How’s that for a provocative title? It’s true though. Any defence of religion, whether it’s the beliefs or the institutions, fall under one of these three categories (sometimes more than one at a time).

1. People argue that the religion is true. There really is a god and an afterlife, reincarnation and karmic justice actually exist, Joseph Smith really got his book from golden plates that he read using a magic stone etc... People might offer anecdotes and personal testimony, they might offer empirically testable evidence, or they might just assert it’s true and back it up by appealing to faith. In any case, the first type of argument comes down to the supernatural claims of the religion being literally true.
2. People argue that religion is beneficial to individuals, society, or both. Perhaps the beliefs in an afterlife inspire bravery or comfort mourners. Perhaps the threat of a divine big brother watching over you promotes social order. Perhaps the very foundation of morality is based on the divine word of the gods/god of the religion in question, and without it we would all be murderous rapists. People might argue that temples and churches promote community and charity. Religious institutions have given us schools and hospitals after all. Religious individuals have given us scientific discoveries, beautiful works of art, and impressive architectural structures. The second type of argument contends that regardless of whether the religious claims are true or not, believing in them and organizing your life around them is beneficial and therefore should be embraced.
3. People argue that atheism/scientism/heliocentrism/evolutionism is a religion just like theirs, and so both party’s are on equal footing. Sure it takes a leap of faith to believe in god, but it also takes a leap of faith to believe in no gods, or believe that the universe created itself from nothing by nothing. They might drastically misrepresent the contrary position, or simply misplace the burden of proof. Either way, the third type of argument is basically saying ‘no u’ to the person questioning and expressing doubts about the religion.

I might do a deep dive into the problems with the second and third arguments and list the logical fallacies they tend to suffer from in future posts, but for now my only intention is to communicate this point. If we are talking about the existence of god, only arguments that fall under the first category are relevant.

At least that’s what I think, but what do you think? Am I missing a category? Am I mistaken to say that arguments of type 2 and 3 are completely irrelevant when discussing the existence of gods and souls and the afterlife? What’s your most favourite (or least favourite) argument for the existence of god and what caregory does it fall under?