In his statement, R.G. Collingwood suggests that religion is often seen as a form of thought that contains incomplete truths, which are eventually replaced by the complete truths discovered through philosophy or science. However, he argues that if this description is accurate, religion does not err by being vague, but rather by being too definite. In other words, religion becomes problematic when it asserts absolute truths without sufficient evidence or justification.
Collingwood’s statement implies that religion, at least in some instances, claims to possess knowledge or understanding that goes beyond what can be proven or verified through empirical means. It is important to note that he does not aim to dismiss or undermine religious beliefs, but rather to highlight the potential limitations of religious claims when compared to the more rigorous methodologies employed in philosophy and science.
One interpretation of Collingwood’s statement is that religion, by its nature, deals with ultimate questions and concerns that extend beyond the scope of empirical observation. It attempts to provide answers to questions related to the nature of existence, purpose, morality, and the divine. While these questions are undoubtedly significant and deeply meaningful to individuals, they often lack the concrete evidence and logical coherence necessary to satisfy the standards of empirical inquiry.
In contrast, philosophy and science rely on systematic methods of investigation, observation, and logical reasoning to seek answers and build knowledge. These disciplines emphasize the importance of evidence, rationality, and consistency in formulating theories and explanations. As a result, the conclusions reached through philosophy and science are generally considered more reliable and objective when compared to religious claims.
Collingwood’s assertion that religion can be “much more definite than it has any right to be” suggests that religious beliefs sometimes assert certainty without adequate justification. This can lead to dogmatism and closed-mindedness, as religious adherents may cling to their beliefs without critically examining them or considering alternative perspectives. By contrast, philosophy and science encourage a spirit of skepticism and open inquiry, recognizing the provisional nature of knowledge and the need for ongoing exploration and revision.
In conclusion, Collingwood’s statement highlights the potential pitfalls of religious thought when it claims absolute truths without sufficient evidence or rational justification. He suggests that while religion addresses profound existential questions, it may err by being too definite without the support of rigorous empirical methods. This does not invalidate the personal significance or value of religious beliefs, but rather emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and open-mindedness in evaluating different forms of knowledge.
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
