Methods Used to Prove That a Religion Is True

As a religious cleric or a religious believer, I may use different methods and justifications to show that my beliefs are true.

Which methods I use may depend on two things: how complex my own thinking is and how complex my audience’s thinking is.

Sometimes, I use a method simply to give my audience reasons to believe that my religion is true.

I may know that these reasons are not conclusive proof. I do not claim, even to myself, that they settle the matter completely.

At other times, however, I may believe that my justifications really are proof. I may regard them as conclusive and undeniable evidence that my beliefs are true.

The kind of audience I am speaking to can also make a difference.

Suppose I am speaking to people who are already religious and already believe in my religion.

I do not necessarily need to prove everything to them from the beginning.

They already have faith.

I may only need to strengthen their confidence in what they already believe. I may also try to reassure them that the arguments of those who reject their religion are very weak.

Because of their religious bias, this may be enough.

Once they feel reassured, they may see no reason to investigate the matter any further.

But now suppose I am speaking to people who have doubts.

They may be young people who have not yet developed a strong religious bias. The kinds of reasons that satisfy an already religious audience may not satisfy them.

They may ask questions.

They may want stronger evidence.

In this situation, I may try to offer what I believe to be proof.

But a proof must be based on some way of gaining knowledge.

It may be based on philosophy.

It may be based on science.

It may be based on morality or history.

Or it may be based on some other kind of knowledge.

Whatever standard I choose, there is an important rule:

I must remain faithful to that standard until the end of the argument.

What does it mean to remain faithful to a standard?

Suppose, for example, that I choose morality as my standard for deciding whether my religious beliefs are true.

I begin examining my religion according to that standard.

Perhaps I expect morality to support my beliefs.

But what if it does not?

What if, at the end of the discussion, morality not only fails to prove that my religious beliefs are true, but actually leads me toward the opposite conclusion?

What if the same standard I chose now suggests that my beliefs are false?

At that point, I cannot simply say:

“Then morality was never an appropriate standard for judging religion.”

If I accepted morality as a valid standard when I expected it to support my beliefs, I cannot reject it merely because it has begun to work against them.

Otherwise, I am no longer following the standard I chose.

I am protecting my belief from the result of my own method.

This idea will become important again and again throughout this book.

I do not intend to teach you logic and epistemology before we begin our discussion. That would probably be rather boring.

But we cannot completely avoid these subjects either.

So, as we examine these “proofs and justifications,” I will introduce the necessary ideas from logic and epistemology along the way.

We will learn about them through the examples themselves.

I think this will make things much easier.