I might say the academic integrity of most non-religious disciplines is horrible and lazy. Academics will take text (for example The Epic of Gilgamesh) treat all the copies as one story and try to prove stupid things compared to the Old Testament that are just plain silly or they don't know how to read dates. Heck the way academics had treated the New Testament was also just play lazy and stupid, but now things are improving.
PS As a seminary student I had several non-believing professors come and teach in my classes because they found looking for the answer to the question you asked worthy of a life long pursuit. Theology is really a great discipline and very enjoyable academic pursuit. It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion.
A point I often bring up when people discuss things done "in the name of religion" that seem either counter to the themes of said religion or just odd under that justification.
And I say this as a non-religious person under the common usage of "religious".
For a lot of people, and possibly to a greater extent in different places and different times than the modern, western world, there is little distinction between "creed" and national/cultural identity. Religion wasn't just where you went to church or temple on Saturday or Sunday but rather it's another term for the distinct identity of a group. Ideas of divine laws and rules of behavior mix with the shared cultural, ethnic, and historically geographical identity of your tribe or nation.
Just as now we might talk about the things you must believe and practice to be considered a true Christian or a true Muslim, there were things you had to accept and behaviors you had to practice in order to be a "real" Roman or a "real" Hebrew. I think this was more of an identifying factor than our modern concept of nations and religions.
So when you wonder how someone could do a thing because of their religion, and so many people do different things based on the same religion, I often think about it in terms of how people act differently even though their motivation may fall under the scope of "because I'm an American" (or any other nationality). "Nationalism" almost serves the same purpose as "religion" when transposing between secular and sacred frameworks.
I'm admittedly not an expert on this but it's something that interests me in terms of history and anthropology.
So called "Biblical Scholars" mess this up all the time and put modern thought into ANE practice.
Case "The rain falls on the just and the unjust." They say this all the time when something bad happens. If you lived in a place where your food is dependent on rain the rain is the good thing. So instead of man bad things happen to everyone it really is good thing happen to everyone. Meaning the whole idea of Karma is broken and you do bad things and still good thing will happen to you from time to time. Doesn't mean your great because you got rich or lucky.
> It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion.
Can you talk more about "most are terrified at learning too much"? Do people think through studying rigorously they will inevitably shed beliefs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
I love wikipedia for the links to related subjects. I have read a ton of the various codes and have written papers on the similarities and differences. To keep it short the main idea for the eating is "unclean" and in Mosaic Law it had a good rational on keeping people separated that were "unclean and for health reasons probably saved a ton of people.
In our society we know what is bad for us and most of us including me still do eat the bad things. They made it a law even though the general population enjoyed pork, like I do.
> Can you talk more about "most are terrified at learning too much"? Do people think through studying rigorously they will inevitably shed beliefs?
To really hack to death "Platos Theory of Form" TL:DR The more you know something the more abstract you know it.
My theory: Most people struggle with abstract thought i.e. math beyond business math. When they struggle with the abstract thought what happens to their concept of their faith? Do they lose God like they believe others.
My wife and I share our belief very dear and close and it is the driving force of our lives. We never talk theology. Her idea is that since I have 2 years of ancient Hebrew and 2 years of Greek and even taught 2nd year Greek in college that I have answers. I would read anywhere between 5,000 to 20,000 pages per class in seminary, that would be around 400-500 pages a week minimum. I usually go, "It seems ...." or "It depends ..." and than she walks out frustrated.
I embrace the unknown and the mystery. I hold to the idea that if God was to be provable He would have made Himself a concrete object. This came from reading a lot of Soren Kierkegaard and in fact I named my son Soren after him. Kierkegaard came up with the "Leap of Faith" well after studying that the popular belief in that is wrong. It is a leap of despair and dread into the unknown and land upon faith. So it wasn't a Leap of Faith but a Leap to Faith.
Sorry I am use to writing 20 page papers on subject like this all the time.