Religion, Proof and Knowledge

It is particularly interesting to discuss the role of evidence and proof within religion, as this is excellent TOK material. When we try to prove knowledge offered by religions through the kinds of evidence we would expect within, let's say, the natural sciences, it often goes wrong. In fact, attempts to use empirical evidence, as well as rationalisations (eg post hoc ergo propter hoc and circular reasoning) are often flawed. We may also see patterns where there are none. For example, Newton, however great his scientific genius, also had a clear esoteric interest. In addition to his interest in alchemy, he looked for "secret patterns and messages" in the bible. These attempts were seriously flawed and did not lead to valid knowledge or insights. Perhaps his attempts to reconcile religious and scientific methodology were at the core of this problem.

some people claim that "language" (eg the scriptures) offers sufficient evidence for religious claims. However, we have also discussed how using "inspired language" as proof can be problematic. Another form of evidence might come in the form of, what is commonly called, "religious experience". This religious experience is a first-hand (often life-changing) experience of God, which, to those how experienced it, constitues evidence for the existence of God. Although this experience will involve an emotive response, a religious experience is not just a "feeling". It is an experience of a religiously significant reality (Stanford). This (often sensory) experience may be very real to those who live it, although the experience may be internal to them. In this sense, there is a strange dynamic between the internal religious experience (of the outside world), that feels verifiable at the same time. Although religious experiences are not just feelings, emotions do play a role in the response to the experience (and the very existence of the experience itself).

So what about empirical verification? This is where it gets a little tricky. For example, logical positivists argue that true knowledge can only be obtained through empirical or logical/linguistic verification. Logical positivists are sceptical of theology, as there is no place for it in their empirical, logical and linguistic theory of knowledge. This sort of thinking permeates much of contemporary discourse. We crave empirical and logical proof, and religions cannot always offer this. When scientific claims based on empirical grounds have challenged religious claims, this has not always been received well, as the Galileo affair demonstrates. One might, however, argue that empirical justifications are irrelevant in the context of metaphysical knowledge claims. Maybe we are missing the point of religion when we seek to emulate and apply methodologies from other areas of knowledge to religion? Perhaps religious knowledge does not require the same kind of proof as we expect from other areas of knowledge. And, if so, what does this imply for the kind of knowledge religions can give us?

Religious proof, validity and justification remain key concepts within many debates around knowledge in religion. We could question whether religion is a matter of imagination in order to fulfill a psychological need, or whether faith requires proof at all. Perhaps faith, intuition, language and emotion lead us to religious knowledge, regardless of what empirical evidence (or reason) seems to show us? Kant opposes a rationalist and empirical understanding of God whilst arguing for a metaphysical and moral approach to religious philosophy. His is often contrasted with Hume in his view of religion and morality. Atheists claim that faith and reason cannot be reconciled and according to Freud, religious faith is an irrational wish fulfilment (Lagemaat, 2011).

Some religious knowledge claims seem rather dogmatic in nature. In some communities, blasphemy and apostasy were (and still are) punished by the death penalty. Are there other areas of knowledge were the refusal to accept their knowledge can be punished by death? Some religions allow for varying interpretations regarding the nuances of texts and their metaphors. But very few religions are open to a genuine debate regarding the very core of the knowledge they represent. The foundations of religious knowledge rarely seem to be revised when new knowledge comes to light. When very strong discussions about the nature of knowledge within a particular religion occur, this generally leads to the creations of new sub-branches within a religion (e.g. the birth of Protestantism) or an altogether new religion (e.g. the birth of Christianity) rather than the rewriting of the original religious knowledge map. The incredible variety of religious beliefs, both currently and historically, may lead some to doubt the absolute nature of religious truth. Religious pluralism explains this diversity as different aspects and 'guises leading to the same truth. Ethically, this position seems acceptable, but it may also lead to some philosophical and theological paradoxes.