‘A thing is not proved just because no one has ever questioned it … Hence scepticism is the first step toward truth ... ’ Denis Diderot
The Knowledge Issue at hand makes the statement, that ‘a sceptic is one who is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definitions, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence.’
In order to approach the first area of knowledge ‘religion’, one must use a rational, emotional and authoritarian knowledge approach in order to evaluate its presumed ‘truth’ and therefore dismiss any possible scepticism. Secondly, I will be discussing politics & international affairs, which ties into the Human sciences. The theme of a sceptic and his striving towards truth perfectly fits to this area of knowledge because it deals with the most subjective and unreliable matter - human beings. The knowledge issue that best corresponds to both areas of knowledge is: To what extent do religious knowledge systems & human sciences require logic and evidence in order to acquire knowledge, therefore dismissing any scepticism?
I was baptized at the age of 2 in 1998. Years later, after attending church on a weekly basis, I had my Communion at the age of 7. By the age of 14 I was attending religion class every Sunday after mass. I had my confirmation in the same year. Although I did not enjoy church, I persevered and after my confirmation I was given the choice to decide for myself in what I would believe in. An aspect to mention is the fact that I lived in various countries over that time period. All of which are extremely religious. I experienced and learnt about Islam while in Morocco and about Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, and Protestant practises in Fiji. Coming to a conclusion about my beliefs did not require a lot of thought, nor did I hesitate in finalising my decision.
Religion does not provide us with knowledge. This is due to the fact that there is no consistency in logic and a lack of adequacy of evidence. The reason religion does not preach knowledge is concluded by various inflictions with rational & logical reasoning firstly. Being sceptical of religion, I believe there is simply not enough adequacy of evidence proving the healing power of god for example, as it is so commonly celebrated.
The logic of religion can be determined by assessing the aspects of authority and evidence. My rational approach towards religion consists of the lack of evidence in a higher power. No scientific proof justifies a higher power. Logically, I do not believe that a higher power than humans exists. Already defining god as ‘all powerful’ excites scepticism, as this is simply not possible in our universe. If god is all-powerful he should be able to create a stone so heavy he cannot lift. In that case an omnipotent paradox is created. No being is more powerful and majestic than us humans and hence no being can communicate through the supposed power of faith or religion. This all ties into the authoritarian knowledge...