Goethe’s the religious knowledge systems tend toGoethe’s the religious knowledge systems tend to

Goethe’s quote implies there is confidence when only a little bit of knowledge is formulated, however, when knowledge increases, doubt increases due to the awareness of a vast amount of possibilities. While examining the quote, and in order to continue with the essay, a few definitions must be established. Julius Caesar claims that, “Without training, they lacked knowledge. Without knowledge, they lacked confidence. Without confidence, they lacked victory.” Knowledge is the information acquired through experience and/or education and with knowledge, one can either be confident or doubtful. Through Caesar’s quote I concluded that confidence deals with a firm trust in something, and gives one the ability to succeed through belief. It should be noted that with an increase in confidence, there is a possibility in the increase of ignorance. On the other hand, to doubt something is to feel uncertain and filled with hesitation. Caesar’s quote implies that in order to achieve victory, one must attain knowledge first and confidence after. Furthermore, with an increase in confidence, there is an increase in one’s ability to impart their knowledge. Goethe’s quote must be taken into consideration through different perspectives in order to fully discuss and evaluate the statement, and can be done so through the natural sciences and the religious knowledge systems. Both areas of knowing can further help explore the knowledge question: To what extent does the possession of knowledge challenge the belief of an individual? We can begin to evaluate Goethe’s statement through two different perspectives: the natural sciences and religious knowledge systems. While the natural sciences rely more on reason and sense perception, the religious knowledge systems tend to rely more on faith, emotion and intuition. In the natural sciences, when knowledge increases, it can be seen that doubt increases as supported by a new discovery associated with the Big Bang theory. John Kovac, Clement Pryke, Jamie Bock and Chao-Lin Kuo used a BICEP2 telescope in March 2014 where they claimed to have found evidence of gravitational waves to support the idea that cosmic inflation occured with the Big Bang theory. Just recently, a peer-reviewed journal was published claiming the chance of error ws impossible, further emphasizing their amount of certainty in their discovery. Up until now, there has been physical evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, however, no physical evidence supporting cosmic inflation aside from theoretical calculations. Through the telescope, the four scientists saw a faint light called “the Cosmic Microwave Background, which was emitted shortly after the Big Bang and is still pearmating through the universe” (Stromberg 1). A B-mode polarization was found which is usually caused by “the light crossing through gravitational waves” (Stromberg 1). This could prove the cosmic inflation theory right, however, other scientists claimed the type of polarization that was detected could have been mistaken for scattered dust. The scientitsis aimed to take the dust into account using an unpublished map of the Milky Way and may have misinterpreted it. In other words, the polarization found could have been dust. This illustrates that with more knowledge, doubt continues to increase and can lead to the question: How does the desire to obtain limit perspective? In addition, the religious knowledge systems uses faith, emotion and intuition to override reasoning, increasing doubt with knowledge. This can be seen through the idea that there are over 4,200 religions and only one religion can be ruled as the right religion. However, in the eyes of each individual religion, they are right and everyone else is wrong. This occurs because each religion practices different ideals and develop their own cultural norms and practices. Being a part of the International Baccalaureate (IB) program, I have been introduced to several different cultures and religions. I am primarily Christian, however, I still associate myself with the Catholic religion because I grew up in a household where we practiced both. Several of my classmates are Catholic, Atheist, Buddhist, Islam or Muslim. Usually when we get into a discussion, our religion will arise in conversation and we begin to formulate biased opinions. With the more knowledge that gets thrown onto the table, two paths begin to form. We either begin to doubt our own religion or limit our perspectives and claim our religious standpoint is correct compared to the others. Since we all have different practices, we believe our religion is the dominating ‘right’ religion compared to the others. Therefore, we tend to overlook reason with emotion and intuition to further our standpoint. To further illustrate, a school bus driver in Pennsylvania refused to get fingerprinted for a background check and she strongly believed it would leave “the mark of the devil” and possibly prevent her entrance to heaven (Morning Call 1). Here we can see that the driver’s emotion is overriding her reason of the purpose of the background check and she uses her religious standpoint as a dominant perspective. Overall, both the natural sciences and religious knowledge systems support that with knowledge, doubt increases. Furthermore, both the natural sciences and religious knowledge systems can argue that knowledge increases confidence rather than uncertainty. In the natural sciences, we use reason to question the validity of sources from which knowledge originates. Reason determines the amount of confidence or doubt one might have when imparting their knowledge. It is the process by which one formulates a conclusion based on evidence. Rational preferences are reliable because methods of science have the ability to get the truth of the natural world. This can be supported through the scientific method in which we develop a hypothesis and carry out an experiment to find the emergent truth. In Georgia, a woman went blind after stem cells were injected into her eyes to help cure her macular degeneration. This injection has caused other people to go blind as well, and this woman isn’t the only one. However, due to the several incidents that have increased with this injection, several researchers have increased and now developed more efficient stem cells. They investigated the types of stem cells and their usage. There are now over 4,500 clinical trials involving stem cells used to treat blindness, blood cancers, Parkinson’s and etc. Furthermore, scientific reasoning and doubt allowed an increase in the development of stem cells. Without the incidents, there would not have been a push to prove to obtain new knowledge with more confidence. Thus, we can question: Is doubt necessarily the key? With a doubt in knowledge, it can lead to an urge for learning and attaining accurate knowledge. With the religious knowledge systems, faith can increase our confidence, as it is our need to believe and religion tells us what is right and what is wrong. Christopher Hitchens claims, “Faith is our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something.” This states our it is our need to rely on our decision making on our religion, and our faith. This is supported by Ken Miller who states, “Science doesn’t tell us what’s right and wrong. Science doesn’t tell us about good and evil. Science doesn’t tell us what the meaning and purpose of existence is for. That’s what philosophy is for. That’s what religion is for, and that’s what moral and ethical systems are for.” Ken Miller claims that although science is here, we still need to focus on our religion, morals, ethical systems and philosophy to lead us to credible conclusions. This is supported by the Christianity belief that God created the Bible but also claiming that the Bible is evidence of God’s existence. Although reason is essential in the natural sciences, in religion, reason can’t answer the question of God’s existence whereas faith allow one to skip the necessity of understanding. Other people who have faith in God may claim that human understanding of God’s existence is limited and unknowable, therefore reason can’t answer the question of God’s existence. This puts into place the ad ignorantiam fallacy which claims that reason can be wrong when the premises are false, therefore, there is no real evidence supporting God’s existence. So one can conclude through this development that faith overrides reason when it deals with the religious knowledge systems. Overall, it can be concluded that although we have a possession of knowledge that challenges us, the amount of confidence or uncertainty we have about the topic truly depends on the p