Religion And Political Power

Rationalistic philosophy is the only correct approach to metaphysics and epistemology, and this of course includes epistemology of religion.  No appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, or non sequitur fallacy is anything other than a distraction from a genuine assessment of the internal consistency of a religion, the parts of it that might be true by logical necessity, and the external evidences for it that cannot prove the parts that are not true by necessity.  The real or supposed benevolence of a person aligned with a religion--either in the sense of actual belief that it is true or commitment on the basis of evidential probability--is irrelevant to the truth of a worldview.  That anyone would deny or doubt this is a mark of stupidity.

There is still reason to examine the actions and attitudes of people who claim to represent or belong to a given religion, and to Christianity in particular, since this religion has far more philosophical support and cultural influence than many others.  One reason is that it is still helpful to see where a person deviates from the worldview they profess allegiance to.  Another is that there are fallacious misrepresentations that need to be refuted.  A somewhat popular stereotype of religious adherents in general or Christians in particular is the idea that religion is ultimately about nothing more than solidifying political power.

First of all, whether or not someone who is committed to a religion has political power, having power is not automatically the goal either according to their religious ideology itself or of their own subjective desires.  Having or seeking power is not a logically necessary aspect of religious life.  The type of religion someone lives out and the personal motivations of the individual are the only things that might have to do with acquiring power.  Second, power is not inherently destructive, so this objection to religion as a whole is either a slippery slope fallacy or a dismissal of an ideology based on how its proponents behave, which might very well be an insincere attempt to understand or live out a religion.

It is outright asinine to believe that power is truly the goal of all religions or religious adherents--and the two are not the same no matter how many times they get conflated.  No one needs examples of the contrary to prove this much to themselves.  However, there are plenty of examples one could find of Christians in particular who clearly have no political power.  What of people who, in the name of a religion (not that benevolence makes a religion true or probable), devote their lives to working with the poor and overlooked for little to no pay?  What of people who go out of their way to help those with few resources when they themselves have few resources from which to give?

Power is neither benevolent nor malevolent.  It is, in either case, a red herring to proving the consistency, truth, possibility, or probability of a religious worldview.  Moreover, it needs to be understood that theism is not religious by default, a mischaracterization that persists despite its blatant falsity.  Even if everyone committed to every religion was motivated by a desire for power, that would not demonstrate that any of the claims about God's nature are true or false.  It just happens to be true that there is no inherent connection between religion and political power and that there are people helping others despite their own poverty who, if they are seeking power, have done such a terrible job of obtaining it that it either is not their goal or is likely to remain outside their grasp.