prophet (as many thousands have done through the centuries). Unfortunately in many cases there may be no way to know what natural or supernatural effect may or may not be operating on the prophet in question. This puts many modern day persons claiming to receive prophecy (ex. David Koresh, Ramtha, Osho) in contention with persons more widely and traditionally considered to be prophets (ex. Jesus, Mohammed).

• Religious Freedom Paradox: A nation may wish to provide complete religious freedom to its citizens. However, the practice of this freedom by one religion may limit other citizens and the country's executive and judicial power to a degree such that the country cannot honor one group's religious freedom without destroying another's religious (or other) freedom. In this way religions are constrained by the rules and laws of the countries in which their adherents inhabit. Conflicting legislature between countries can make consistent religious policy troublesome without putting adherents at odds with the local law.

• Compassionate Crusade and Terrorism: One religious group may view another as a hated enemy and see their destruction as a method for his or her own salvation and glorification. Alternatively, one religion may see the conversion of a non-adherent as a compassionate act that results in saving them from torture for all eternity. Such an act could potentially be justified even if involved the person's death, discomfort, or subjugated will and freedom while on earth. Obviously, both of these beliefs exhibit the potential, and provide historical precedent for destructive behaviour.

• Separation of Church and State: Religion, morality, justice, punishment, and political agenda are intricately intertwined, and to some are considered inseparable. In this case however, how does one provide religious freedom, or offer justification to non-adherent constituents for policies based on religion or religious-based morality? If such morality is eliminated, what effect does this have on ethical and judicial matters?

Additionally, one could list major questions and points of contention between various religious and non-religious belief systems. Example topics for further discussion are listed below:

• Were humans created largely as they are, or are they a product of genetic evolution such as is observed in other organisms?
• Is the universe just thousands of years old as dictated by certain realms of Christianity, or billions of years old as deduced by science?
• Are there none, one, or many gods?
• If one or more god(s) exists, is she/he/it/they human-like, or even comprehensible by humans?
• If one or more god(s) exists, does he/she/it/they currently or previously visit or communicate with earth and its inhabitants? With other life elsewhere?
• If one or more god(s) exists, does he/she/it/they have any interest or involvement in our daily lives?
• If there is an after-life, is it affected by the nature of our actions while on earth?
• Some belief systems believe that all non-adherents and wrong-doers are going to be eternally punished, is this the case and how so?
• Some belief systems indicate that adherents will be eternally rewarded, is this the case, and how so?
• Do we participate in some sort of re-incarnation?
• Should all persons be considered equally?
• Should life be lived proudly or humbly?
• Can the world / universe be understood through meditation and reason alone?
• Are good and evil a necessary balance for the human struggle, or is evil only something that we would be better off having driven away and eliminated completely?
• Are humans naturally good or evil, neither?
• Are humans affected by outside spirits, can they be possessed by demons, or visited by angels?
• Is it wrong to take life? In the context of justice (death penalty)? In the context of incomplete life (birth control, abortion)?
• Is there an absolute morality? If so, what are its foundations?
• What constitutes life and when does it begin?
• Do humans have a soul, and if so, what is it, where is it and how does it work?
• Are we all part of one interconnected human, global or universal unity?
• Does nature all around us carry thoughts and feelings, or are humans the only vehicle for emotion and importance?
• Given the variations in DNA, what are the criteria for being humans rather than primates?
• Can Artificial Intelligence ever create something that meets the criteria of being considered partly or wholly human? Do we then have an obligation to it? Can it become a superior meme vehicle?
• Have humans been prophets, and if so, which humans, and which was the most recent?
• Which religious texts are authentic/most authentic?
• Is there free will, or are we subject to fate and determinism?
• What about Quantum Uncertainty?
• If prayers are answered, who or what answers them and what does that say about free will and determinism?
• If two people pray over a baseball game, whose side, if any, does god take?
• How was the universe created? Will there be another; is it a cycle, or a one time deal?
• Is there life on other planets?
• If a creator(s) exists, how did the creator(s) come to be, and what stuff is she/he/it/they, and what stuff are we, made of?
• If we have a faith-based belief, no matter how certain, do we have justification to judge another by that same belief?
• Is is wrong to explore and or tinker with the inner workings of human biochemistry through medication or genetic manipulation?
• Given these questions, how should we most appropriately live our lives?