I don’t think he was saying
prima facie that there is no proof of any religion so much as observing that, insofar as religion deals with the super-natural or extra-natural, it is by definition beyond both empirical verifiability and empirical falsifiability (as Popper may have said, if I understand him correctly).
Take a question such as, “is there life after death?” The closest one can have, in terms of empirical verifiability of the answer to this question, is via near-death-experiences, when an individual was clinically dead. Yet there is an important difference between an individual who was clinically dead, and had a near-death experience, and an individual who “stayed dead”, as is the eventual fate of all of us. We do not know for sure what happens to an individual’s consciousness when he does
not come back, when he remains dead.
I don’t see how religion can answer this question, with certainty (or philosophy, for that matter; Plato tried). Before we die, we’ll never know for sure.
For example, does limbo exist? Reason cannot tell us, which is why the Church admits that it doesn’t know. Does heaven exist? Reason cannot tell us, either, but the Church believes that revelation
has told us. But revelation is more in the realm of faith, than of reason. You can provide compelling evidence for
why you believe revelation has occurred, but you cannot definitively, incontrovertibly prove it.
Another example – does a zygote have an immortal soul? Again, reason cannot tell us, because it is beyond the realm of empirical verification. Even the Church admits this; these are metaphysical questions that reason cannot discern, and for which no definite revelation claims to have been given.
Objective empirical truth is knowable – does a place called “Cleveland” exist – but objective metaphysical truth is not knowable…not through the senses, at least, nor through any instruments acting as extensions of the senses. We have no empirical way of knowing whether limbo exists, or not; nor, by extension, whether an afterlife exists or not.
A good question would be why consensus seems comparatively more achievable in science (e.g., evolutionary theory) and history (e.g., that the American Revolutionary war occurred)-- despite arguments and disagreements – than in religion and philosophy. My own intuitive answer is because the latter tend to put forth truths that are non-empirical in nature, thus cannot definitively be either proven, or disproven.
But this whole issue of proving religion through reason is confusing, to me, because it is not only saying there is no contradiction between science and religion, but – at worst – it is reducing the dogmas of a religion
to a science.
If this were true, faith would be absolutely redundant and unnecessary, and religion could be scientifically, rationally verified with one’s neutral, reasoning intellect.
I didn’t get the impression, reading the epistles of Paul – for example - that this was what Christianity was “all about”…
Nor did Jesus, in the gospels, praise Thomas for his demand of empirical evidence,but rather said, “blessed are those who believe without seeing.” I don’t think he meant to say, “blessed are those who believe without seeing, because they have logically inferred that the existence of that which they do not see is incontrovertible”
Rather, I think he was referring to the virtues of faith and trust.
