To What Extent Does Philosophy Replace Religion For Explanations and Meaning?
Philosophy and religion have combined origins, as expressed in the history of Western philosophy. However, as secular society has developed it may be that philosophy is seen as more credible. I am writing this, having come from a Christian background, but with so much questioning. Today, I was reading the philosophy of David Hume, which is based on skepticism and, that may be a foundation for building philosophy. This lead me to think how for many the pursuit of philosophy may fill a void in the loss of religious ideas. I am aware that it is not a simplistic division and many may see explore religion and philosophy together. However, many people who come to philosophy have stepped outside of mainstream religious thinking and I am wondering about the way in which philosophy provides an alternative way of finding explanations and meanings. Or, am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion? Is it possible to think about philosophy without any reference to questions posed within religious worldviews?
Comments (288)
I recently admitted publicly, on this forum -- only partly tongue-in-cheek -- that my personal Religion is Philosophy. It doesn't promise deferred gratification in another life. But it does allow me to define & refine my personal beliefs into a coherent worldview, which helps me to navigate the ups & downs of the only life I know for sure, here & now. I comfort myself for losing the anticipation of a better life tomorrow, by telling myself that "a living bird in hand is worth eternal life in the mythical bush". :joke:
I don't think you are wrong. Something like humanism replaces religion for a certain kind of philosopher (Hume & Hobbes both come to mind.) I'm not saying that they'd call it that, or that 'humanism' is some magically perfect name. Love him or hate him, I think Pinker's Enlightenment Now is a good example of what I have in mind. (Pinker annoys me when he writes about Nietzsche, and I think Hobbes and Hume are better writers/thinkers. I mention Pinker because he's alive and famous now, addressing contemporary concerns in the timely data-driven manner.)
Quoting Jack Cummins
My understanding of philosophy is that it is not theoretical, that is, it does not "provide" "explanations" (or "meanings") but rather merely – insightfully – proposes reflective interpretations (i.e. critical descriptions, dialectical examinations, aporetic formulations, etc) of natural, social & other cultural forms (e.g. assumptions) of knowing and evaluating.
Is astronomy an "alternative" to astrology?
Is history an "alternative" to fantasy?
Is waking an "alternative" to sleeping?
...
Is thinking (unanswerable questions) an "alternative" to believing (unquestionable answers)?
In the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, yeah Jack, IMO you're wrong to believe so.
Not very deeply. "Religious worldviews" are the fertilized soil within which philosophy's reflective roots sink deepest and spread farthest. 'Existential questions' are seeds of the life of the mind of both the religious believer and subsequently the philosophical thinker.
Quoting 180 Proof
:fire:
:up:
It was one of your posts to me a few months ago which lead me to realise how I am inclined to treat philosophical matters as if it were 'religious', in my focus on finding 'the truth'. In the past, I used to assume that others did too. Of course, I expect that all individuals approach the questions of philosophy a bit differently.
Initially, when I began reading philosophy I had not questioned religion at all. I remember someone saying to me when I was about 17 that his only concern with me studying social sciences and philosophy was that I would get to the point where I stopped believing in God. At the time, I thought that was strange and it almost suggested that religion was a delusion which could be seen through. Funnily enough, I did not even question the idea of God that much in my Nietzsche phase.
But, I do still find that my thoughts shift and strangely when I am with people who are very religious, that is when I often find that I think like an atheist. I think that the posters on this forum who propose theist arguments are more inclined to swing my thoughts against belief in God than the atheist ones. I wonder if I am the only person who finds this.
The more passionate, firm and emphatic someone is about their position, the more skeptical I tend to be that it is true. Great pathos is often making up for lack of logos.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I've thought all my adult life that the most effective inducement to unbelief is the preaching & proselytizing of 'true believers' and scriptural literacy (especially comparative studies). On these fora I often feel almost sorry for 'believers' who categorically seem incapable of making reasoned arguments in defense of or justifying their so-called "religious beliefs" and any supernatural / metaphysical basis for such "beliefs". I'm often tempted to make the damn arguments for them because I'm well versed in what I've found in over three+ decades (or have myself composed) to be the strongest defenses of "religious belief". But what's the point, right?
If seeking "answers" motivates you, Jack, then seek them; I just think a site dedicated to philosophy is more frustrating than not for believers since a considerable majority of us here are skeptics, fallibilists, freethinkers & naturalists – even some of the idealists (neo/platonists) too. This is as good a place to be as any if you're seeking to sort out the 'right questions' from the 'wrong questions' and then to improve upon – critically, imaginatively, reformulate further – those 'right questions'. Philosophizing, to put it simply, clarifies and makes explicit and seeks new questions and problems by critically interpreting or dialectically examining (given) "answers" and "solutions". Why? What's the point? To begin with, I think, to help one think clearer and deeper and more consistently (in spite of oneself, or one's subjectivity) about whatever one says or does in order to make one's life feel significant.
A side issue: but thanks largely to Nietzsche and an abundance of Christian and Islamic apologists, the idea that a void is opened when religion has gone has become a prevailing myth. I think this ought to be examined, particularly so since it is used as a springboard by many as a kind of aesthetic justification for a belief in the transcendent.
In other words, a universe without transcendence is ugly and empty and therefore can (or must) be filled with malevolent or pointless alternatives. Currently one of the most popular propagandists of this view is Jordan B Peterson who has made it a kind of chorus to his endless song of Jungian praise. (Yet if ever there were a case of 'physician heal thyself' it must be JBP.)
Religion and spirituality is no protection against the void. People work hard to paper over it with their Christianity or ostentations experiments in mysticism, but there is no guarantee against ontological dread and chronic feelings of emptiness. In my work I've known countless people in distress who were desperate and suicidal - most of them were believers and yet they were overwhelmed by meaninglessness. Their faith offered no protection from the void.
I suspect if faith is for anything, it is for whistling in the dark in the vain hope that you will distract yourself from your terrors and your moral failings.
Faith versus meaninglessness, or versus philosophy, or versus acquisitive materialism - this kind of dichotomous thinking is surely a good example of the false dilemma fallacy.
Our division of philosophy and religion may be a false one considering they begin with debates. I know people want to believe their particular religion is God's truth revealed, but that is not want history tells us. Let us begin with Judaism
A variety of religious movements. These people were, and still are, storytellers. It is a cultural thing to handle conflict or correcting someone's behavior with a story rather than a straight-on attack. They always worked together on problems such as the destruction of their temple and being taken into slavery in Babylon. The way they worked a system for not being assimilated into other cultures and keeping their own culture intact is amazing. Their story of creation appears to be a Sumerian story adjusted to be a story of one god instead of many gods and I don't think they take that story literally as Christians do.
Now the Christians, yi yi yi! What a bunch of argumentative people! When Constantine legalized Christianity he was horrified by all the fighting this set off and called the Christians together to come up with agreements and stop the fighting. But for a while the fighting continued and Christianity was divided and the East and West divide has remained, and Protestantism shattered Catholicism. The US made freedom of religion a constitutional right to stop people from persecuting and killing each other.
Then we have Islam, there is another divided God of Abraham religion with the divided people killing each other and although the Quaran says Muslims should respect all people of the book, Jews and Christians, we know the people of the book are fighting each other. Something else is happening besides wanting to know God's truth and how to live together. People continue to argue God's truth and how can we separate that from philosophy? Really? all these people continue to argue about God's truth and why do we say these arguments are different from philosophy?
Personally, at age 8 I asked a Sunday School teacher why Protestants and Catholics were divided and I didn't like her answer so I determined to find that answer for myself. That meant doing my best to know what everyone around the world believes and that includes Eastern and Western thinking. I am blown away by people wanting God's truth and not doing the same. That is like reading one history book and thinking the one version of history is the absolute truth and all other history books are wrong. :smirk:
Is this a role that philosophy assigns to itself? Many social philosophers explicitly state that, for various reasons, modern culture has evolved away from traditional value-paradigms, which were mostly religion-centric, and that our society is suffering many problems as a result. Some of these would absolutely assign philosophy this role.
Alternately, is this a role that philosophy assumes in a practical sense, in the population at large? This is the more important question, because it seems to me this is exactly the context in which religion is most important. Not its ostensible self-definition through the conflicting claims of different sects, but through the actual influence it exerts and the potentials it confers on and through the minds of believers.
In this latter sense, I think philosophy should aspire to to this role, perhaps not as an alternative so much as a complement.
Exactly! When everyone agrees on God's truth, I may agree with them.
Quoting Tom Storm Yeap, that comes with being human. It also comes with being a political animal and disagreeing about the best way to have a good economy and resolve our social and economic problems.
I wish we had a project like building a pyramid or a Chaco reflection of the heavens to ease our uneasiness. Our excitement over the New Age and then over what technology will do for us, is waning and we need something besides dread of the future.
Searching for and finding alternative explanations and meanings is corrosive to religion because it disrupts faith in its authority. Religion is replaced by finding explanations, community, a sense of being part of something greater than yourself... or in a word, meaning, for yourself.
I think that answers your question. Existential questions were the root for philosophy in humanity at first place.
Well as not to go it further and say that death is the actual mother of philosophy.
Philosophy is the refugee of the atheists. Where they turn as to find some peace inside them since they can't rely on any God to answer their questions.
That doesn't mean of course that theists aren't or can't turn into philosophy too. But, imo, their kind of philosophy is starting from a different base. Trying mostly to define God's word as to live accordingly. Atheists try to define "God" himself.
In my opinion, a great deal of current philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world, denies 'man's need for metaphysics' altogether - has lost sight of what that need is, why it exists, etc. So a lot of current thinking is neither philosophical nor religious.
(The full essay is linked at the end of the wiki article.)
Quoting dimosthenis9
I have never needed to "define God", only demonstrate that 'what theists claim sine qua non about "God"' is not true. It's delusional to believe in (trust) untrue claims, no?
No myth. The Schopenhaur essay I linked above notes that Schop. reads religions allegorically, as allegorical descriptions of the human condition. Read thusly, the abandonment of religion amounts to the abandonment of any over-arching sense of purpose. Of course in Schopenhauer's philosophy we are entirely driven by the blind irrational will so most of what humans do is meaningless, except for the fact that humans are able to see through that (i.e. 'transcend the will'.) So despite Schopenhauer's vociferous atheism, in the end 'St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) subsequently emerge as Schopenhauer’s prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, in conjunction with the ascetics from every religious tradition'. (SEP)
'Zapffe views the human condition as tragically overdeveloped, calling it "a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature."
This is what exactly I mean when I say that the goal of modern political liberalism is 'to make the world a safe space for the ignorant'. (I will take time to read that essay later, it seems pretty important).
Define "God" I mean in the sense of trying to find answers that theists have already from their God. Even atheists have to find something to believe in. Even if that "something" is their own self, or universe or whatever. Fill that existential void as Jack mentioned. That's why I mentioned philosophy as refugee for them.
I find it delusional also but if a theist doesn't try to enforce his beliefs on others and he just finds peace in any God then I don't care.
At the end don't we atheists also believe in other untrue claims? Not specifically about God but about anything in general. We might be delusional and believe in lies in other fields. Nobody is perfect.
Me personally I don't have the need to prove his "God" wrong .As long as he isn't fanatic.
Since science hasn't reached to the answer of everything yet, God is still an "open issue" (well not for me but for some is and I can accept that).
Quoting dimosthenis9
Perhaps. But that "something to believe in" is not the trust in (worship of) a supernatural mystery of theists. False equivalence (& tu quoque) fallacy.
I feel you. You're not.
I didn't. Not a well mind.
Arthur Schopenhauer is a heck of a writer, and that's certainly the correct reading, but I believe he is wrong about this for reasons I already mentioned. Religion may save your soul, but it lacks the power to inoculate people from dread, depression and meaninglessness.
No it isn't.
This is probably true for many of us, certainly for myself.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes, indeed, if by "religious worldviews" you refer to those religions most familiar to us here in the west. Philosophy in general takes a rationalist approach to various types of questions, and "our" religions, those monotheistic religions which emanated from the Levant between roughly 2000 BCE and 600 CE, are patently anti-rationalist in nature, particularly in their dependence upon divine revelation as the origin of knowledge and wisdom. Even those of the world's religions which are more rationalist in nature, such as Buddhism, yet retain a germ of anti-rationalism which is antithetical to the philosophical approach to life.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The $50k question. I think yes. Even if a religion were formulated which does not oppose rationalism in any way (a great hope of myself), the foci of philosophy and religion are utterly different. The purpose of philosophy is to provide man with the most helpful/useful way of regarding existential problems and uncertainties. Religion serves other purposes, which have been mentioned above...
Quoting Tom Storm
I rather think, Tom, that this is precisely what our monotheistic creeds purport to do; these are their primary purposes. Your average Evangelical Christian is a person who has wilfully suspended his or her rationality for the feeling of purpose (dissemination of "the gospel") and security (the surety of eternal life with God) which accrues to them from an unthinking acceptance of and commitment to their creed. This type of religion may lack such powers with respect to yourself, but you are undoubtedly a rationalist unwilling to suspend reason in favor of such purposes; to the Christian, these powers of their religion are very real.
I agree (having been raised Catholic). I'll need to go and read the Zapffe essay but so far I think my interest in philosophy comes from viewing it as a "more legitimate" (more structured and less dogmatic) enterprise, in comparison to precisely religion.
Indeed. To the (insert magical thinking system of choice) the powers of their (insert spurious belief of choice) are very real. Yes... and therein lies most of the problems.
One of my good friends is a Catholic priest and a devotee of Thomas Merton. I grew up within a Baptist tradition so I know the faith and its promises well. As Father Bill would say, "People who call themselves Christians often tend to be members of a social club, with a faith so thin and stunted, I long for the company of secular humanists.'
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Absolutely, which makes the irony of their lack of success so much deeper.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
One of the most interesting Christian writers and thinkers on philosophy and theology, David Bentley Hart makes the point that American Evangelicals are not Christians at all but a strange cult of politics and American identity. I wonder if this is the 'no true Scotsman fallacy'...
:sweat:
Hart's been accused of being near to atheism on Uncommon Descent, for what it's worth. Because he doesn't subscribe to the sky-father trope.
[quote=He is who He Is; https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/he-who ]There are...a great many people who say “God” and mistakenly believe that they have the notion, at least, in common. Hart is interested in clarifying the notion, and one of his deeper points is that the major theistic religions do indeed have something in common when they say “God.” In a churlish review for Harper’s, Jane Smiley writes that Hart “is robustly convinced that there is only one definition of God, and that is his own.” She then quotes Hart’s “own” definition: “one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.”
As Hart makes plain, however, and as anyone even slightly familiar with the history of metaphysics is aware, that definition is not Hart’s, but one shared by most major religious and philosophical traditions. It is as much Aristotle’s definition as it is Moses Maimonides’s and Thomas Aquinas’s and Mulla Sadra’s and, indeed, Spinoza’s.[/quote]
I am glad that you can relate to the idea of there being a void opened up by loss of the idea of transcendence. I think that Nietzsche's writing describes it so well. It may be that some people can find meaning, through the arts and even catch connect with the numinous, but others may fall into meaningless. Some may cling to religious beliefs, even fundamentalist ones, to try to avoid facing up to the harshest aspects of existence.
Jack that's not what I wrote. Sorry Bud. I have met many people experiencing suicidal despair and emptiness with a perfectly intact sense of transcendence. The myth of transcendence as an inoculant against meaninglessness is enduring.
Just as they would likely accuse you. Re Hart - if sophisticated theology based on scrupulous patristic sources counts as atheism, so be it. :grin:
I agree with you that the writers of religious texts are 'storytellers' primarily. It is about mythic aspects of existence, but with some philosophy mixed in. It may be that philosophy can enable this distinction because some people, those who cling to concrete and literal interpretations often don't do this. If the Bible, for example, is read like a newspaper or textbook, this involves a rather rigid kind of perspective and misses the symbolic dimensions.
As you say there has been a lot of fighting for what is believed to be right. One aspect which I am thinking about is not only has there been literal fighting, as in the Christian crusades, but, also, division amongst Christians. There was great controversy in England when the Bishop of Durham said that he did not think that the resurrection happened in a physical sense.
Sorry, if I misinterpreted you, and I have just got out of bed. Perhaps, I will drink some more coffee and look and the replies later...
The only religion that's thankfully Heraclitean and may outlive other faiths is Buddhism (anicca/doctrine of impermanence) and if it does become obsolete, at least it saw what was coming down the pike.
... magic trumps its logic.
:up:
And that's why we talk about is as an issue of faith. If it would all be logical and provable, it wouldn't be a religion, an issue of faith. We would be talking about facts, or scientific theories.
Science (and logic) has obviously increased our ability to make sense of the World around us, yet religion will still have it's role on saying what is right and wrong, just as moral philosophy has. And in those issue there is no reason why religion would lose as it has in explaining objective reality around us (as with genesis stories etc.)
Certainly that is the case in theocracies. In the West it is generally the legal system, no? Which is often at odds with the fading fanaticisms of religious views.
For many people who aren't basically religious, the foundations of what is right and wrong have come from religion, christianity, islam etc. Not from reading or learning moral philosophers, but basically what their parents have taught them. Surprisingly much of that still is based on religion, even if people aren't devote worshippers anymore and religion has lost ground.
Quoting Wayfarer
In a way which avoids diverting this thread too much, I wonder, why? Specifically, does the Zapffe essay represent, or rather indicate such a malady? I had never read Zapffe before reviewing this thread, but have discovered in him a "kindred spirit" (for lack of a better term) of sorts. I had arrived at some similar conclusions independently of the man, and via a different route: that the basic problem facing humankind is, and that the global crises looming on "the horizon" are caused by, what is essentially an evolutionary mishap: the overdevelopment of the frontal brain within one (our) species of mammal, allowing for powerful reasoning, scientific, and abstract thought without there being a proportionate cognitive development allowing for self regulation of those abilities. I (almost) fully expect that homo sapiens will, ultimately, destroy or nearly destroy itself by it's conspicuous inability to regulate it's productive capabilities. I think that J.R. Oppenheimer may have come to this realization in his later life, his innate pacifism intensified by his realization of his personal contribution to a horrible human competence: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/oppenheimer-from-the-atomic-bomb-to-pacifism/amp/
I hope someday you get the perfect job for your thinking mind. Perhaps you can become a professor of philosophy. I think your statement, that it is not just what the holy books say that matters, but also how we approach them that is also important, is a very wise concept. Of course! Anything can become a subject of philosophy because it is a matter of how we approach our studies.
I like the saying, "when we think we know God, we know not God". The Bible says as much. The Bible speaks of the unknown God so that our minds remain open. The God that is beyond our comprehension. Had we stayed with that there might have been less trouble, but I think Islam is clear on that, and yet it too divided and the people fight each other. That truth saddens my heart. So much sincere effort to give us something to believe that would help us be our better selves and we destroy that with our arguing and literally killing each other.
This is so sad, but I think those who deify Jesus have made a terrible mistake. They have made the unknown God a very human and known God, destroying our sense of awe and our open mind and open heart. We need to be less sure of what we think we know, and that is philosophy. The cure is teaching good thinking skills. I think you could do that well with the education to become a professor.
The meaning of life without theology is simple: Life has whatever meaning you give it. That's it.
As for the difference between theology and philosophy for explanations and truth: Theology concerns itself primarily with just that. It provides people some ultimate "Truths" and explanations. All the answers pretty much boil down to God.
Philosophy concerns itself with the questions as much as or perhaps more than the answers. What's the meaning of life? The philosopher immediately digs deeper: what is meaning? what is life? what does it matter what the meaning of life is? Is there one answer? Who's asking? How can we know? What does it mean that we are beings that can ask such questions? etc etc etc.
I have not read Kant in a while and it is time for me to refresh what I know of his ideas.
Last night I listened to an interview with the Christian woman who wrote "Saving Us: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World" by Katharine Hayhoe. It was a wonderful explanation of the importance of being hopeful and seeing answers instead of just problems.
Kind of like the woman who came up with the Virtues Program for families. She stressed it is not good enough to tell children what they are doing wrong, we almost must teach them how to do it right.
Doom and gloom will not get us to a good place.
The etymology of English "religion" and it's various cognates is uncertain for having been lost to history, but is yet reasonably surmised.
English religion < Latin religio, composed of the morphemic elements: re ("again", "repeatedly") + lego ("I choose" or "I gather/bring together", passively "I am chosen" or "I am gathered") or ligo ("I bind", passively "I am bound") + -io (suffix creating either abstract or result nouns). Medieval Christian writers tended to interpret this with ligo, for what seem like obvious reasons, but to my mind this is almost certainly incorrect, and an example of purposeful mis-reinterpretation. Cicero and other ancient grammarians (Cicero, the original 'rennaisance man', wore many hats) had it include lego, an assertion to which I agree, and argue appears most reasonable. This yields: re ("again", "repeatedly") + lego ("I choose" or "I gather/bring together", passively "I am chosen" or "I am gathered") + -io (suffix creating either abstract or result nouns). From this we have a chioce between three semantic options: [re ("repeatedly") + lego ("I choose") + -io (suffix creating abstract nouns)], and alternatively [re ("repeatedly") + lego ("I gather") + -io (suffix creating abstract nouns)], and again alternatively [re ("again", "repeatedly") + legor ("I am chosen", which is lego in the passive sense) + -io (suffix creating result nouns)]. So, this renders to us three related meanings for the word: the meanings of the first is, "I choose repeatedly '-ness'", and so "scrupulousness"/"scrupulosity" (in observance). The meaning of the second is, "repeated gathering" or "repeated convergence" (particularly as a community of people). The meaning of the third, which is probably most suited to our purposes as an expansive definition, is "that which is repeatedly chosen (or done)". Given such a definition, "religion can refer to anything done repeatedly or "religiously", if you will, such as (hopefully) brushing one's teeth. To summate: the aforementioned etymological meanings of Latin religio indicate to us that our religion, our "religions" are by necessity communal and scrupulously ritualistic by definition.
It is easy to see how these three meanings might yield the particular modern definition which I understand to be the sense in which "religion" is used by Jack, to wit: "a particular system of spiritual or metaphysical belief, and the rituals and practices, all scrupulously observed, proper thereto". The way that all this semantic investigation relates to answering the question initially posed by @Jack Cummins, is that it highlights that "religion" need not be theistic, or even "spiritual", to be referred to thusly; it needs only to display scurupulously approached, communal ritualism in the service of metaphysical pursuit, especially in the pursuit and reinforcement of a coherent metaphysical worldview. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to suggest that philosophy, which as has been suggested, involves the application of rational principles and methodologies to the understanding of metaphysical realities, can possibly be translated into a religious framework; philosophy can possibly become religious, and become an integral component of "a religion". In so doing, philosophy would assume an alternate role within the religious context to that enjoyed within the context of theistic religion, to that enjoyed by "divine (particularly scriptural) revelation".
However, philosophy is not religious as it is...as it has ever been practiced; it lacks the necessary communal, ritualistic, and scrupulous elements which define a "religion" as we understand one to be. In order for philosophy to assume such a role within the context of a religion, it would have to be adapted to reflect the three "key elements" of religion, community, scrupulosity, and ritualism, and would have to be expressed in a communal, scrupulous, and ritualistic manner.
Whether philosophy is well suited to assuming such a role is another, different question, probably beyond my own capabilities to discern with my not being a professional philosopher. In order for it to do so, philosophy would have to de subjected to processes of communalizing not and ritualization. Philosophy has always been a rather solitary pursuit...an individual striving for metaphysical comprehension, although various "schools of philosophy" have arisen over the centuries. Philosophy is ever evolving, and advances as one thinker builds and elaborates upon the thought of his predecessors. In this, it opposed religion, which is necessarily a communal endeavor. In addition, philosophy has ever eschewed the trappings of ritual, in direct opposition to the methodology of religion. Philosophy would require much adaptation in order for it to be suitable to the religious context. Is such adaptation possible for the philosophical enterprise? Whether or not the discipline of philosophy might be amenable to the circumscribing and confining structures of scrupulously observed ritual, and/or the communalizing and diluting influences of communal observance, are questions which must be answered by those more steeped in the philosophical tradition than am I.
Your discussion of the terms religion and philosophy are extremely useful, because I opened up a debate which involves distinguishing the terms. It may be such a big area of thinking on an individual and cultural level, so it does seem important to think about the meanings of such ideas for careful analysis, and the way in which religious and philosophical perspectives about life are constructed and understood.
Thank you for your reply and I will try to follow through Schopenhauer's ideas about religion.
I think that your ideas on trying to define 'God' are important because the idea is so ambiguous and used in such different ways. The analysis of language may be so important in discussing religious concepts.
Yes, the question philosophy assigns to itself in making sense of ideas is important. It could be asked to what extent are philosophers to be regarded as the 'experts'?
I think philosophy breaks down at the point where it becomes an "appeal to authority." So if a philosopher is an expert, it should be the kind of expertise that manifests as and through cogent discussion (similar to Habermas' ideas on communicative rationality I guess).
It could be a problem if philosophy appeals to authority as a basis of argument rather than rational arguments. That would be like the trust and 'blind faith' advocated by religious perspectives. I understand that philosophy comes from a very different angle, but, at the same time, authority of opinion may be open to scrutiny and criticism.
In your asking about the difference between philosophy and religion, I have difficulty with taking either as a given circumscribed set of activities that may or may not overlap. Is there a way to separate them that is not already a choice?
When you say: "I am wondering about the way in which philosophy provides an alternative way of finding explanations and meanings", it sounds like religion had this job we can distinguish beyond the confines of choosing it or not over philosophy.
I would like to hear more about this job. It sounds more important than deciding who should get it.
I can see that my question raises questions about the role, purpose and limitations of religious and philosophical perspectives. You raise the issue of the difference between philosophy and religion, and I would not wish to make great generalisations because it is likely that people who are religious or philosophical try to come to authentic answers about life, and the metaphysical questions. The point which I am trying to make is that it is about different angles, as to one begins from specific premises about God or a 'divine order'. There may be overlaps, such as in ideas about ethics, but, on the other hand, specific beliefs about God, and the idea of an afterlife, may lead to a very different basis for thinking, and many philosophies may be picking up the broken pieces of 'religious' perspectives which were based on 'otherworldly' forms of thinking, which do not make much sense to many in the twentieth first century.
Your question of how one might do the work of another led me to think there is viewpoint prior to either by which to compare them. Is that a psychological point of view? Asking that means I have not gotten as far as asking what the differences are. There must be many. But what is the background of comparison?
So true. Even atheists mostly take their morals from religion even unintentionally.
Since they get raised in mostly religious societies. And like it or not human societies were built on the base of religions morals.
For example, Imagine an atheist who was raised from religious parents. What "sort" of morals would he get?
But yeah, most would never admit that indeed. They somehow see it as a taboo matter, imo at least.
The psychological point of view is worth taking into consideration, because it comes into play in explanations. However, philosophy does seek to go beyond this, but, in many ways, people are bound up with their own psychological subjectivities. It is hard but may be the task of the philosophers to see beyond this.
Psychology and philosophy were once more united and psychology has developed so far, in neuroscience. How metaphysics lies in this is questionable; and it is possible to ask whether metaphysics is based on physics? This leads to the question of where, if at all, religious perspectives fit in? In relation to your question about the background of comparison, it may be that it is extremely complex.
My use of the word "God" here is = "answers to existential questions".
God is maybe the most vague human idea indeed, so with much respect to the language problem, I think that proper wording could solve a very big amount of problems in such issues.
People should state and agree, from the beginning of their discussion, on the exact definition that THEY would mean using the word of each concept they discuss about.
And then start discussing.
At that case, my bad, cause I should have stated it from the beginning.And I didn't.
My guess is, that I probably liked the way the phrase "sounded" and I didn't want to "spoil" it by expanding it more.
I don't have a clear idea about what constitutes the "psychological." It seems like it is not only a set of explanations but a method for putting other problems in a context. So, the comparison of philosophical with religious experience seems to assume an underlying something to which both relate. There are a number of disciplines that attempt to understand things in that way. I am asserting you are taking some kind of stance like that to view philosophy and religion from a distance far enough away to see them apart. My experience of these activities has not been something where the different qualities announced themselves as what they are by simply appearing.
Yeah but you can be unaware of.In unconscious level.
At the end all the crucial years of a child's character formation(age 16) you were given religion morals from your parents. No?
But well even if at the end you don't, that doesn't mean that other atheists even unintentionally don't get influenced by religion morals.
Since these morals are-were everywhere in our societies.
The "excuse" for religion morals is, yes as you mentioned, divine commands, but that doesn't change anything I think. The essence remains the same. Morals are still there even built in such a lame excuse.
It's not only the atheists. Simply Western democracies who want to uphold freedom of religion and be multicultural (in the positive way) don't simply want to brandish the religious aspects of their heritage. Or especially admit how their core values are partly Christian values. But we cannot escape our history.
Just look at the national flags of the Nordic countries. Do note the symbolism.
And when we enlarge this view to especially Muslim countries, the link between religion and the state is even more obvious and totally clear. Prophet Muhammad was a ruler of the Ummah and caliphs were the political successors to Muhammad. State and religion do go hand in hand.
Hahaha. Man I never noticed that!!!
And now I wonder how many others flags of countries includes a Cross! Or any other religion symbol.My country's flag includes also!
Damn I liked that!I think that is a huge proof of how religion has been such a huge moral base in every aspect of our human societies.
Quoting ssu
I think they do good on that if their goal is to unite every culture-religion under a common state "umbrella".It's logical imo.
Yet some things do change in thousands of years, so part we can leave to it's own I guess.
I am sure that many people have different angles on what is 'psychological'. In many ways, my own is shaped by the psychodynamic thinkers, including Freud and, especially, Carl Jung. Both of these writers spoke in great depth about religion and its mythological significance. The two writers did not agree, and even became enemies, but they both looked at the way in which religious ideas became important in culture for fulfilling psychological needs.
In many ways, Jung saw the need for some kind of 'mythos' or religious way of seeing as being positive. He drew upon mythology and anthropology. In some ways, he offers a critique of Western religions, but he was suggesting that there was an overriding need for meaning. I am sure that he was aware that the ideas of religion were breaking down, as he made reference to the ideas of Nietzsche.
I think Zappfe was mentioned a few years back by one of the resident anti-natalists. The problem is the lop-sided development of the human psyche post-Enlightenment. It has become entirely preoccupied with externals. It is the crisis of Western civilization. This crisis is now manifesting as imminent environmental catastrophe but it has many other forms. But as you've described yourself as a positivist I don't expect that kind of analysis would be of interest to you.
Quoting Jack Cummins
[quote=Jung]I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given their followers, and none of them has really been healed who did not regain his religious outlook.[/quote]
Jung is interesting. The architectural side is at odds with the willingness to hear about individual suffering. He did both. Something about the experience led him to something very different from others.
But that to me seems like a retreat from explanation. There is no bon mot. You should be unhappy.
We're an eusocial species and our functional defects – physical & psychological vulnerabilities which makes us dysfunctional when neglected or exacerbated – are objective facts about us. Given that, it's clear (to me at least!) that "religion" has never told us anything about what harms us and what not to do to avoid harming each other that we didn't already know otherwise (re: group survival). "Earth mommy" & "sky daddy" cults alike were built on – with myths / mysteries occulting – our species eusociality: that the natural grounds of moral norms are derived via (ecology-/culture-sensitive) defeasible reasoning.
Part of the issue may be about whether religious thinking is about finding 'healing' or meaning', or objective truth. Also, there is the question as to how much it matters. Coming from a philosophy perspective, I am more inclined to think that objective aspects of 'truth' are important. However, in some ways this focus goes back to an original religious stance, and, in some ways, without a bigger religious perspective, it could be argued that the psychological and personal meanings are the most which can be achieved or imagined.
What do you think of Viktor Frankl's logotherapy in comparison to Jungian psychotherapy?
I am not sure whether one may remain happy or not with Jung's analysis. He looked at the aspects of experience, and I did spend some time in Jungian analysis. It made me aware of so many conflicting aspects of myself and, to a large extent, humanity.However, I would say that I am interested in Jung's ideas, including his critique of religion. However, from a philosophy point of view, I wonder how much stands up to philosophical scrutiny, especially the idea of the collective unconscious.
I began a book by Victor Frankl last week, so I will bear in mind your question, and, hopefully be able to give an answer to this in a few days; and maybe this will be of significance for the thread discussion which I initiated.
This is a great question but also makes me wonder if you want to have your cake and eat it too. The collective unconsciousness is presented as both a phenomena and an idea. Jung is not interested in tricking people about it. It is either one or another.
I think that it may be likely that I wish to 'have a cake and eat it', but, beyond this, I do wonder about how the idea of the collective unconscious stands in philosophical credibility. Part of the problem may be about seeing it as an abstract entity, and Jung contributes to this by arguing in terms of an objective psyche. However, in its favour is the shared aspect of symbolism and cultural meanings, even to the point where there may be considered to be universal 'truths', beyond cultural significance. The question may be about shared cultural meanings as aspects underlying myths.
Well, off the top of my head: England, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda (???), the Republic of Georgia, Greece, Switzerland, the old Duchy of Savoy (perhaps the modern French department?), Republic of Italy (when charged with the escutcheon of state), the Dominican Republic, ...umm...
Now count the crescents.
That was just a little mental exercise for me...
It's not that complicated really. You can have the same discussions and reach the same conclusions just they don't really matter that much when your wrong or even if not especially when you're right for that matter. Nihilism is the true dark shadow of religious faiths in my opinion. The "bastid" child of religion and philosophy that nobody told was actually adopted and not related to either that decided to move in to both homes at once without asking and now refuses to pay rent whilst simultaneously decreasing the property values of both.
True but isn't that normal? At the end aren't religions only human inventions? So of course these morals were taken from nature, reasoning, social beneficial behaviors etc etc. Religions copied all these normally.
But the thing with religions is that they were the most functional "moral glue" (so far at least) for the societies. Their "excuse" was what persuaded most people to follow all these pre-existing morals. As people to get convinced following them.
And unfortunately even nowadays people need a God as to get convinced(with all the problems which come in package with that kind of attitude) .Fear and reward of a divine authority.
Since sadly Logic isn't enough for them. Yet at least.
An appeal to popularity deflects from this issue of the historicity / genealogy of "religiousity" and the subsequent contrast of philosophical practices. "Religion" is atavistic and "philosophy" fundamentally confronts, undermines, that atavism. The cultural and institutional function of "religion for social cohension" is an anachronism shown to be so, after all, since the advent of established cosmopolitan societies such as the multi-ethnic and multi-religious e.g. Roman Republic-then-Empire from c5th century BCE to 5th century CE or the establishment of al-Andalus and subsequent Caliphates from the 8th to 15th centuries CE. "Religion", like other illusions / distractions (e.g. alcohol, sports, movies & shopping), may be "popular" with the masses, dimo9, but the topic at issue here being discussed is whether or not philosophical thinking (and its progeny) is better for the life (and livelihoods) of the mind than religious believing.
You might be on to something here. I think it is socially important to have those 'natural grounds' to moral norms that you talk about. Even philosophers try this and make the case for humanism. Religion of course has either gods or a god as the 'natural grounds' for moral norms. Moral norms and what is right and wrong have to be universally accepted in order for a society to work. Religions try to enforce those codes of conduct.
Which actually just shows that there's no objective answer, no logical deductive reasoning for such a subjective issue.
That particular essay I linked to is concise and well-written. The SEP entry on Schopenhauer is also worthwhile. I think with your interests you should familiarise himself with his ideas. Bryan Magee's book Schopenhauer's Philosophy is a good intro.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Religions generally don't believe that, it's very much more characteristic of secular culture. Which figures, because there's no conceptual space for 'revealed truth' in secular culture.
Well for me philosophical thinking is better indeed since gives you a deeper realization of morals and the actual reasons for acting "good" in societies. Makes you dig deeper inside yourself and with not just following divine orders without any questioning them at all.
But again I m not sure we could make a rule out of that. Since as for others, philosophy is not enough to fill their existential void and have the need of turning into a God as to find "answers". It's a subjective matter after all.
I can't accuse them of being wrong and me the right one, since me myself I don't have all the answers.
My problem as I mentioned again is with the fanatics and not with theists themselves.
Sorry! Wanted to comment and accidentally pushed the place-button.
Allright. A deeper realization of morals and the reason for it while living in a society. I don't think that's what philosophy is about. You just make it substitute for religion.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You can't make a rule out of that indeed. It would be the same as religious fanatics do. Well, you can make a rule out of it as long you keep it for yourself.
Quoting dimosthenis9
So if you have all the answers you can accuse them of being wrong?
Quoting dimosthenis9
You don't like authority.
What existential void are you talking about? You think without gods the world is empty and amoral? If so, why you connect moral with God?
For me surely philosophy involves that too and I mentioned it since it's the specific issue of being discussed at this thread.At what degree can be a efficient substitute for religion.
Quoting GraveItty
For me no. But for many people is. You can easily identify it since the vast majority of people even nowadays are theists . And of course God and religions are mostly connected with morals too.
No without God world isn't empty and amoral but religions are used as the "main excuse" for many people as to follow morals.
The reasons for why this happens have been discussed in other posts here from other members also.
Quoting GraveItty
Still no.But especially since science knowledge hasn't reached there yet, God is still an open issue.
So you think when science has reached there, God is no more an open issue? How can science ever close that issue?
Not sure how could be done. I could only guess by finding the answers for how the whole universe works and its purpose(if there is actually one). Or maybe if science one day makes possible immortality.
Still probably some people would follow any kind of God for other reasons, but atheists then would have more "scientific claims" as to prove them wrong.
And theists would be radically reduced (especially if humanity ever make it to "escape" from death).
If you know how the universe works, to the fundamental level of spacetime and the truly basic matter fields in it, if a scientists like Dawkins declares that all life merely exists and acts because a proposed longing of selfish genes and memes to be passed through, then still you won't have the answer of why it's all ther. Science will never be able to create immortality. That's just a fairytale.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Science simply can't prove God to be non-existent. Theists radically reduced. Are you serious? If so, you sound just like a fundamentalist. So I hope you are not and take yourself too seriously, like fundamentalists do. I hope it's just meant to provoke. You had bad experiences with religion?
How can you be sure about that? At the past years what science achieved sounded like "fairytale" also.
Quoting GraveItty
Not fundamentalist at all. The strange thing is how you ended up to such conclusion.
And no didn't have any bad experience with religion either. In fact though an atheist I have much respect to theists. It's obvious from my previous posts here.
I also had opened a thread some time ago mentioning among others, how theists should be respected and the hard conflicts I had were with atheists. They accused me of being an "undercover theist" pretending the atheist.
That says something I think.
All matter in the universe eventually accelerates away from each other, making the foundation of life impossible. On top of that, life can only develop in a Natural way.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I ended up to that conclusion because of your language (as I explained implicitely): "atheists will be radically reduced".
In fact i said "theists would be radically reduced" and it is only my opinion of what would happen if humanity reach to immortality.
Not that I have a passion as to start a "crusade for vanishing theists". I have no problem with theists as long as they are not fanatics. I have a problem though with fanatics atheists also!
And the religious fanatics says: atheists would be radically reduced.
Like I said, immortality is a fairytale.
It's only your opinion. After thousands of years you can never be sure of what humanity will achieve.
This is why I wrote "via defeasible reasoning" instead. We're capable of discerning what normative conduct doesn't work because
Quoting 180 Proof
Even though it is a demonstrable objective fact that Earth is round (i.e. an oblate spheroid), it is not universally accepted to be so (e.g. "flat earthers" à la creationists). Same for the sustainability (praxes) of human ecology as the objective basis for ethical naturalism (which includes my '(aretaic) negative utilitarianism', etc). In other words, whatever the objective facts of the matter are (e.g. nature in general, our species defects & eusociality in particular, etc), many of our fellow primates are often ignorant, or in denial, of them or mistaken about them – subjective stances, however, which do not negate objective facts.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Well, of course, philosophy's function is certainly not "to fill [the] existential void" (like filling potholes or getting your woo-of-the-gaps fix from some over-prescribed "painkiller"). As I've pointed out already in reply to the OP, philosophical inquiry doesn't seek the (unquestionable) "answers" – dogma – of religious seeking. You're right though, philosophy is not for most people, certainly not for everyone, but also should not be confused with religion as (the) "alternative" to confessional, or spiritual, practice. Seeking (ultimate) "answers"? Religion may be for you, not philosophy. Otherwise, seeking (radical) "questions"? Philosophy is the reflectively rational path (though the destination might be natural science or history, art or teaching, healthcare or soldiering ...)
[quote=Freddy Zarathustra]Christianity is Platonism for the masses.[/quote]
In keeping with the times, circa1793, fifteen thousand words to say, the good man already has what religion prescribes, the bad man already rejects what religion prescribes. The text of the essay shows man reasons to religion, not from or because of it, and contains cleverly sufficient platitudes to alleviate the possibility that the church would accuse him of heresy, and the state accuse him of sedition. With bloodbath and demise of the ruling class in the French Revolution still fresh in the continental mind, it’s not healthy to piss off even an enlightened monarch such as Frederick II claimed himself to be, plus having recently established Prussia as a bonafide European power, and, of course, it’s never good to piss off the Pope.
In short, Kant displayed some serious brass balls here.....
“...Hence it is no wonder that the complaint is made publicly, that religion still contributes so little to men’s improvement, and that the inner light of these favored ones does not shine forth outwardly in good works also, yea, preeminently, above other men of native honesty who, in brief, take religion unto themselves not as a substitute for, but as a furtherance of, the virtuous disposition which shows itself through actions, in a good course of life. Yet the Teacher of the Gospel has himself put into our hands these external evidences of outer experience as a touchstone, by telling us that we can know men by their fruits and that every man can know himself. But thus far we do not see that those who, in their own opinion, are extraordinarily favored (the chosen ones) surpass in the very least the naturally honest man...”
.....all the more so because he was as yet no where near as well-known and influential as he was eventually to become.
All that being said, “Religion Within the Limits of Pure Reason” is beyond the scope of Everydayman, as is the majority of Kant’s catalog, who probably wouldn't accept it even if he were capable of understanding it, even while being aimed directly at him.
Did I understand you correctly that you argue that the sustainability of human ecology is the objective basis for morals, what is right or wrong?
That seems more like a tautology, which doesn't help much. It isn't simply that some people are ignorant to the facts that we have disagreement just what is good for the "sustainability of human ecology" and what isn't. People who might disagree with you and me on some moral principles aren't simply "flat earthers" who are or want to be ignorant about facts. These things are inherently subjective.
Moral philosophy, just as aesthetics (or would it be axiology in general) simply are in a different than logic, cosmology, etc.
Explain this, tell me why. Harm, suffering, misery – reducing or inflicting them – are "inherently subjective"? I can't make sense of what you mean.
Ok.
So an easy universal issue is that killing other people is wrong. Huge agreement with that, when we say it like that. But how about self-defense? When is it morally right to use lethal force for self defense?
Is it right or wrong to kill other animals? Is it harmful that human society has advance from the hunter gatherers to what we are today? A lot of species have died and there's global warming, yet for "human ecology" our way to mold this planet to serve us has been a great success story. Or how about issues with sex? Or substance use? Abortion?
All those issues that we now see as 'political' and where we see 'cultural divides' emerging on how people answer them.
The subjective will use the objective as an excuse, switching back and forth as it sees fit.
If you have to "say it like that" for it to appear as an objective truth, then you simply highlight it's inherent subjectivity, do you not?
Quoting ssu
Not even that. If a situation could be described within which the killing of human beings would be even infinitesimally less "wrong" an act, then the possibility exists of a situation in which it is a "right" act. With that in mind, I will now assume the role of "devil's advocate", and illustrate with an example. If this planet were to become so grossly overpopulated with our species that ecological, biomic collapse ensued, and the only way to prevent utter collapse were to "cull" the human population, would the killing/murder of a human being be slightly less "wrong" an act?
We tend to treat mores as absolutes, when in fact they seem not to be.
Unfortunately the thing is that we have to face and answer questions on how things ought to be (as many times not deciding is one fateful decision). That's normative, not objective.
Yes. As I've said earlier, moral philosophy is for a reason a different branch of philosophy than let's say logic.
Being normative is natural.
Another example, perhaps less emotionally charged: often, a given species will overpopulate within an environmental preserve, and authorities are then forced to cull the population in order to preserve the biological stability of the particular environment in question. These animals are killed for absolutely no other reason than that, meaning than for the success of the species within that environment. Normally, the purposeless killing of an animal is considered a moral "wrong", but under such particular circumstances it is considered a morally "right" act. In other words, the "mores" in question are not absolute. I would argue that if any moral norm can be shown to be relative within a given hypothetical situation, then all mores must be viewed as relative and non-absolute. Any consideration within moral philosophy that moral norms are absolute is, I suspect, either due to the influence of the affective mind, or an artefact of superstition. Did F. Nietzsche not already deal with these types of questions rather definitively? I will admit to never having spent a great deal of time studying ethics or moral philosophy. Perhaps I am thinking too logically for this topic...the misapplication of such thinking has demonstrated the ability to yield truly horrendous results.
How do philosophers in discussing moral questions reconcile hypotheticals with the realities of our subjective world?
:ok:
Exactly, and far more useful for us than only being objective.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Add to this that things are very complex in reality. You can have good intentions while the outcome can be harmful.
Theism: God, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent.
The philosopher's ultimus meta, the be all and end all of philosophy, philosophy's holy grail, wisdom has been defined as knowledge of what is true & good i.e. (omni)science & (omni)benevolence. Thus it's not too much of a stretch that philosophers are seeking god (in themselves).
There was a time I believe when western philosophy declared truth (verum), good (bonum), beauty (pulchrum) as the primary objectives of (doing) philosophy.
Satyam shivam sundaram: Truth, Go(o)d(li)ness, Beauty.
That itself is subjective.
We have a habit of flipping back and forth to which ever suits us at the moment.
I'm doing it now. I often like to distinguish between man and nature. Then I will turn around and look at the objective view.
I don't have anything to disagree about your post except maybe only that.
For me, of course we can't consider that philosophy can be an absolute substitute for religion. But I think that in some crucial aspects-issues both try to give to each person individually some answers.
For example questions like "what happens after death?", "what is the purpose of life? "," how should I live my life as to be happy? "etc exc, I think you agree that both Religion and Philosophy share as a common base.Right?
In conclusion, yes it is wrong to consider philosophy as" antidote " to religion. But I also find it wrong as to consider that philosophy has nothing to do with religion! They are connected in many things. Their routes get crossed in crucial issues of human life,in many corners.
That's why I mentioned at my first posts here on this thread that I see philosophy as a refugee for atheists. A Shelter.
At least that's how it works for me.
Excellent.
I mentioned questions, not religion questions. Existential questions. And I can't understand how you can disagree with that.
Isn't the question "what happens after death?" available both in philosophy and religion? Aren't there philosophers who dealt with this matter?
And I will go it even further. At the end isn't religion itself just a philosophy theory and nothing more?? Well different theories in fact since there are many religions!
Bible for example, was written by human (or humans) being(s).
Well he wasn't nothing more but an excellent philosopher.If not excellent for sure a great influential one!
Is it somehow relevant to our discussion?Will it make any difference? You think it would help or you will get more prejudiced?
Answer me that first.
It isn't really available in religion because to belong is to not question the dogma, and it's all about belonging. The function of philosophy is not to bind communities with shared values, norms, and narratives.
I don't get your point. First people have the questions on their own a priory and after they seek the answers. Some turn in religions for answers.
Religion don't also deal with after death issue? So how can it not be available?
Not necessarily, some are raised within a religion and belong to it their entire lives. They may of course privately question it, but to publicly question doctrine is to risk becoming a heretic. Also, questioning too deeply will tend to erode faith and promote independence. Whether or not that's beneficial to the individual it's not beneficial to the religion because it loses support. A lost supporter can still be useful though, and that's why heretics exist. They help to reify the identity of the in-group by distinguishing them from the in-group. It's a 'you're either with us or against us' mentality. You'll note that there are no heretics in philosophy.
Some aren't though.
Quoting praxis
I care about the personal part in that case only. The private inner questions they make to themselves.
Quoting praxis
It does indeed. But I didn't mention that religion urges people go question themselves. Just that many people try to answer these existential questions via religions.
Sure, but there's a difference between seeking and belonging.
There is indeed.
:razz: I promise not to label you a heretic if you were to try explaining this claim. If you do try, I suspect that it will inevitably end in your saying something to the effect that my religion of scientism blinds me to glorious heavens. I'm paraphrasing of course.
Apparently, I misinterpreted what you were asking. Maybe if I read the previous content it would have been clearer with that context.
I think we need to distinguish religion as a structure of group rules, practices and rituals from religion as a theoretical enterprise, that is, as theology or metaphysics.
My impression is the OP’s sense of religion focuses on ideas, not the group rituals that many on this thread have pointed to. As an idea, we can look at religion as it has been understood in different historical eras, but I think it may be helpful to see how the most forward thinking contemporary supporters of a religious outlook articulate the religious impulse. Liberal theology today takes many forms :the death of god, heretical Christianity, Caputo’s
religion after religion , Mark Taylor’s atheology. They
have dispensed with so many of the accoutrements that people associate with traditional religion ( God as a Being , the trinity, miracles ) as to be almost unrecognizable as ‘religious’. So what makes them so? Religion has its root in religio, which means binding. I think what keeps today’s radical theologies from crossing over into atheism
is that they bind humanity to a notion of the Good that cannot be deconstructed away.
With this in mind , we can’t say that philosophy as an enterprise gives us an alternative to religion.In fact, up until a century ago all philosophy was religious in its metaphysics, and that includes Hume. Not into Marx’s era do we see a thoroughgoing challenge to a religious pint of view , and at that Marx allows a certain faith to slip in through the back door. It was Nietzsche who most radically questioned the stability of the notion of the Good that justifies the religious impulse. Nonetheless, it continues to hang on in the most approaches within philosophy. There are religious variants of phenomenology , postmodernism and existentialism.
I get the sense, Jack, that you don’t want to abandon religion entirely, but are looking for a ‘reasonable’ sort of spirituality.
It's Ok.
Doing some back-reading, I can't answer what you were asking any better than what 180 wrote and you seem to have ignored.
I'm curious why you're so intent on drawing a parallel between philosophy and religion. :chin:
Joshs, I think the etymology which you suggest here is incorrect. Medieval Christian writers posited ligo/ligare ("to bind", "to tie") as the constituent verb to religio, but I deny that this makes sense within the Classical or Preclassical Roman context. I think it a false etymology purposely advanced within the context of the Church and it's medieval claims of propriety over the very person of the individual Christian. Of course, Cicero and other Classical grammarians had lego/legere ("to choose", "to select"; "to collect", "to gather") as the verb, which as I noted above, makes great sense within a pre-Christian context, rendering as a meaning for religio "that which is repeatedly chosen" (referring to religious ritual, such as rendering sacrifice to the gods, or seeking direction from the augur), or "repeated convergence", "repeated coming together (as a community)". Note that the stem of lego often undergoes a morphological change when used in the derivation of other lemmas from -leg- to -lig-, depending on how the morphemes which are affixed to it effect it according to the "Latin sound laws": note that while there is no phonetically based morphological shift in ad- + lego > allego ("I admit/enroll/recruit"), there is indeed in con- + lego > colligo ("I assemble/draw together/concentrate/compress"), and in de- + lego > deligo ("I cull/pick or pluck off"). I myself feel absolutely certain that, religio < re- ("again", "repeatedly") + legor/legi (passive voice of lego/legere, and so "to be chosen/selected for doing"...the stem of course remains the same) + -io (creating the abstract result noun). I specifically do not think that religio has anything to do with "binding".
Of course, I only mention it in satisfaction of my obsessive-compulsion to do so (...aaah, that feels better...). :wink:
Cause imo there is one. In fact not parallel but many crossovers between them. But surely aren't the same.
I agree that religion tries to give answers from divine authority. Unquestionable ones.Philosophy's work is mostly questions. But that doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't also attempt to give some answers in specific existential matters also. "Possible answers" though and not "definite answers" as religion does.
And that's an insignificant difference for you? It indicates that their purposes are of an entirely different nature. If philosophy is the love of wisdom, religion is the love of social cohesion.
Middle English (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n- ) ‘obligation, bond, reverence’, perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind’.
‘Repeated convergence’ can work for me , not just in the sense of a convergence of individuals, but a convergence of thinking, which is a kind of binding. It captures my idea of religion as a faith ina moral constancy, a coming back repeatedly to a principle of belief.
That works semantically, and if it works for you and me, all the better! I am a bit surprised to find that Oxford gives it with ligo/ligare; the OLD is the best Latin-English dictionary available, bar none. Forcellini is better, more comprehensive and exhaustive, but that is all in Latin. My own personal feeling about religio, though, is that it means "that which is selected and done repeatedly (indeed, one could say 'religiously')". Of course, I could always be wrong myself. It is hard to surmise what was in the mind of the original coiner of a lexeme thousands of years after the fact.
So...the Oxford people (in an apparently rare instance) do indeed have this wrong, and I had it partially right, though not right enough to render the true picture. The correct etymology for Latin religio appears to be (this probably occurred within Proto-Italic, but possibly within either Archaic or even Early Latin...note that an asterisk indicates a lost word or lost sense of a word by the time of the Classical period):
re ("again/repeatedly") + *legere ("to care/have regard for") > *religare ("to care/have regard for repeatedly", and so "to observe"); and said *religare ("to observe") + -io (suffix forming abstract nouns from verbal stems) > religio ("observance" either in the specific sense of "the practice of repeatedly or regularly observing a custom or ritual", or in the sense of "reverent concern").
Whew...now I'm tuckered out. Cheers!
When I studied comparative religion, one of the possible derivations, from religare, was to bind or join - as you said.
However the other possible derivation is more straightforward - the Latin 'religio' 'respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness' from here https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion
Apart from the postmodern nonsense, I think those objectives still are present in philosophy. And I should note, even if I'm not an expert on the field, that Eastern philosophy has similar ideas too. Harmony and all that. Of course Eastern philosophy has an even more direct link to religion than it's Western counterpart.
Perhaps just your average teacher of philosophy doesn't dare to say the above. because everything "Western" should be bad as we ought to be "critical", right?
It isn't defense. It was just observation since it was obvious the reason for you asking that kind of thing.
Quoting 180 Proof
I still can't understand why you say that. And why you find it so weird that people through philosophy also try to feed their existential curiosity.
Not that philosophy is a substitute for religion as I agreed earlier but of course they have common field in some issues. And it is just a matter of logic and crystal clear to my eyes.
You can also identify it in the work of many great philosophers who dealt with religion morals and God. It really amazes me that you can't acknowledge such an obvious thing.
Quoting 180 Proof
I would answer it anyway, just wanted to clarify the reasons for such an irrelevant question of the topic.
Since when is age an argument validity measurement?? Interesting.
As I see from your characterization on myself (naive, ignorant etc) I was right for being suspicious.
I m 34.And philosophical questions bother me since I remember myself. In a compulsive way. Since teenager I read philosophical and psychological books since they interest me the most.
If your question though is about academic philosophical education. Then none. I studied economic university but I m just a receptionist.
Of course it isn't. And that's why I never mentioned that philosophy and religion serve exact the same purpose.Nor that philosophy can replace religion. I am careful with my wording.
:brow:
I disagree. Western religion has its origins in old Greece, a country more philosophical than others. Xenophanes replaced the concrete poly by an abstract mono. Unimaginable, independent of us, objective, eternal, and the same for all. Reflecting itself both in modern science (which posits, as does Xenophanes, an eternal single objective that cannot be known "an Sich", but only, in combination with the most abstract formal system of all, math, approximated, which is basically a Platonic notion, the difference being that Plato talks about mathematical objects, existing in an extramundane, metaphysical, heavenly world) and Western religion, delegating God to the same extramundane world. How many pictures exist of their image? Quasi non. And it's always a man with a beard. It's even blasphemous to picture them (in basically the same religion, Islam, the Sharia forbids explicitly to paint pictures of him, and I think the Bible says about the same). The views of Xenophanes and others in old Greece, still make their bells heard loudly nowadays. In the whole of the world. Be is science or religion. The scientific minarets are high as they have never been before.
:up:
...and this latter set of meanings can only proceed from said Archaic *lego ("to care", "to have regard (for)"), and cannot rationally proceed from ligo ("to bind"), which in any case would not render the correct sense of "binding". Latin ligo meant "to bind" in the literal, physical sense...as with a rope or cord. The Latin word for a figurative "binding" was obligo, from whence obligatio and our English obligation. Surely, the reason that Medieval Christian writers gave the etymology with ligo was to reinforce the notion of the Christian's obligation to "Mother Church". The Church has always been as good at propaganda and (maybe not so much today, but certainly in the "good old days") at employing subtle, pretextual threats of violence as has any modern nation-state.
I don't think being critical means black and white thinking. Nuances and subtleties are what make up the heart of philosophy.
The origin of western religion was connected once to the notion of abstract formal systems, which constituted the major part of ancient philosophy. Logic, math, moral systems, etc. Religion was still connected to them. Nowadays, the connection has gone, but the ontological content lingers on. A single God existing in a realm outside of spacetime, not-knowable to mankind. Though glimpses can be perceived sometimes, and they can interact with the world occasionally, mainly to punish. The only things we can know about them is their moral system. And the fact that they created the universe and life in it (how else could it be). But the nature of themselves is unknowable, so it's thought. The same attitude as held in science, which has its origins ancient Greece too, but is as disconnected from it as religion is nowadays.
:up:
I think you make an unwarranted leap. The Greek conception of deity was quite mundane. The gods of the pantheon were in no way "omni-" anything. The conception of the incorporeal "omni" God is a Christian/Islamic concept with it's roots in the Levant. Because Xenophanes and Plato concieved of idealized, metaphysical objects does not mean that this is how the Greeks in general concieved of deity. I also, however, think that Jack is wrong to think that philosophy and religion have "combined origins". I think the motives for each are entirely different, and distinct.
So true.
That's true. But, as you can read, Xenophanes didn't like them and turned into an abstract 1. Existing independently from as and being the only true one. Which is no problem, but this attitude shows contempt f for other realities and conceptions of truth. Existing in the same kind of extramundane world as Plato suggested for his math. Being able to know approximations only. But not the God by itself (who in the western conception is reduced to a merely formal moral system). An attitude present in modern science.
By the time philosophy came onstage, it was too late - religion had already sprouted roots so deep and extensive that any attempts to correct the error in our thinking was a lost cause.
That was just the beginning of our tragic tale though. In time philosophy birthed natural philosophy (science) and it delivered the goods - explanation after explanation, theory after theory, hypotheses after hypotheses, science unravelled the mysteries of the universe. One particular component of this knowledge explosion was technology which despite making life so much easier had hidden costs which we're just beginning to realize.
To make the long story short religion, as an explanation was too less and science as one was too much!
I was with you, Fool, up to this sentence. I think religion does not explain anything, only pacifies existential anxieties with self-serving, tribe-centric, ritualized myths and cautionary fairytales, whereas science does not explain enough of "the big picture" for most people (especially nonscientists) producing only approximate, defeasible, probabilistic models of fragments of "the big picture". Philosophy explores ways of making sense of the incompletable(?) set of puzzle-like fragments in the most general scope; religion today only mystifies and stupifies what its theologians and preachers do not understand or refuse to accept. Thus:
:fire:
As for the ramifications of modern technology, they result from mostly laissez-faire applications of science in the service of capitalist exploitation of human labor and natural resources (re: externalization of costs – material, social & psychological). Religion tends to aid and abet acquiescent conformity to debt-peonage & hedonic treadmilling, etc.
:grin:Quoting 180 Proof
I catch your drift but frankly, from the perspective of a climate scientist or an ecologist we know too much, we're too smart for our own good is the expression apt for the occasion. I don't deny that this could be interpreted in the opposite sense - our ignorance of ecology, biology, and other matters proving to be a major setback - but, we're oh! so proud of our science, so mesmerized by it that I fear I would be taken as a madman if I even hinted at such a possibility. :grin:
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes, religion, despite its claims that it provides some kind of an overall framework to structure our lives with is guilty of ignotum per ignotius: what we don't understand is being "explained" by something that is even more inexplicable. :up:
Quoting 180 Proof
:up: I have a lot to learn is all I can say 180 Proof. Feeling the full impact of the Dunning-Kruger effect here.
I think that it behooves us to avoid thinking of religion in terms of belief...of belief systems. Even though it is eminently true that:
Quoting 180 Proof
...meaning that while (at least our monotheistic "western") religions seek to instill certain beliefs and belief systems ("creeds"), they are not at all concerned with "correct belief", belief that is reflective of objective truth. This, however, is only characteristic of "religions", meaning of "religion" in particular senses; it is not in my view the defining characteristic of "religion" in the general sense. The defining characteristic of "religion" in general, I take to be ritual observance. This thing, this ritual observance, is noted alongside "belief"/"credo" in all of our aforementioned monotheistic religions, wherein it serves an "edifying" role by both reinforcing credal belief and strengthening the "community of belief". Another term for such "credal belief" is, in fact, "faith", and another term for "community of belief"/"faith community"are "church" and "ummah". In this is the very motive of our particular contemporary "religions": the building of a "community of faith" (that is, of "a community based upon incorrect belief unsupported by evidence"). If you strip the ritual practice out of contemporary religion, and leave only the credal belief, then I think what results is "cultism". Though it has come to play such a supportive role within "religion" as a particular term, I believe ritual observance to be the defining characteristic of "religion" in general, and the strengthening of community which results therefrom, particularly without any strengthening of particular belief, I believe to be the motive behind religion in general (without the context of the particular "religions" that have developed and are familiar to us)
.
I myself am a exemplar of what I mean. Though now an atheist (but not an antitheist!), I indulge myself by attending Catholic mass with what I would characterize as"infrequent regularity". The Mass, of course, is a highly ritualistic undertaking, and quite a beautiful one. Even though this ritual has lost much of it's meaning for me as my personal beliefs have changed, I like to attend to indulge my inner need for familiar ritual. The observance of familiar ritual seems to have an upholding, almost curative effect totally independent of belief. In short, since I no longer believe in the concept of the human "soul" or "spirit", I typically refer to myself, in an inversion of the (moronic, in my view) popular apophthegm, as being "religious but not spiritual". My point in so doing is to highlight that "religion" has everything to do with ritual observance, and very little, if anything, to do with belief. For quite a long time, for years, after leaving the Army, I did my own formulation of "P.T." every morning. This was in fact a "religious exercise" for me, which has as much psychological benefit for me as physical. We do well to acknowledge the beneficial effects of ritual in human life, and to recognize that this is what is properly referred to by the term "religion".
Alternatively, "philosophy" has a great deal to do with beliefs, especially as they are systematized into belief systems. Correct understanding leading to correct belief seems to myself to be the very purpose of and motive behind philosophy. In this, the motivum behind philosophy differs from that of both "religions" in the particular sense familiar to us (the building of a "community of faith" (that is, of "a community based upon incorrect belief unsupported by evidence"), and "religion" in the general sense ("ritual observance determined for the definition and edification of community apart from considerations of 'faith' "). I think that what the OP is questioning within this thread, is whether the motive of philosophy would allow it to replace or be incorporated into either our particular "religions", replacing the role currently played by "faith" in the absurd, or into "religion" in general, given the differing motives underlying them.
Your reply is interesting and I come from a Catholic background, and I do still go to church with a friend at times. However, I feel that going to church is extremely stressful, especially the rituals. I actually wrote this thread on Saturday after going to church. I approach the questions about God with mixed thoughts.
But I do agree that religion is often more than ideas and is based on the community elements and the rituals. One interesting contrast to Catholicism is the movement of the Quakers, which is about sitting in silence and speaking when inspired to do so. I went to a meeting once and I do hope to go to another one at some point.
We would also do well to acknowledge a foolish consistency. Curiously, you seem to point out that we’re surrounded in daily rituals and that any one of them could be elevated to divine status. That sounds like an expression of spirituality to me, or ‘spiritual but not necessarily religious’. Also curious that you put so much weight on ritual, like saying that a cake has everything to do with eggs and the rest of the ingredients aren’t of much importance.
I’m not at all religious, btw, but still feel moved in the midst of religious rituals.
Ah, I enjoy the ritual...it is the very reason I attend. I like it for it's particular beauty, and for it's familiarity. Of course, I don't recite the creed or many of the recited prayers, rather keeping mum with my eyes downcast (I sit at the back), and I don't take communion out of respect for the obvious position of the Church regarding that.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I as well.
I would not use the term "divine status", and even if I believed in the concept of divinity, I cannot understand how an "elevation to divine status" might apply to a ritual. To me, ritual has a profound emotional, which is to say "psychological" benefit, but not believing in any incorporeal aspect of the human, I categorically deny any "spiritual" benefit therefrom.
Quoting praxis
Well, in my own estimation, ritual and community are indeed the only truly beneficial aspects of our modern theistic religions, the rest amounting, to echo Dawkins, simply to the reinforcement of delusion. Indeed, I think that certain elements of what are viewed as "pagan" belief systems contain more truth in this regard. There may be a benefit to the moral teachings of our religions, but since the morals taught are predicated upon existential falsehood, I feel that morality is better taught within another context, such as that provided by philosophy. In order to exemplify the psychological benefits of ritual, I would indicate the phenomenon of the "city hall", "courthouse", or "justice of the peace" wedding. Not that I am particularly enamored of American wedding traditions (if I never dance the 'hokey-pokey' again, it will be too soon!), but a buddy of mine got married at City Hall, and afterwards, all I could think was, "doddamn, that sucked..." Ritual, meaningful ritual, adds a huge amount of value to the milestones of human life.
I was just reading your reply and it would probably be too simplistic to say that philosophy provides a replacement for religious ideas. I was thinking about the ideas, but I am aware that religion provides a whole social structure.
I am aware that many thinkers combine philosophy and religion. However, in the secular age, philosophy may be more of a means by which people think about the big questions of human existence. I began within religious thinking and philosophy, and try to read and think as widely as possible. Sometimes, I probably take it all a bit too seriously but, generally, I wish to approach life and the philosophy underlying the religious quest in an open, but critical way. I find the area of religion fascinating.
Even though my belief didn't weaken as much as yours, I do share your scepticism toward those who proclaim the truth blindly and fiercely, it makes them sound non authoritative and sometimes funny.
I'm not philosopher, my "occupation" is apologetics, and I'm interested to hear how would you explain unfolding events of of Jesus' life?
My question:
Why would someone after having a chance to evade painful death penalty insist on his teachings?
Jesus had the chance to evade mortal accusations multiple times yet it didn't care, instead he even predicted his own fate.
Interestingly, even after being on the cross he didn't ask for mercy but still persist.
Anyone in such situation would do anything to avoid painful death, why was Jesus different?
What's your opinion? or how would you explain Jesus?
The origins of Western religion is interesting and I am sure that Greece was central, but it is probably extremely complex. That is because there was so many cultural crossovers, including the ideas of the Egyptians. Also, there are many divisions, including the mainstream and esoteric, as well as the political factors. It is likely that these came into play in the underlying relationships between philosophy and religion. It is such a wide area because both areas have played such an important role in providing a basis for the exploration of metaphysics and what it means to be human, even though many people have moved outside of religious traditions, and science offers such an important source for understanding.
Etymology: dyeu- Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to shine."
Make washing the dishes shine, babe! :halo:
You raise many questions, and Socrates as well as Jesus accepted the pain of death, as did some Christian martyrs.
Part of the problem in understanding Jesus is that there is so little to go on apart from the scriptures and it is likely that these were written such a long time after his death. It is accepted in theology that the authors of the Gospel were not those as they were named. So much of Christianity was based on the ideas of Paul, rather than Jesus. There is also the big question about what was included or excluded from the Bible, which is so bound up with the history of the early church. Figures like Origen were central and the controversies surrounding Gnosticism. The discovery of the Gnostic gospels in Nag Hammadi lead to accounts which are very different from traditional ideas about the life and teachings of Jesus. So, the quest to understand the historical figure of Jesus as a person is complicated.
Charles Taylor's book sounds interesting and I will try to find out more, so thanks for the recommendation.
I was curious about your use of the phrase 'the secular age'. Subtraction theory or something else?
I didn't have a particular theoretical basis for choice of the word 'secular age'. I used it because, as I understand, statistics show that people have moved away from religious perspectives, although I would not be able to quote official statistics, and I am sure that it varies so much in different parts of the world, and I wonder how accurate the statistics are and whether it is true that the 'secular age' is a fair reflection of the picture of human beliefs in the twentieth first century.
The irony is that Dawkins’scientistic approach to empiricism makes his thinking religious in a broad
sense. If a belief system is ‘delusional’ , an existential ‘falsehood’, that implies a correct truth, and the scientistic way of thinking puts scientific method in the privileged role among all the cultural
disciplines of arbiter of truth as ‘correctness’. Belief systems, including scientific theories , arent true or
false in realism to some fixed standard, they’re useful in relaton to our aims.
Not at all. People believe in countless institutional truths and it's not delusion but practical agreement. Money, for instance, is one the most widely accepted fictions there is.
Philosophy replaces religion inasmuch as you decide it does. If there is a philosophy which has a spiritual or mystical aspect which is appealing, then you could use than instead of religion.
What are you contrasting delusion and fiction with? Tell me what gives the opposite of those notions its justification.
One key issue in Christianity is that it was adopted by an existing Empire, finally accepted by the ruling class. I think this is the reason why just so much of philosophy of Antiquity is embraced in Christianity. Christianity just swam into existing institutions and society without breaking it. After all, the last existing organizational remnant of the (West) Roman Empire lives on with the Papacy and the Catholic Church. (They still use sometimes Latin, don't they?)
Would have been a bit different if Jesus has had a similar career as Prophet Mohammad: raising an army an conquering his own Christian turf.
Quoting Joshs
I think the down-to-Earth problem is that a person like Dawkins has gotten quite enough of hate mail from Christian fundamentalists that he has become bitter and simply has no respect for religious people, which make his views about them condescending. When it comes to religion, Dawkins is ready for the fight, ready to defend his precious science from creationists. I assume if the topic would be some new breakthroughs in science or interesting theories, he would be far open to discussion. And of course, Dawkins can pick from a multitude of lunatic holy-rollers. It tells something about the public discourse in the Anglosphere. I think Dawkins sees religion as a threat or at least a nuisance to science, and of course his personal experience likely has had an effect on him.
Here in my little country a similar debate between science and religion was started with a professor of astronomy (and a populizer of science) and a local bishop. But it simply didn't catch on in the same way. The professor, an atheist, didn't have to be defensive at all or explain his views just why he is an atheist (Finns aren't very religious, thanks to Lutheranism being a state religion). The bishop had no problems with modern science and was very informed as an academic. Basically neither of them irritated the other side and in the end you had a friendly and respectful exchange of views...which is boring for others than those deeply interested in the subject (and philosophy).
All I'm saying is that there are fictions (institutional truths) that are based on social agreement (rational) rather than social delusion (irrational).
I don't know how the scientific method could be construed as having a privileged role among all cultural disciplines. I don't know how scientific theories could be construed as belief systems.
Thinking may be an infinite maze – answers being questions' way of generating more questions – but believing is a cul de sac (and often a deadfall). That we, as a species, naively habitualize believing before we acquire habits of thinking, and much longer still before we (if ever ) unlearn many bad habits (i.e. beliefs) which block thinking well, is tragic: it's the over-long reliance on crutches (i.e. magical beliefs, fact-free biases, heuristic blinders), IME, that has always crippled (even many of the best) human minds.
What kind of situation would be an example of irrationality and social delusion and what about it does not make use of social agreement?
Quoting praxis
If scientific theories are not belief systems then what are they? Are they attempts to represent the way the real world is? if so, are there any other cultural disciplines you know of that can approximate the way the world is with the precision and potential for making progress toward truth that science can?
Experimental algorithms (i.e. toolkits).
Tools get their meaning from how they are used , and that requires that they belong to a larger framework of relevance, otherwise known as a belief system.
Jonestown comes to mind.
Quoting Joshs
I didn't express my thoughts well, there was certainly social agreement in Jonestown.
Haha...very well, I surrender.
It may be correct or incorrect. I won’t know until I get a clear sense of what the distinction is for you between ‘theory’ and ‘belief system’. An algorithm is just syntax. mathematics is syntax. Theory is semantics. That’s why Kuhn used theory and paradigm interchangeably.
It is of course more complex than we can ever describe in a scientifically adequate way. One can only offer an abstract, formal approximation of what happened in the development of western religion from what happened in the days of old Greece. But one will always be unfaithful to the actual historical happenings, which are hard to verify these days. Who knows exactly what happened in the ancient world, in intercultural development, or in exchanging ideas in their chaotic world of existence. One hasn't even the knowledge of how one elementary particle that was floating around around the gods of the Olympos. I think the general outline is pretty simple though. The Olympic gods were replaced by the unit-base vector God of Xenophsnes and equally minded. It was assigned objective existence in an extramundane world. The God had superhuman features. It was all-powerfull, all-knowing, omnipresent, and at the same time invisible and never knowable himself. This monster God was singular nevertheless. Omnipresent he might be (personally, I think this omnipipresence was the desire for the ones who invented him), he will remain invisible to all of us. There was something about the Greek gods that Xenophanes didn't like. I don't know what, but it's a fact they disappeared. Maybe it was because of that heavenly domain of Plato, which showed exactly the same features as the divine world of his fellow country man (Xenophanes). The combination of the two forms a powerful combination of the desire to know, which again can never be fully reached, according to both Greek gentlemen.The ways by which this image got a hold on the western scientifically driven world is complex. Via the dark ages it got a hold again in the Enlightenment, freeing people from the tyranny excessive by the church. It was a welcome aid in freeing people from being burned at stakes. The same attitude that made religion kill (this was the attitude of Xenophanes) was taken over by the new orthodoxy (freeing and enlightening as it might have been) of an endlessly explorarable physical world, without gaining ever exact knowledge of it (Popper!), took over though. The world was "discovered", the idea exported, and other cultures exterminated or put in reservetories. The same attitude again. "There is only one true reality and it applies to all!". Now how fundamental can you get? Every culture says it's view has its fundamental in reality. Of course. How else can it be. Proclaiming it to be the standard for everyone is a different matter and reduces humanity.
Yes, so true, and this is why I would never slip into the "antitheist" category of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, and others. I do not take the position that anything which has been demonstrated by science disproves the existence of deity in the least. Even so, from a rational, logically positivist perspective, the assertion that "there exists an omni-present/scient/potent God which has caused all things to be, and which may or may not assume a role in human affairs" must not be afforded any semblance of belief in the absence of evidence, either perceptible or verifiably historical, showing this to be true. To do so would seem to expose the individual to various types of danger, primarily psychological, but also financial and perhaps resultantly physical.
That's cause it triggers our a priori transcedental need. And the feeling coming from that is indeed overwhelming. Happens to me also.
Exactly.
What you miss to understand is that as to "endure" all these a priori questions we have and "embody" them, as you say, we humans NEED a personal cosmotheory!
Surely not the right one, surely not with all answers included, surely limited, surely "naive". BUT our own one!
Our personal one that will help us endure and embody all these questions we have inside us and follow us till we die!To "use" it as to pacify ourselves at the moments when this Existential Void becomes like a volcano. And we all face that moments in our lives.
We can't escape existence! Exactly as you wrote but we have to learn to handle it!
This personal cosmotheory is in every single one of us. And it's different, unique. Even among religious persons themselves! And much more in atheists!
So people use philosophy and religion to draw that theory! And that's exactly the common ground of both.
Philosophy though has the advantage of evolving following science and that is what makes it better way for getting us closer to the truth.
:lol: No, lots of things move me, for different reasons and in different ways. You just moved me to laugh internally. If people actually have an "a priori transcendental need" they are generally astonishlingly piss-poor at satisfying it, and that truly is a shame.
Pfff
:brow:
Quoting Joshs
I just made that up. Don’t tell 180 proof. But I’m
reading through Structure of Scientific Revolutions and found this:
‘a paradigm is used to describe a set of concepts within a scientific discipline at any one time.’
“To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory
must seem better than its competitors…”
“ Acquisition of a paradigm and of the more esoteric type of research it permits is a sign of maturity in the development of any given scientific field.”
Also found this secondary source.
Paradigms and theories go hand in hand to explain concepts in science and assist academics in their work to define different phenomenon. The theory explains the phenomenon based on certain criteria while the paradigm provides the background or the frame that allows a theory to be tested and measured. A paradigm can have a number of theories within its framework and the paradigm acts as a reference point for the theory
So apparently a paradigm is kind of a metatheory.
Please stop doing that. :grin:
He’s my bud
:up:
When things are going great, maybe we don't need a grand narrative. But yeah it's nice to have one when the mud gets deep and the wind gets cold. I speculate tho that the 'existential void' you mention is itself a pacifier. An indifferent nature that might destroy you 'accidentally' and at least plays by rules is preferable to a deity who has constructed your life as a confusing torture chamber for His (or Her or Its of Their) amusement. The void is even beautiful in its way, a vast open space. The West is the breast. The wets is the beast. Who raw. I'm in the dark here kid.
Scary but also beautiful indeed.
The question is whether the idea of the 'void ' leads to meaningless or potential sources of finding meaning in life. What is the void, is it an absence of belief, or something else?
For me it is the absence of answers to our existential questions. Most probably death is the ultimate root of it.The inevitable end.
So some try to fill that void with belief (religion), others just try to learn how not to be intimated looking down the abyssus (i find philosophy as a great help for that mission).
What's labeled religion, philosophy, and science, all have common features. They're usually separated, sometimes strictly, but they share very basic human questions.
From a historical point of view, these questions have predated any "religions" we think of today, ancient/modern philosophy and certainly modern science.
Human beings have been around for roughly 200 thousand years. Around this time they developed the capacity for thought and for language. This is what has traditionally been said to separate them from other primates, and from animals in general -- "reason" and "speech" (ratio, logos).
Thinking, language, speech, words -- all this predates writing, and so if we take history to mean written history, it is all "prehistoric."
I think this is all obvious, but sets the stage for a possible answer to your questions.
Taking the 200,000 number as an exact date for behaviorally modern humans' emergence (for the sake of simplicity), and then reminding ourselves that writing wasn't invented until roughly 5,000 years ago (3,200 BC), it leads to a question: what was happening during those 195 thousand years of our existence? What were we thinking?
It's all surmise. But we know these people buried their dead, created cave art, and had complex tools. I would assume they told stories, and shared myths and legends -- perhaps especially about ancestors. They likely all had "gods," but in the sense of animism. They had rites and rituals, danced, chanted, and sang. They had ideas about themselves and about their worlds. They asked questions and gave themselves the best answers they could conjure up -- about the plants and animals, the soil, the stars, the weather, sickness and birth and death.
This all predates anything we usually mean by "religion" or "philosophy." Yet for the majority of our time on earth, as a species, these were the phenomena that occupied our cognitive faculties -- when we weren't wandering, hunting and gathering (which is to say, pretty rarely).
Jump forward to the ancient world of Sumer, and read the Epic of Gilgamesh. Read some of the writings out of Egypt. All deal with death, life, birth. These are human concerns and human questions.
By the time we get to Greece, and the "love of wisdom," a new tradition is laid out. Same humans, similar questions, just formulated in a new way and in a new culture. From there we have the origin and foundations of Western thought.
That's the context I like to think of when trying to answer these questions. To summarize:
(1) We're human beings, and we sometimes think.
(2) Sometimes this thinking is concerned with universal questions.
(3) These questions are called philosophical.
(4) So philosophy is a kind of thinking -- a kind that asks universal questions.
What are these universal questions? What does philosophy ask? The same as many religions'.
In my view, one core question is "Why does anything exists at all?" (or, "What is existence/being?"), and both what we call "philosophy" and what we call "religion" asks (and answers) it, tacitly or explicitly. It's unavoidable.
When asked explicitly, many answers have been given and are well-known. In Plato, being was the Forms, ultimately the "Form of the Good" -- the permanent and eternal as opposed to mere seeming and becoming. In the Christian tradition, being is God. Modern science also has an answer: nature (translated from the Latin natura, from the Greek phusis -- which is also where we get "physics", considered the fundamental science).
But this is all a boring and pointless talk about history, etymology, abstraction, and soaring speculation, which should be as relevant to us and our personal, everyday concerns as a mathematical theorem is -- that is, if it weren't for the following fact: along with answers to the question "What is existence/what is being?" there comes an answer to the question "What is a human being?"
"What is a human being?" What can be more relevant to us? It's often the basis for what's considered a "good" life (i.e., the question "What should I do with my life?"), and so ethics and morality; for proposals about how to organize society -- and so the basis for politics; and for claims about human nature -- and so the basis for humanity's goals and about the future of the species ("Where are we going?").
Answers to these questions have come from both philosophy and religion. Human beings are zoon echon logon, creatures of God, the res cogitans, homo sapien sapien, etc. We're the rational animal, the primate with language, souls with God-given reason, a mind/body, and so on.
How you characterize human beings has considerable impacts on what they do, individually and collectively. These characterizations are based on answers to basic human questions, whether philosophical or religious.
So yes, from a certain point of view they're operating in the same dimension -- and so neither can truly "replace" the other.
Yes, I probably wanted answers to the existential questions and was extremely disappointed when they could not be found. Instead, there may be those who have ideas which are more important than others, as the 'experts' of philosophy, although this is open to questions and interpretations. I guess that the 'void' which I struggle with is that of feeling some kind of 'let down' by a lack in answers and the 'cruelty' of life, as involving some kind of existential despair, even though I am aware that human beings create their own meanings in life.
Your answer offers a good summary of the way in which religious and philosophical approaches have unifying but slightly different angles 'as operating in the same dimension'. They both look at the issues of what is a human being and human nature, morality and aspects that the human condition. It is likely that for some individuals there is an overlap, although it is possible to formulate philosophy without religion coming into the picture at all.
The idea which you refer to of there being one true reality is an approach which many, especially thinkers of religious viewpoints adhere to. I find such an approach extremely restrictive because there are so many different ideas of 'reality' and this can lead to a plurality in understanding. For any philosophical or religious perspective to be seen as the one above all others is questionable, although it is likely that many people seek to find the most accurate one, although many may keep to the one which they have been brought up with even in a multicultural society.
And don't forget the admirers of science. Science claims to possess the knowledge of that same kind of reality, though it tries to give an image of unity and uniqueness. That idea is a direct descendent out of ancient Greek, though I have the impression that everybody likes his or her reality to be objective. It would be inhuman and detached from reality if you don't. Communication would even be impossible. A psychotic state of mind would surface. The other side of the psychotic spectrum, call it psychopathic or fundamental, is to claim your reality has to hold for everyone (as is currently the case in the world, where science rules suppreme just as fundamentally as the Taliban in Afghanistan, where science, by the way, still has a firm grip too).
Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza: Reason, Religion, and Autonomy[/url] Carlos Fraenkel
Since religions still exist, does that mean esoteric portion is still unknown to outside world today?
Yes, that book sounds worth reading. You are good at finding them online, while I seem to still find most of the ones I read as paper books on shelves.
There is plenty of literature on esoteric aspects of religion and philosophy, ranging from Gnosticism, the Rosucrucians, theosophy and the ideas of Rudolf Steiner.
Exactly.
If exoteric is able to attract so many, then esoteric should reverse it with at least equal power.
Quoting Tzeentch
Figuratively, multiple keys can fit into a keyhole, but only one is able to actually unlock it.
I see Gnosticism and Rosicrucianism as keys that fit into a keyhole but do not unlock.
I think there is more to esoteric part than just that. (I'm not alluding to God)
I like your image of multiple keys, but not being able to find one that fits, in thinking about the esoteric. I can see that Gnosticism and Rosucrianism may be seen like the keys which don't fit. Of course, the esoteric does involve the 'secret' traditions, so it is likely that it involves a lot which is not known by many, although it is likely that many do not wish to know that side of the religious picture. I do manage to read a fair amount, because I live in London, where there is a large esoteric bookshop, but I am sure that there is a lot that remains 'hidden' and unknown, and some aspects may be hard to gain access to.
Sounds reasonable except for the fact that no one understands religious philosophy. No one can answer questions at the "heart" of any religion. That is a necessary condition because religion requires faith, and ultimate authority to have faith in. You cannot have an exoteric religion because it would not require faith and religious authority.
Quoting Tzeentch
So why is philosophy not vulnerable, or less vulnerable, to abuse and religion is vulnerable? Esoteric knowledge requires faith in authority, and because they are final answers it requires ultimate authority. Ultimate authority = power.
This understanding of the difference between religion and philosophy certainly runs counter to the use of the word religion in many philosophy and theology departments today, where religion is treated in a way not that far removed from the way that Tzeentch has articulated it.
Many authors, from Caputo to Sheehan and Critchley, look at religion in terms of the philosophical ideas they see at its heart , which has no necessary ties to structures of authority. These ideas are implicit in the religion , and made explicit in philosophical explication.
I’m not sure that you realize what you’re saying. Anyone can review core religious philosophical ideas. No problem.
Quoting Joshs
No one can fully explicate these ideas. Again, this is a necessary condition.
You said this is a necessary condition because religion requires faith and authority. I’m not clear on the difference between religious faith and the metaphysical faith at the core of philosophical thinking. To believe in something you have to have a something to believe in, a way of thinking about the world. One can choose one particular faith over another in the same way one can choose one philosophy over another; on the basis of how well it makes sense of the most important aspects of life. People move from one religious structure to another all the time on this basis. I don’t see this supposed difference between philosophy and religion as any more coherent than that between philosophy and science or between science and the arts.
Each new era in philosophical history brings with it a new approach to religion that is throughly intertwined with the new philosophical worldview. This intertwining is only possible because philosophy and religion are just different styles of articulating a belief and value system.
Countless books have been written on the subject. I don't know why you would say this.
Quoting praxis
Perhaps not, but no one can answer the questions at the heart of philosophy either.
Quoting praxis
It's the exoteric part that requires faith, however the esoteric part focuses, like any philosophy, on understanding.
Faith replaces understanding for the exoteric, because understanding simply isn't a reasonable goal for most people. Most people aren't philosophers, and most can't understand complicated philosphical concepts or simply lack the interest to put in the effort required to understand them.
Quoting praxis
Philosophy and religion are very different in nature. A dependency on authority and faith applies in a general sense to religion. It does not apply to philosophy. Philosophy is about truth and understanding, and concepts like faith and authority should be dirty words in philosophical circles!
Quoting praxis
This is not necessarily true. If the esoteric teachings are of a philosophical nature, as I said, authority and faith would not be a part of them. Esoteric means nothing other than "hidden" (from the common eye). There is no element of faith or authority, or even religion in there.
Aside from books being written on philosophy and religion, there was the whole tradition of theology, and it was a vast body of thought. I tried reading some theology at one point. A central area of discussion appeared to be about whether the idea of God and the problem of evil could be reconciled. However, I could not really gain a proper grasp of theology though, because it seemed that it begins from the standpoint of acceptance of certain religious premises, as opposed to philosophy, which approaches perceived 'problems' from a wider angle and reference point.
I think that's essential to esoteric knowledge.
Various topics about God speak of God as God only, however essential to esotericism is not to remove the evil one.
For example, can we analyze a murder case by removing the killer and only talk about victim (or vice versa)?
In the context of your original question, it might be worth making a distinction between religion and spiritual teachings or wisdom tradition.
Religion, I think, is essentially the practice of a certain spiritual teaching or wisdom tradition by a large group of individuals. By this distinction, if you were to ask me whether religion and philosophy are complementary, I am not so sure. However, if you were to ask me whether spiritual teachings or wisdom traditions are complementary with philosophy then there'd be no doubt in my mind that they are!
It is true that there is religious thinking and, on the other hand, the ideas within wisdom and spiritual thinking. It is possible to have spiritual ideas without any religious ones. The term 'spiritual' conjures up notions of religious or metaphysical entities, but in its most fundamental root, spiritual can be seen as relating to the inner life of a human being. I think that it is interesting that Eastern religions perspectives seem able to explore the inner life with less emphasis on 'God', especially in Buddhism.
The former is held to be true, simply.
Quoting Joshs
To a large degree, science is responsible for the way we think about the world, literally the world, that it's spherical and revolves around the sun, for instance. You may say that some of us require faith to believe what scientists claim about the world, but unlike religious authorities, scientists can answer questions about their claims and provide evidence. Also, there's no hierarchy of authority, no 'great chain of being', and in fact depends on peer review and independent validation.
Quoting Joshs
When not merely inculcated into religion and people seeking it out, what are people looking for? In a word, I think they're looking for meaning, and meaning can be found in religion. Does philosophy offer meaning? Philosophy has been accused of causing nihilism, by undermining existing values and beliefs and failing to put anything useable in their place. Among the less reflective, this has been one of the most objectionable aspects of philosophy as a whole.
Quoting Joshs
Religion is based in faith, philosophy and science in reason, and the arts in aesthetics.
Quoting Joshs
Again, I'm not sure if you realize what you're saying. I can see a religion as a style articulating a belief and value system. No problem. I can also see philosophy as a style articulating a belief and value system. No problem.
Quoting Tzeentch
We agree! :party:
Quoting Tzeentch
Both a theist and an atheist can philosophize about the existence of God til the cows come home and in the end, their positions are unlikely to change. One difference is that the theist relies on authority and has faith in that authority. Has any theist alive today come up with the idea of God, and a whole belief system that surrounds it, themselves?
Quoting Tzeentch
I'm not following. I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power. If everyone could talk to God, preachers and popes would be out of a job.
That distinction is a quaint old notion with a long pedigree in Western thinking, but it has been discarded by a range of thinking that recognizes the grounding of philosophical and scientific reason in aesthetics.
Quoting praxis
I’m saying the same thing that Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Nietzsche , Kuhn, Rorty and Merleau-Ponty said years ago.
Here’s one attempt to apply Kuhn to religious conversion.
“Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm-shift can be used as a methodological tool in the study of religious conversion. The same way that the scientist is limited to work within a scientific paradigm, the believer can be said to exercise religion within a theological paradign. And as anomaly can lead to science crises and a change of worldrew, anomaly within the horizon of the believer can lead to existential crisis and religious reorientation.”(TOMAS SUNDNES DRoNEN)
It's just a way of distinguishing them. There are all sorts of ways to distinguish them from each other, I'm sure, quaint as some of them may be.
I'm curious though, since you bring it up, in what sense is scientific reason based in aesthetics?
Quoting Joshs
Again, I have no problem with this. Why would I?
What are the combined origins? What are the origins and how are they combined? Common origins maybe?
“According to Kühn, aesthetic factors play no decisive role in theory-choice within normal science. He says that, in the puzzle-solving of which normal science consists, the usual stimulus for scientists' coming to embrace a new theory is its being demonstrated empirically superior to its competitors. Kühn has formulated five criteria, including those of predictive accuracy and degree of simplicity, on which one theory may be judged empirically superior to another (Kühn, 1977, pp. 321-323).
By contrast, a new paradigm's empirical properties will typically not enable it to poach adherents from a better-established paradigm, Kühn believes. After all, he says, a mature paradigm will have developed problem-solving resources that new paradigms are unable to match. Therefore, scientists in a revolutionary crisis will typically find their estimates of the competing para- digms' empirical properties weighing in favor of their current paradigm, and inhibiting paradigm-switch(Kühn, 1962, pp. 156-157).
Kühn identifies the factors that tend to induce paradigm-switch in arguments of a different sort: "These are the arguments, rarely made entirely explicit, that appeal to the individual's sense of the appropriate or the aesthetic - the new theory is said to be 'neater', 'more suitable,' or 'simpler' than the old" (ibid., p. 155). Kühn suggests that, without the contribution of such arguments, it might be impossible for a world-view to develop into a paradigm dominant in itscommunity:
The importance of aesthetic considerations can sometimes be decisive. Though they often attract only a few scientists to a new theory, it is upon those few that its ultimate triumph may depend. If they had not quickly taken it up for highly individual reasons, the new candidate for paradigm might never have been sufficiently developed to attract the allegiance of the scientific community as a whole. (Ibid., p. 156)
As a suitable test-case, Kühn picks the transition from Ptolemy's to Copernicus's theory in mathematical astronomy, which he maintains consti- tuted a revolution (Kühn, 1957, p. 134; 1962, pp. 149-150). He reconstructs the grounds on which mid-sixteenth-centurymathematical astronomers decided between these theories. Kühn claims that the Copernican theory could not have won adherents from Ptolemy's theory on the grounds of either predictive accuracy or degree of simplicity: "Judged on purely practical grounds, Copernicus' new planetary system was a failure; it was neither more accurate nor significantly simpler than its Ptolemaic predecessors" (Kühn, 1957, p. 171). Rather, Kühn believes that Copernican theory gained adherents on the strength of its aesthetic properties. According to Kühn, the arguments advanced in De revolutionibus show that Copernicus himself was aware that he could attract Ptolemaic astronomers to his theory most effectively by stressing its aesthetic virtues.
Kühn concludes that Copernicus's theory established itself in virtue primarily of its aesthetic properties and despite being able to demonstrate no empirical superiority over Ptolemy's theory. Therefore, he judges that, qua paradigm- switch, the transition from Ptolemaic to Copernican mathematical astronomy accords with his view of the role of aesthetic factors in revolution.“
( James McAllister)
Quoting Jack Cummins
What aspects of existence are you talking about? As in being hard?
What part of understand existence is difficult to comprehend and why?
I see many in emotional turmoil about ones self awareness and I find that confusing to me.
I guess I would like to know what is so scary about being self-aware and why existence brings so much anxiety?
When speaking about the harshest aspects of existence, I am referring to the existential aspects of existence which cause so much suffering, ranging from fear of one's own death, experiencing the death of significant others, poverty, and seeing atrocities in the world, including people treating others in an inhumane way, and all forms of suffering.
No one alive today has created their concept of reality all by themselves.
Quoting praxis
The philosophical and spiritual concepts underlying religions are well-documented and accessible to all who would put in the time and effort, so I don't see how this is true.
I'm also not sure how this relates to the topic at hand.
I can see how that can cause a lot of distress. I’m stressing out just thinking about it right now.
But let me ask you something weird if the answer was to suddenly appear out of no where.
What would you do with it?
I don’t mean to sound intrusive just wondering that’s all.
In speaking of combined origins of religion and philosophy, rather than simply common origins, the point which I am trying to make is that many thinkers blended the two, to the point where they would have probably been rather surprised by how they are different disciplines now. I am partly referring to ancient religions, such as the Egyptian and Hindu ones. However, the whole development of Christendom involved a combination of religious ideas and philosophy. In particular, Augustine and Aquinas came from a religious stance, but incorporated the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, almost trying to merge the two seamlessly.
It is likely that it may only be in the last couple of centuries that philosophy and religion are seen apart from one another, following the ideas of science and other movements, such as existentialism. One point which may be important is that it may only be that in recent times that philosophers have seen life from the standpoint of scientific materialism. Of course, many thinkers of the past did not adhere to the theism of the Judaism and Christianity, or of Islam, but the cosmos of the previous worldviews, including Eastern philosophers, the ancient Greeks and the pagans was more of a 'religious' one , insofar as there was an underlying belief in some kind of 'supernatural' order.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don't think so. The Presocratic and later Hellenic philosophies such as the Epicureans, Stoics, Kynics & Pyrrhonians explicitly opposed logos to mythos, even irreligiously in some instances. Buddhists, Jains and Charvaka, while not irreligious per se, pursued soteriological paths by lived experience and practical reasoning independent of religious considerations. Early Daoists and Confusians also marginalized "gods" and "mysteries" in their reflections on living.
"The last couple of centuries", as you say, was a necessary critical reaction to a millennium of Christendom's hijacking of pagan rationality to paint garrish lipstick on the grunting, rutting, farting swine of Catholic theology. The Church co-opted Platonism and then Aristotleanism precisely because, in the main among the educated in early and medieval Christianity, philosophy and religion – reason and faith – were epistemically distinct and even metaphysically separate commitments, therefore it was deemed desireable (necessary) to shotgun marry Athens to Jerusalem/Rome.
[quote=Faith]Stop thinking! God did it![/quote]
[quote=Reason]Stop thinking God did it.[/quote]
Punctuation makes all the difference. :mask:
There are countless examples of religious authorities creatively adding a spin to doctrine, or just making shit up on the fly, in order to influence the gullible but the following is a favorite of mine.
[quote=Daiun Sogaku Harada Roshi] [If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way][/quote]
Japanese war atrocities in China were particularly heinous.
:lol:
Your post is interesting, because I was wondering if what I wrote was too much of a generalization about the split between religion and philosophy historically. I guess that there has always been a wide spectrum of viewpoints, before the rise and fall of Christendom, even though science has altered perspectives radically. The tension between reason and faith has been a strong one and even now many feel that it is 'sinful' to even question some of the ideas within religious systems, which may be why many wish to cling on to ideas like the creation story within Genesis. There is a lot of perpetuation of fear, and the idea of 'hell and damnation' is spoken of less, but it still remains as an undercurrent, to make people believe that faith as opposed to reason is supreme.
If your point is that individuals have used religion as an excuse to do terrible things, I wouldn't disagree. However, I believe that says more about the nature of man than it does about the nature of religion.
Quoting 180 Proof
The same can be said for any human field of thought. At the heart of our reality lies a mystery, and philosophy is there to expose our ignorance first and foremost, and if we're lucky offer some wisdom and understanding along the way.
You say that the division between religion and philosophy is not related to science and are 'the same roots, different trees'. This may be true in the original differences, but, surely, the role of science must have some bearing in the twentieth and twentieth first century, because scientists have played such a role in explanations for so many aspects of life, and almost made the ideas of religion seem untenable. While philosophy still draws upon the ideas of many previous ages, it makes it easier to divide philosophy from its relationship with religion.
Movements like postmodernism are extremely interesting because they are able to sidestep the big divisions between theism and atheism, as well as between idealism and materialism. That may be where the social sciences come in, by focusing upon the aspects of human nature and cultural constructs. In a way, logical positivism may have paved the way for this to happen by suggesting that metaphysics is pure speculation. In the twentieth first century, there may be a juggling between focusing on social meanings and ideas which can be measured empirically, alongside people going back to the big questions which are both central to religious and philosophical quests.
Whut??? :worry:
Allow me to refresh your memory. In my previous post to you I wrote “I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power.”
I offered an extreme example of this in an attempt to substantiate the claim.
That philosophy lacks this degree of influential power indicates, to me anyway, that the purposes of philosophy and religion are of a vary different nature.
I have just been reading, 'God: A Human History of God', by Reza Aslan (2O17), and this may offer an interesting perspective in regard to the question of ultimate 'truths'. However, this author is far from seeing religious ideas and images of God as referring necessarily to a reality beyond human concepts, but as an aspect of thinking, arguing,
' What remains undeniable is that religious belief is so widespread that it must be considered an elemental part of the human experience. '
I wonder how this idea of religious 'truth' stands and how philosophy may aid in bringing forth discussion in the most helpful and critical ways.
I did a search for that quote and got a fuller quote:
We don't need religion to pursue 'transcendence', and like morality, religion may hinder our development more than help it.
We are not Homo religiosus. We're a social species that can coordinate and form social bonds, via shared values, narratives, and norms, etc., with the help of concepts that are often fictitious.
I would definitely agree that religion is not necessarily to achieve 'transcendence'. But, I am still left wondering what is needed, because so much of life is based on ideas of the mundane? What leads people to go beyond the basics, is it questioning, suffering, or some other factors?
Primarily existential anxiety, I would guess.
For a start I recommend (re)reading:
• Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, B. Spinoza
• The Essence of Christianity, L. Feuerbach
• Denial of Death, E. Becker
• Escape From Evil, E. Becker
• Dreamtime, H.P. Duerr
I can see your point about magical fantasy. Reza Azlan quotes Feuerbach. Part of the problem which I see is that it possible to back up almost all arguments for and against religious viewpoints. I don't know if the problem is subjectivity itself or how difficult it is to frame the questions of religion. I am not sure how far philosophy goes, or whether other disciplines such as anthropology are more helpful. Obviously, each individual comes to some kind of viewpoint, but I presume that within.philosopy, this may encompass a certain amount of rigour, although conclusions may be variable, with no absolutes.
Nevertheless...the unconscious, I hear, does most of the thinking and we only get to see the finished product - the truth. Revelation!
If "truth" is imaginary, then "real" is imaginary too.
Then with imaginary you mean that "the truth" doesn't exist? Cause I don't see how the meaning is different otherwise.
Yep, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about the truth. I no longer believe such a thing exists. Still the myth persists - I wonder why? Who's keeping the flame of this illusion of the truth burning? Starry-eyed adolescents? Older folks? Who, god damn it, who? It's a dangerous idea - the truth. Many lives will be, have been, wasted in search of a mirage.
Bad philosophy. Religious apologetics. "New Age" perennialists. Etcetera.
I did that from the beginning. But still isn't,to me at least.
Only if you somehow mean that "the truth" that Mad talks about doesn't exist at all. Anyway.
:ok: So some are still on this wild goose chase. Someone should tell 'em.
I would suggest moving on to "third thoughts" also, as to get back to your first thoughts!
Why to doubt about that? That an Absolute Truth actually exists? Isn't there a perfect explanation about how universe works? Its purpose(if of course there is any)?? And the explanation of the way that everything there "works" in such harmony?
Why to doubt about that? The thing that we humans are still very far away from discovering it, discovering "universe's way", doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist.
Everything we discover about universe eventually "makes sense" at the end, when our limited human knowledge gets expanded .
At the Eureka moment we yell "But of course! That's how it is!".
So yes there must be an "Absolute Truth" or as you call it "the Truth" indeed!
This is not as cut-and-dried as you might believe.
Probably not. But still it should have its own "way".
While this might be the case in more mundane, less philosophical contexts, I think it a misreading of the progress of philosophy over the last, say, 150 years. The return of analysis to the centre of philosophical thinking displaces much that was really very poor in philosophical terms.
Is it all a 'wild goose chase'? Is it all a mixture of 'bad philosophy', and running round in circles literally, or on various threads about 'truth', the existence of God etc? There are many threads tackling the same issues, and they keep going on, which shows how tricky some of the areas of thought are.
You have a point though. I completely forgot about the order that the universe evinces. Nevertheless, life can be taken as one long process of slow decay. The universe could be like that it - breaking down but ever so slowly, so slowly that we mistake it for order.
I used to believe in the truth but, even though I never really got down to seeking it in earnest, I look around and listen to what others have to say - not very encouraging reports from those who did devote their lives to the search for the truth. Isn't it better then to not look for something that doesn't exist?
So you've had a play with Wittgenstein's thinking a bit. What would he make of this, do you think?
Truth is about propositions; but perhaps there are two games, one mundane, in being "of this world", the other profound to the point of incomprehensibility.
What do you think now?
Wittgenstein? Why, he would've said this whole discussion is pointless if it depended on meaning as essence but, speaking for myself, he mistakes the finger pointing at the moon for the moon. Perhaps there's no moon and possibly the moon is totally irrelevant - drops out of consideration as it were. :chin:
Well, I know that you call me 'truthseeker' and, to some extent that is true, but, at other times, I do query such a quest. To a large extent, I do approach philosophy as if it were a 'religion', but I know that it is not. So, I just would like to read as much philosophy and discuss it in the best possible way, and perhaps this may be the most approximate way of finding 'truth'. Looking at issues from many angles may be important rather than being locked into one fixed position because 'truth' may be about seeing beyond personal biases as far as possible.
Yes, he would have; yet for him, nothing was more important than how one should live one's life.
Can you imagine how these apparently conflicting notions might be reconciled?
In the ancient world, which was real up until about the day before yesterday, those who realised the truth were fêted as sages, but they were always scarce, and now can't be heard above the hubbub of the masses and their demonic gadgetry.
... it was once said 'In the future everyone will be a sophist for at least 15 minutes.' :eyes:
Quoting Jack Cummins
:up: "Finding" criteria for truth.
The real is where it's @, Fool. :wink: :point:
Still exists though.Being incomprehensive for humanity (yet at least) doesn't make it disappear.
There are two games indeed.
I was just reading your post from yesterday and I do agree that religious systems often claim authority on the basis of 'hidden truths'. That does make it different from the general approach of philosophy, which is usually about the tools of rationality to enable rational thinking, by mystifying in the form of 'the hidden'.
???
I am not sure what you are questioning exactly. Is it the idea that religious perspectives speak of 'hidden' reality? What I mean is that in many religious viewpoints there is thought to be some kind of 'unseen' dimension, underlying everything. In particular, it could be argued that in many current philosophical discussions about consciousness there is the idea that unconsciousness is an absolute. In contrast, within many religious perspectives this is not the way in which it is seen. There is believed to be some inherent purpose behind manifest reality, such as a divine presence and even the unconsciousness present at death is not seen as complete nothingness.
I appreciate the clarification. "The unseen" (occulted) isn't very parsimonious though. In the main, too many folks believe in a great many things which have nothing to do with reality or their own existences – this or that placebo/fetish du jour. It's an exaptation (re: simulating predictions) of the ordinary workings of our brains: confabulating such as e.g. "seeing faces in clouds"; no drug is as potently self-serving as the illusion of knowledge (i.e. superstition, hope) or as self-defeating in the long-run.
I prefer descriptors voluntary & involuntary to the notions of "conscious" & "unconscious"; what is often called "hidden reality" is simply shit made up involuntarily that helps blunt the depressive impact of ceaseless cycles (pulse) of "boredom and pain" with a mirage of "direction" which many voluntarily go on to interpret as "purpose" (e.g. "divine presences", "unseen dimensions underlying everything", etc). Thus, the (self-abnegating) religious mindset: denial that 'here and now' only ever matters here and now (re: the absurd .. ); denial of ephemerality and oblivion (re: the tragic ...); denial of nature (re: the fallibilistic (i.e. evidence, facticity)). This is in stark contrast to a (non-academic / non-Scholastic) philosophical orientation to existence. 'The numinous', for instance, can be 'found' more reliably – healthily – in encountering the strange within the familiar (or absence pulsing within presence ... "infinity in a grain of sand" re: poetry, music, art, psychoactives, friendships ... ) rather than via denial, such as some "invisible" never never world "beyond appearances".
Philosophy shows us how to put childish things away and think for ourselves by thinking against our make-beliefs, not merely because they are false but also, more significantly, because it's been millennia since religions, etc have ceased working as they originally had, thereby mostly crippling (hindering) further human development since, which philosophy has ever strived to exorcize (with limited success ) from the human psyche. :death: :flower:
edit:
It's "the love of god"/Ego or "the love of wisdom"/Reality.
I found confession terrible because the things which I felt were my sins were just too complicated to explain in a little confession box, so I was extremely vague. I used to get so nervous before going. I even got nervous going to communion, in case I dropped the communion wafer. My mum and I also had a longstanding joke that wouldn't it be awful to drop the collection plate. I don't know how you ever coped being an altar boy, but you are probably less nervous.
I'm a philosopher, I'm just telling you straight.