Why should I study religion or astrology?

Recently, on Alonzo Fyfe's AthiestEthicist blog, there was a visitor Tom Gilson of thinkingchristian.net. He has made the argument on his own blog that in order to criticise religion one needs to study it. He has also pointed this criticism at Richard Dawkins.

Well in order to pursue any field, in order to become interested in it and feel it warrants further investigation, indeed something that might become important to me, I need to impose a filter on the huge range of ideas and tools out there. How do I decide what is worth pursing, apart from the fact it has pricked my interest?

Consider, for illustrative purposes, astrology. In order to know whether it works in reality or not, how do I need to study it? Do I need to read the literature  and develop some skills in casting and interpreting horoscopes in order to decide whether it works or not? Or, instead, do I need to look at the claims of astrologers and see if they match reality? 

What are the types of questions I could ask of astrology, positive answers of which could encourage me to pursue it further. Such question would be can astrologers match people to star charts or horoscopes - ensuring there are no hidden clues to their birth dates in what they provide to the astrologers? Can astrologers rate each other in terms of abilities to cast and interpret accurate horoscopes? Can people identify their own star charts or horoscopes? Does the ability of astrologers improve with training and experience? If the answer to these questions are all in the negative then there is no reason for me to pursue or study astrology any further. If the answer if positive, there is at least a reason for me to pursue it further, if I am interested.

Well Geoffrey Dean has provided some remarkable meta-analysis of over 300 studies on astrology. (Actually over 500 now this is the first link I could find). It was a remarkable one in that it does not, like many other meta-studies, apply a methodology filter to eliminate dubious studies -this almost invariably leads to those being criticised complaining about biases in such filtering of methods. Now taking all the studies by astrologers and psychologists, without filtering over poor methodologies, he still found that that there is no relation between astrologers ability to rate each other, improved accuracy with time and experience, the capacity for astrologers to match people to star charts or horoscopes and peoples ability to match themselves to their horoscopes. The result is an overwhelming negative on all counts. The only thing to conclude is that I would strike astrology from my list of topics worth pursing. Further, I do not need to study astrology as astrologers do in order to criticise it.  

Well I and I recommend everyone else, should use same principle as the above illustrative example for everything. 

So consider religion. In order to pursue this further what do I need to find out? In this case there are two inter-related questions, not only is religion worth studying as it adherents do, but which religion? Are there objective methods that can distinguish the pursuit of one religion over another?  If there are not, then there is no internal basis to select one religion over another. Still one can then look at the effects of different religions on societies, past and present - to seek an external basis and chose the one that has the most beneficial results on society, if one is so interested.

Looking at Tom Gilsons' claims in favour of Christianity, the way he has presented and argues it on both blogs, he has presented zero evidence that shows his religion is, on an internal basis, better than other religions. There are no criteria he offers that could not and has been used by others to prefer their religion, or god, over his. The choice he has made is entirely subjective, due to random factors such as the religion he was born into and the social influences he experienced given where he was educated and lives. This is the same as for many others, whether they keep or change their birth religion or sect. This is no criteria to select one over another. And the same goes for reading sacred texts, interpreting personal revelations, choosing one authority over another whether based on popularity or clarity and so on. All are entirely subjective choices. He fails to provide an  internal basis to select on religion over another. 

Similarly looking at external criteria his religion has led him to repeat old canard such as 

I think that it might be more relevant to consider the irreligious people out there -- particularly the atheists -- who are calling for the sacrifice of my life, health, and liberty. The twentieth century is a catalog of atheist regimes regularly calling for such sacrifices on the part of religious people. The Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Yugoslavia, and Poland come to mind.Please provide evidence that similar injustices on the part of religious people represent the rule rather than the exception!

Well I did and you can read his poor response there. (Note he did not produce the Hitler canard, and I grant that that is in his favour). Now this was based on Teapot Atheist's data I used in my post where the point I was making is that this is a bad argument, and one I do not recommend either theist or atheist to use. It is the fact that Tom Gilson used this argument is indicative that his religion is again a topic not worth pursuing, since it can only encourage such (arguable) bigoted and prejudicial thinking by relying on sophistry such as selective reasoning to make a case. Relying on sophistry and selective reasoning, whether it leads to a claimed bigotry and prejudice or not, is not to be recommended. This is one example of the equivalent of the failure of astrology to discourage one to pursue that topic further.

So on what basis should I, Alonzo Fyfe or Richard Dawkins for that matter, study his variety of Christianity?  He has provided nothing, so far, to justify this. Now would it matter if none of us (as it happens I and, I believe, Alonzo are familiar with his reading recommendations but we need not have been) have read his reading recommendations?  No, until he can provide plausible evidence either of his religion and/or his exposition or presentation style (or both) there is no basis to pursue it further. It is in this sense that this is equivalent to my illustrative position on astrology. I have sufficient information to criticise it as needed in terms of its external effects on society. We do not need to read his recommendations, but only need to look at the examples of him and others who do rely on such literature. 

Two caveats here:

I have no issue with Tom or anyone else pursing their Christianity as a private matter and that goes for anyone else, regardless of what it is they value and choose to devote themselves to. Indeed I support and endorse a society that everyone be free to pursue whatever value they choose. I just draw the line where such pursuits can potentially or actually have deleterious effects on others. Using bigotry and prejudice being a significant litmus test for such effects. 

Secondly I am not specifically trying to target Tom Gilson, this is really a general point, he has just made it a relevant one sufficient for me to post on this, given my interactions with him on two blogs.

Postscript: I owe an apology to Tom Gilson. The quote I attributed to Tom was actually by Doug. Tom Gilson did reply to my comment but I will address this in a future post.