Bible In One Year Day 298 (2 Maccabees 1, Sirach 40-41, Proverbs 24: 1-7)

     You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

James Tissot - Heaven Consumes the Sacrifice 

Day 298: The Gift of Life 

+++ 
A Daily Defense 

DAY 298 Many Religion 

CHALLENGE: “When you look at all the different religions in world history, the odds of yours being the right one are low. We should conclude that religious truth, even if it exists, is unknowable.”

DEFENSE: This overlooks both the way religious views are structured and the role that evidence plays. Consider a parallel: Throughout history there have been many scientific theories about the way the world works, but they contradict one another and can’t all be true. The odds of a single theory being correct are thus low and we should conclude that, if scientific truth exists, it is  unknowable. There are two major problems with this argument.

First, it ignores how scientific views are structured. Every field has certain basic questions on which there are a limited number of answers. There may be diversity in the details, but the basic options are limited.

In physics, a basic question is whether matter is made of tiny, discrete particles (the atomic theory) or whether it is an infinitely divisible continuum. Similarly, in religion a basic question is whether there is a single Creator God or not. Adherents of the view that matter is made of particles may differ on the details of how particles work, but they are united on the fundamental nature of matter. Similarly, religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam may differ on how they understand the Creator, but they are agreed on the fundamental question of monotheism.

Whether selecting among scientific or religious views, one is not faced with infinite diversity. Both fields are structured around certain basic questions that, once settled, lead to more specific questions involving detail.

Second, the parallel argument given above ignores the role of evidence. The odds of selecting the correct scientific or religious views would be low if one had no evidence as to which are true, but the fact is that we do have evidence. In science, experiments provide that evidence, and in religion, apologetics does. 

Thus the multiplicity of views on science and religion should not lead to despair about finding the truth. What one needs to do is identify the basic questions a field involves, to look at the evidence concerning those questions, and when they are settled to move on to more detailed questions.

The principles are the same, whether one is investigating scientific or religious truth.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist