Accepting Religious Knowledge

Critics of religions often argue that religions do not have sufficient credible evidence​ to support their claims. Nevertheless, you can argue that this is missing the point of what religion is all about. If we consider knowledge to be a map, you might argue that religion is mapping a very different territory compared with, let's say, the natural sciences. Sometimes it seems that knowledge maps from religions and the natural sciences contradict each other. Evidence from the natural sciences, for example, contradicts the notion of intelligent design. We can try to rationalise these contradictions by playing with the language of religious texts: we can widen the meaning of translated phrases, metaphors and imagery. We can also connect the unconnected to make religious knowledge match with new scientific findings. However, these types of rationalisations are not always convincing. We could, however, argue that there is no need for such (scientific) evidence in religion because the knowledge it tries to map is very different in nature. Maybe the whole point of religions is to look at the world (and beyond) in a different way? Perhaps religion tries to resolve problems that areas can't resolve?

Nevertheless, what should we do when knowledge from religions clearly contradicts knowledge from other areas? Can these contradictory claims and knowledge maps co-exist? Or, does the existence of religious knowledge annihilate scientific knowledge and vice versa? The latter has led to much discussion between scientists, believers, and atheists. This discussion is particularly relevant when it comes to deciding what should be part of the school curriculum. Is it possible to study (and believe/accept) knowledge from religion alongside the natural sciences? How do we approach themes such as, let's say, the theory of evolution alongside intelligent design? Can we truly teach them alongside each other and claim they are equally valuable?

Another important point to consider is that religious knowledge is highly dependent on (dominant) culture. What makes one religion credible and another not? Can there be religious knowledge that is independent of the culture that produces it? Historically, some religions have disappeared and new ones will likely come into existence in the future. On what basis do we decide whether a religion is a genuine religion or merely a cult? What is the difference? How has our understanding and perception of religious knowledge changed over time? The lesson on "Pastafarianism" (see illustration above regarding "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) allows you to explore these ideas further.

Ethics

• ​Do we have an ethical responsibility to gain knowledge of different religions to help us better understand the world and those around us?

• Does religion provide a way to systematise concepts of right and wrong?

• Do religious knowledge claims carry any particular obligation or responsibility for the knower?

• What role do religious leaders and authority figures play in influencing ethical debates?

• If religion is intimately connected with ethics, should we expect those with religious knowledge to act more ethically than those without it?

Methods and tools

• Are religious beliefs rational?

• Should all knowledge claims be open to rational criticism?

• Can theistic beliefs be considered knowledge because they are produced by a special cognitive faculty or “divine sense”

• What is the role of analogy and metaphor in the acquisition of religious knowledge?

• What difficulties are presented by using human language to discuss religious claims?

• What role do authority and testimony play in the pursuit of knowledge?

• How have language developments (such as the shift from Latin to the vernacular) impacted on access to religious knowledge?

• Is the role of personal experience different in religion compared to other themes and areas of knowledge?

Perspectives

• ​Can there be religious knowledge that is independent of the culture that produces it?

• How has our understanding and perception of religious knowledge changed over time?

• Are those outside a specific religious tradition really able to understand its key ideas?

• Are there types of knowledge that are specifically linked to particular communities of knowers?

• How significant have individuals been in shaping and founding religions?

• What impact has forced religious conversion had on traditional knowledge and cultural diversity?

Scope

• If knowledge is a map, what is the territory that religion represents?

• What is the value of thinking about questions to which there are no definite answers?

• Does religion try to resolve problems that other areas can’t resolve?

• How can we decide between the competing claims of different religions?

• How can we evaluate the quality of religious knowledge claims?

• Is the point of knowledge to produce meaning and purpose in our lives?

• Is certainty any more or less attainable in religion than it is in the arts or human sciences?

• To what extent do scientific developments have the power to influence thinking about religion?