Why We Question Other Religions’ Miracles but Accept Our Own: Faith, Evidence and Double Standards

Why can an extraordinary story from someone else’s religion sound unbelievable while a similar claim from our own tradition feels entirely natural? A Hindi Instagram reel by @katariadaily raises this question using three familiar religious narratives. The useful question is not whether every miracle should be accepted or rejected together. It is whether we use a fair standard when examining beliefs, including our own.

Three religious stories, one comparison

The speaker refers to the Christian belief that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, the Islamic account of the Moon splitting, and the Hindu story of young Hanuman encountering the Sun. He suggests that people often dismiss another community’s extraordinary stories while accepting those associated with their own community. He ends by urging consistency in belief.

The examples are connected to actual traditions. The New Testament’s 1 Corinthians 15:4–6 records the claim of Jesus’s resurrection on the third day. Quran 54:1 refers to the Moon being split; Muslim interpretations of the passage and its significance have their own religious context. A description in the Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda 4.66.21, says the young Hanuman saw the Sun as a fruit and leapt towards it, wishing to grasp it. That passage does not say that he swallowed the Sun, as the reel’s compressed retelling suggests. These are religious accounts; citing their texts establishes what the traditions say, not independent proof of a supernatural occurrence.

Why familiar claims receive an easier hearing

Psychologists call one relevant tendency confirmation bias: we tend to notice, seek and interpret information in ways that favour what we already think is true. Religious identity, family and familiarity may also influence the trust a person places in a story. A 2024 study published in the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics tested confirmation bias in the domain of religious beliefs and found evidence of biased evaluation of arguments. Its findings support the possibility of such selective reasoning; they do not show that every Hindu, Muslim, Christian or non-believer behaves alike.

This matters because the difference is often not only about an individual story. People may grant familiar religious sources an authority they would not grant another tradition’s sources. They may also encounter their own stories through worship, culture and community, whereas another community’s stories arrive as isolated claims. These differences help explain why reactions can vary, but they do not settle whether a particular belief is true.

Consistent scrutiny does not mean believing everything

The reel’s strongest point is its challenge to selective standards. Its final either-or message, however, goes too far: one need not believe every religious account simply because one believes another. The accounts differ in meaning, sources, historical claims and how their followers understand them. Consistency means asking comparable questions fairly: What exactly is being claimed? What is the source? Is the story being read literally, symbolically or theologically? What independent evidence, if any, is offered for its historical or physical aspects? Would we accept the same kind of support if the claim came from another community?

Religious faith and historical or scientific inquiry need not be treated as identical activities. A person can hold a theological belief without presenting it as independently demonstrated history or science. Conversely, a sceptic can examine religious evidence carefully without mocking believers. Disagreement over extraordinary claims is not itself a double standard; applying unequal standards without a relevant reason is.

Respect and the freedom to question

The fair ethical standard is equal respect for people alongside freedom to question ideas. Mocking a whole religious community or portraying all its members as unable to think critically is unjustified. So is demanding that another community defend its beliefs by tests we refuse to apply to our own. Respect does not require anyone to accept a miracle claim as fact, and honest inquiry does not require contempt.

The reel identifies a real risk in how people reason: familiarity and identity can influence what they accept. The supported lesson is therefore more precise than its final slogan. We need not reach the same conclusion about every religious story, but we should be willing to examine our own claims with the same care and courtesy we expect when examining someone else’s.