Imagine you're stepping on college campus for the first time as a freshman.  The college administration, in an effort to help you find the most suitable core history class to take, gives you a survey about what you believe:

#1:  The American Civil War:
          a) was won by the North (the Union).
          b) was won by the South (the Confederacy).
          c) never happened--America was never at war with itself.

#2:  Man first stepped foot on the moon:
          a) In 1969, by US astronauts in the NASA Apollo program.
          b) In 1973, by Chinese astronauts.
          c) never--it is a myth perpetuated to increase government funding of the space program.

...followed by similar questions about the Holocaust, the Great Depression, and other historical events.

Each student is then assigned to a special history class based on their answers.  The students answering (a) to question #1 are assigned to a history class with a text book that proclaims the North won the Civil War, and the students answering (b) and (c) are assigned to a different history class with a different textbook that conforms to their beliefs.

You might think this situation would be fairly ridiculous--isn't 'history' a constant?  Either the Civil War happened, or it didn't.  What's the point of having a history class with a textbook that says it didn't happen (if it did), or vice versa?  The purpose of a history class is to teach students the 'truth' even if it contradicts students' previous beliefs...not adjust the teachings to conform to what students already believed.

What would seem silly for history is standard operating procedure for religion, though.  Take this site, for example, which offers a survey about religious beliefs and matches you to the closest religion.   Is there a fundamental difference between this quiz and the hypothetical history quiz above?

Religion is not (contrary to popular belief) in a realm completely removed from 'history' and objective fact.  "Does God exist?"  The answer to this question is fact, whether it happens to be yes or no.  Whether "God" is one person, a number of people, or some abstract, formless, creative force is also a fact, regardless of which answer you choose.  Jesus Christ was the literal Son of God, or just a righteous prophet with good teachings, or just a lowly carpenter whom later followers attributed miraculous events, or he never existed at all.  But "Who is Jesus Christ" has a concrete answer, just as solidly as "Who is Julius Caesar?" does.

If God didn't exist, no amount of sincere believers would make Him a reality, and if He does, then no amount of atheists or agnostics will make Him disappear.  (You frequently hear: "God exists...if you believe in Him".  No one says "The Civil War happened...if you believe it did!")

The point: shouldn't we be changing our beliefs to match the religion, instead of changing the religion to match our beliefs?

Maybe it's hurtful for some to believe there was slavery in America.  Maybe the moon-landing deniers are really sincere people who try to help others and, you know, that's what's important.  Unfortunately--and inconveniently--truth is truth, and doesn't a true student of history want to know what really happened, not simply shape their version of history to fit their sensibilities?  Why would religion be any different?

Amazingly, I got "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" as 100% on the above poll.  I suspect the poll writers would complain that that's because I just used LDS doctrine to answer all of the questions.  Why, yes, that's exactly what I did!  I treat it the same way as a history test, in fact...

Now, everyone knows (especially Latter-Day Saints) that there is still a lot to learn about God and our place in the universe, but just because certain things are unknowable and unprovable (at the moment) doesn't mean that no answer exists at all.  Both religious believers and religious critics do religion a disservice by treating it differently than all the other subjects in the realm of human knowledge.