Paul asked:

Which of the major religions is the most philosophically credible?

============

I don't think it is as simple as asking which one of the worlds religions is the most credible. The real
problem is this: Either none or all of the world's religions have philosophical credibility. Lets see what
this means.

For any system to count as credible it must satisfy some pretty basic requirements. Among them are
the need for coherence, consistency with other systems, non contradiction, and explanatory powers.
(Note however that it does not have to be true, that is a separate question. Though it must be
plausible, and plausibility requires that there is at the possibility that it is true.)

Now none of the world's religions even come close to satisfying these requirements, either in theory
or practice. And never mind the big issues such as the compatibility of an all powerful and loving God
with the existence of evil. Even in everyday matters religion fails to make sense. For example, the
current pope of the Roman Catholic Church has decreed that the Sanctity of Life makes abortion
wrong, but old John Paul also says that capital punishment is OK. Now what the h... is that all about?

Or to take a problem common to all religions, the question of authority. if I ask "what should I believe
?" a believer will say "you should believe what is written in The Book of X (The Book of X will vary
depending on who you ask, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.). If I then ask "why should I believe
what is written in The Book of X ?", the believer will say "you should believe what is written in the
Book of X because it is written in the book of X that you should believe what is written in the Book of
X". But them we are just going around in circles. What is needed is some independent reason to
believe what he says in the first place.

Perhaps those religions that promote a personal "coming to the Truth" would not be subject to this
problem, but I suspect that there would be other kinds of incoherence to be found. The believer of any
religion is unlikely to be phased howeve by these objections, because they may not even be
concerned about their status as philosophically credible systems. Claiming instead that religion and
philosophy are concerned with different things. That philosophy shouldn't even concern itself with
evaluating religion or religious belief, because this is a matter of faith which has nothing to do with
credibility or coherence, but with a way of life.

The philosopher may agree here and leave it at that but there is also the danger of agreeing with the
religious believer and then dismissing him as a fruitcake or head case who is off in his own world.
And this may be uncalled for because there is a case to be made for the claim that while religion and
philosophy are incompatible, religion could still be philosophically credible. Now before you dismiss
this as an incoherence on my part and brand me a head case let me explain.

This is the other side of the claim that either none or all religions are philosophically credible. The
view is derived from a philosophical approach called Pragmatism and especially from the works of
William James. In his paper "The Will to Believe" James argues that a person is entitled to, is justified
in believing something independently of reason. But this works only in special circumstances. James
is not saying that any belief whatsoever may be simply chose at will. Rather he argues that if one is
faced with a "genuine option", namely one that is unique in ones life, that is 'momentous' (where
something valuable and important is at stake), then the factors contributing to a belief will be wider
than any rational, i.e. philosophical requirements.

if James is right about this and if religious belief constitutes a genuine option (as James thinks it
does) then religion is just as credible as philosophical or scientific belief. It will add to the prospects of
an individual's life being fulfilled.

It should be noted that James is not offering a general defence of religious belief, for some people it
will never be a live option. And for others it will not be a live option whether to be a Jew or a witch
doctor, though it will be an option to be an orthodox Jew or a liberal Jew.

If that is the case then for those for whom it is a live option whatever religion they do follow will be on
James's view equally justified. Of course there are problems with James's philosophy that might lead
us to reject his account, also this approach does not answer the question I posed earlier about the
internal coherence of a religious system, but it may be the best defence any religion has.

Brian Tee
Dept of Philosophy
University of Sheffield