We tend to separate religion from
skepticism, and we associate science with evidence even though of religion and
science, only science is open to revision. Kierkegaard remarked that there is
something absurd about religious belief, and yet a religionist should believe,
and even without any evidence to back up the absurd. In fact, in the early-modern
period in the West, religious belief was often assumed to have a higher
epistemological status than philosophy and science even though the latter two
are supported by the strictures of reason and the support of empirical
evidence, respectively. I submit that it is precisely to the extent that religious
beliefs are held to be certain that we should be modest about them in terms of
what we can know. According to Peter Adamson, religions were once very open to
skepticism, whereas the Aristotelian philosophers were certain of their
epistemological certainty. Considering that varied assumptions have been
applied by philosophers to their craft, they should be weary of their own
claims of having achieved epistemological certainty. I contend that
religionists should get back to being more tolerant of, and even invite
skepticism, even within their own minds. Being humbly aware of falling short,
both as an individual and as a species, of grasping true religious knowledge as
it is, undeluded by our own limitations (e.g., opinions), is rarely the case as
religionists make declarations as if with epistemological certainty.
The full essay is at "Skepticism within Religion."
