On the superiority of religion over philosophy.
In many ways, religion is everything philosophy could hope to be. It's stance on ethics commands that one ought to behave in a certain way and people oblige to this commandment and follow with the commands of any said religion.
But, my point isn't about talking about the virtues of religion, which are rife with speculation about their truth. Mainly, I was interested in calling out this discrepancy between philosophizing and the practice of religion? Why is a religion so good at commanding people to behave a certain way and philosophy, which relishes in how people ought to behave. Is this simply an is-ought problem, and why so?
But, my point isn't about talking about the virtues of religion, which are rife with speculation about their truth. Mainly, I was interested in calling out this discrepancy between philosophizing and the practice of religion? Why is a religion so good at commanding people to behave a certain way and philosophy, which relishes in how people ought to behave. Is this simply an is-ought problem, and why so?
Comments (68)
Hence, philosophy is superior to religion.
In the news recently,300 Catholic priests molested 1000 children in one state alone.
Philosophers are folks who might at worst cheat on their wives, or drink or smoke a little sumpin' sumpin'. They don't usually commit acts of violence or molestation.
Religion and philosophy are really versions of the same thing. Trying to understand our world, people..The ethics in the bible are philosophical.
Debateable. I tend to think religion takes truth or self-acclaimed truth too seriously. Perhaps philosophers don't take it seriously enough to motivate to action.
Hm. Give me a minute.
What do you mean? What about the countless charities and other entities that have sprung out of the sake of religion? They seem to satisfy that goal.
It strikes me that the singular greatness of philosophy is that it resists this religious temptation at all costs; that nothing could be more detrimental and destructive of philosophy than the doxastic proffering of a set of commands. Philosophy is at its most powerful when it occupies the terrain of the negative and the critical, holding open the breach that religion - and its intellectual derivatives - aim to fill-in, and close once and for all. Religion is everything philosophy ought to avoid, least it surrender the one thing that makes philosophy worth engaging.
The problem is though, and the root cause of the issue, is that you can't see how to live from there. The dead universe is silent on that, and the living aren't to be trusted. So there is no proper way to live, it's all arbitrary, or whatever, everyone only asserts anything in this manner for dubious or flawed reasons.
We don't listen because personal experience is unreliable, and unaccountable to third person analysis, and if it can be said that meaning, comprehension has something to do with practice, living the same things, then not coming together to ritualistically engage in identical practices makes other more opque than they otherwise could be.
I dunno if you've demonstrated how you see religion as superior to philosophy in the OP? I'm trying to find it.
Religion, historically, also had art, myth, ritual, power and even philosophy on its side.
St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides, Ibn Arabi, Je Tsongkhapa, Nagarjuna, Laozi and several hundred other notable religious thinkers from many religious traditions all over the world would like to have a word with you :)
Quoting Posty McPostface
It's not that it's good at commanding people to behave a certain way, rather it commands people to behave in a way that's genetically successful (relative to time and place) which leads to group survival and therefore individual reproductive fitness and the selection of people to whom the religion is naturally congenial. IOW, the tail wags the dog: religion in its exoteric forms (the esoteric forms, mysticisms, etc., are something different) is an externalization of genetic imperatives and group survival strategies. The group that has a religion as "social glue" will survive better, and perpetuate itself through time better, than the group that doesn't. This is why subversive elements in any society attack its religion first - disintegrate the religion, and you start the process of the disintegration of the group.
This seems a good question. I don't have a perfect answer other than to suggest that religion works on the level of emotion to a significant degree, and that's where the real action is.
We might compare humans to an M&M candy. There's a thin hard shell of reason on the outside, obscuring a much larger soft and squishy center. Generally speaking, religion addresses the reality of the larger soft and squishy center, whereas philosophy typically confines itself to the surface.
On the other hand, the Catholic clergy sex scandal suggests that religion isn't always as good at "commanding people to behave in a certain way" as it may appear.
I meant to imply it through the active stance religion takes on issues regarding applied ethics, just as an example.
Truths are conditional in philosophy, whereas in religion they are not.
Philosophy's only arrogance lies in its assumption that its sphere encompasses all forms of method, whereas religion generally eschews method in favour of rote memory, prescription, exegesis, and dogma.
Religion and philosophy enjoy a mutual proximity only in their treatment of morality. In logic, they are not so close due to the insistence upon blind faith in the former. Their greatest interrelationship is that both disciplines are practiced by humans.
Because it uses the boogeymen man to scare the bejeezus out of people so that the toe the line.
Religion is based on prophecy, ritual, magic, authority, and belief. These are not properties of philosophy. Religion has the wheels of institutions to maintain it from generation to generation. Philosophy has no system of institutional maintenance (since the early schools of philosophy, at least). What philosophy has is verbal and written discourse. Religion begins with truth, philosophy seeks truth.
A priest or prophet can command because he has authority. He might also have power (the ability to enforce commands). Philosophers may be highly respected, but are there any philosophers who have commanding authority and power?
Quoting Sir2u
Same thing, essentially.
The prophet comes to deliver the truth: "This is what God wants; woe unto you if you don't do it." A philosophical justification for obeying the gods or demonstrating the benefits of obedience to the gods can be developed (by a philosopher/believer) but his book won't be a sacred text.
Ok, given that this is a philosophy forum, I'll do my job as a wannabe philosopher and play the devil's advocate. Also, I'll confine my comments to Christianity, not because I am Christian, but because this is what most of are most familiar with and Christianity is usually what we are referring to when we Westerners reference religion.
First, Christianity is not exclusively about ideology, a fact almost always ignored on philosophy and atheism forums, a consistent social reality which tends to reveal that many of Christianity's critics are not qualified to be critics because they don't really care to understand what they are attempting to debunk, distracted as they are by the joy of challenging.
Second, if Christianity was based exclusively on ideology, it would have never lasted 2,000 years and still be going strong in many places all over the planet.
What keeps Christianity going is:
1) The experience of love works, a fact which can be confirmed by anyone of any belief in their own personal experience without reference to any outside authority.
2) Christianity has been the most persistent and consistent spokesman for this fact in Western culture.
Let's try to be objective for a bit. Imagine that Christianity (or any major religion) was a creature in the forest. Nature is continually creating new life forms and those that survive over the long run are those species best adapted to the environment, right?
Christianity has survived so long because it is well adapted to the human environment. This is not a theory, the reality of 2,000 years of Christian experience proves it.
Christianity has survived so long because it is realistic about the human condition.
1) Christianity gets that human beings seek relief from psychological suffering, and the experience of love provides such a relief.
2) Christianity gets that human beings have an incurable need to know everything and everything, including the obviously unknowable, and so Christianity serves that need by presenting a compelling story reinforced by tradition and authority.
Before we look down our noses at the story Christians have created, please note that atheists (especially the adamant ones) have done exactly the same thing. They have created a fantasy knowing out of nothing, and then at least some atheists cling passionately and evangelically to this fantasy knowing as if their lives depended on it. All the same absurd excesses which have arisen in Christianity are also present in atheist culture.
Point being, Christianity is realistic in it's understanding that human beings require some kind of story to explain this place we find ourselves in, and the story they have created has proven to have long legs, ie. is well adapted to the environment.
What complicates any analysis is that Christianity is HUGE, including billions of human beings, and so it contains within itself everything good and bad that human beings are capable of. Thus it's impossible to label this major religion, or any major religion, with any simple minded analysis. Anyone who says "Christianity is good" or "Christianity is bad" obviously has little idea what they are talking about because the situation is far more complicated than that.
So hath this Devil burped.....
So, ethics are applied, in religion, through commands, etc? Versus philosophy in which no definite ethical command is necessarily made? I.E. the perpetual discussion of any possible ethical imperative, etc?
Paul asserts then, both a capacity, and mechanism, you could say, that is a prerequisite to comprehension, and by implication, attempting to persuade a non-spiritual man of spiritual matters is like attempting to describe to a blind from birth man what you see.
Quite interesting too, is that the natural man is "unregenerate, or unchanged spiritually", whereas the "carnal man", the sensuous man, is considered to belong to the same category as the spiritual man, as one that is saved, the difference is that the carnal are "babes in christ", fed on milk, and not meat, but they are still too young and weak to bear the meat.
I also find it interesting that the natural man is "unregenerate, or unchanged spiritually", and so unsaved, and unable to comprehend anything spiritual, whereas the "carnal man" the sensuous man, is in the same category as the "spiritual man", saved, but being a "babe in christ" they are fed all on milk, and no meat, as they are too weak to handle the meat.
Second writing of this post, first one got lost somehow, even after I'd edited it once, and I feel was superior to this one...
I think it's because religion seeks to accommodate people using the least degree of qualification and then allows them to progress from there. Meanwhile, philosophy demands a great deal more qualification before it awards its acceptance.
Religion asks that we follow a path already worked out while philosophy dictates that we must understand and make our own path even if it corresponds to that of others.
Religion also absolves people of personal responsibility, to some extent, and allows them the excuse that "I'm doing this or that for my religion or for God, etc. However, philosophy holds everyone accountable for their own deeds in every circumstance.
Philosophy is a 'tougher customer' than religion hence it will have fewer numbers since the mass of people are either not willing or not ready to put in the work that philosophy demands.
Yes, religion typically seeks to serve all human beings, and not just that tiny class of self deluded folks who have somehow come to the self flattering conclusion that they are superior to the religious. :smile:
You are of course right that religion is more popular than philosophy. That's because religion, on average generally speaking, is doing a better job of serving people than philosophy is. And that's because religion is realistically aimed at where human beings really live, in their emotions, whereas philosophy is more based upon the illusion that human beings are logic machines.
We aspire to reason, and should aspire to reason, but we basically suck at it, as proven by the thousands of hydrogen bombs we've aimed down our own throats, a reality we rarely find interesting enough to discuss.
Religion sees us as we actually are.
Philosophy sees us as we wish we were.
I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate, but I think that you're right, both here most prominently, but also in the notion that Christianity speaks directly to the reality of the human condition, and it is through this basis that the divisions I mentioned arise.
The natural man, being unregenerate, and not spiritually changed finds no basis in any of it, so even if they do believe it, they'll not know what is significant, and what isn't. Whereas those that have in fact experienced a redemption, death and rebirth will. That understand what it means to receive a new spirit, will on that basis understand the foundation of the doctrine, and precisely what it is speaking to.
For what it's worth, I do sincerely believe that 1) love works, and that 2) Christianity speaks directly to the reality of the human condition, and that 3) this is largely why Christianity is still with us after 2,000 years.
However, there's of course more to Christianity's survival. Christianity has benefited from the relentless marketing of a compelling story. The life of Jesus, with it's rags to riches to rags to riches (born in a manger, become a prominent prophet, get killed, go to heaven) story line has all the elements of a compelling story.
Marketing matters, a lot. Consider Apple computers, which are really not that different than Windows computers. But, Steve Jobs the marketer created this wonderful story about the Mac which was brilliantly self flattering to his customers. To this day there are armies of passionate little apple fan boys across the net who are defending this story with a passion little different than the evangelical Christian.
Quoting All sight
I'll admit I don't really understand where you're going with this. I'm not arguing, just admitting I don't really get it. Any chance you can translate what you're trying to say out of 2,000 year old Paul parable language in to some description that's a bit more accessible? Thanks.
One thing that differs dramatically between religion and philosophy is in its education. A religious education will teach someone a particular way of life -- whether that be in the form of precepts, beliefs, arguments, faith, community, whatever. There is a sort of answer which the teacher is bringing their students to.
In a modern philosophical education, while the teacher will of course harbor beliefs of their own that will influence the class, the attempt is made to expose students to many ideas that are often contradictory. The end-goal is to get students to think about ideas, arguments, and be able to articulate the ideas and arguments well but to think on their own in choosing said beliefs.
There are more free-thinking religions out there that want students to question. But they still offer a way of life. A philosophical education does not, outside of the use of reason.
The training aims at different ends. So you get different results.
Because it adheres to simple solutions for complex questions, while philosophy use complex solutions to simple questions, not by will, but by necessity of the complexity of life and the universe. Questions never have simple answers, but simple minds can only function with simple answers. Humans always see the most simple solution first, they are pattern seeking and they often find truth were there are none.
Religion makes use of this simplicity to govern what we ought to do. It's easier to follow an authority that says "this is how you should act" than figuring out the complex answer that is rational and closer to truth by yourself. It demands that we value knowledge and most people value other aspects of life than knowledge. They rather have people with knowledge rule them as authority, as parent figures, but this solution has opened up the door for the power hungry, the one's who value power over knowledge. This has been the essence of religious power for thousands of years. Most people want to be governed by a higher power, they feel panic in face of the reality to have responsibility over their own life. People want comfort, religion is comfort, philosophy is truth. Very few find comfort in truth.
This is uncalled-for! It isn't the fault of the Catholic church, or any church, or gym teachers, choir masters or sports coaches - and so on, and on... - that their professions give access to children. It's the paedophiles that cheat and lie their way into these professions for nefarious purposes. These caring professions, all of them, are not responsible for that, and not to blame for it. Their only responsibility in this is the one we all have, to protect our children from abuse. Please do not attack these carers for the sins of paedophiles. Direct your ire at those who deserve it. Thanks. :up:
I agree this is the theory of how it's supposed to work. I'm not sure this is how it's actually working in practice. I've been spending a lot of time on a group blog for academic philosophers, and it reads more like the chanting of group consensus dogmas. I don't find much interest in challenging the status quo.
Also, I'd say there's a difference between a blog of academics -- a social gathering of people in a profession -- and the actual educational process.
It seems clear that religion at least influences some people's behavior some of the time. But sadly, not always for the better.
Quoting Moliere
I wouldn't call the blog in question a social gathering so much, as there is very little back and forth discussion such as we see here. It's more a case of members sharing their latest article and then vanishing. Anyway, the articles taken as a whole (written by many different PhDs) seem to offer at least some window in to the educational process these folks have been exposed to.
As example, diversity appears to be a very trendy topic in academic philosophy at the moment. Every single article appears to argue for diversity, and I've yet to see one that argues that old white men should continue to dominate philosophy as they have for thousands of years. It doesn't seem to trouble anyone that the group consensus is not being challenged.
That's still different, though -- a religious education doesn't make priests, and a philosophical education doesn't make philosophers. There are avenues for those professions which do do that, but the great majority of people who are a part of the educational process are not professionals, but simply are, or were at one point, students.
My apologies, I attempted it. Just that there is an aspect of the human condition they are addressing which requires that one is in some sense already familiar with what is being talked about for it to make any sense at all.
Hmm... It seems we're talking past each other. Most of the folks I'm referring to have PhDs in philosophy and are working in the profession. Some of them are working on their philosophy degrees with the hope of entering the profession. But anyway, we don't have to beat this to death.
Ok, no problem, and no apology required. I'm just inviting you to continue with the point you were making if you wish, and letting you know I seem to require some amount of translation.
I mean, I know there are groups of PhD's. I'm saying that the set of people who undergo a philosophical education is larger than the set of people who undergo a professional philosophical education. At least as I was meaning the comparison in terms of a religious vs philosophical education -- so there are many people who attend seminary, for instance, but only some of those people are there to actually become a professional theologian of sorts.
So even if the professionals might look a lot like priests, the educational process itself could still have different results from the professional education. It would just be a matter of looking, there's something empirical there that I admit I'd have to look more into -- but we're looking at different sets.
Does that make sense?
Ah ok, I now get the distinction you are trying to make. I was lumping everyone with a philosophy PhD in to a single pot. I'm still not sure how a "professional philosophy education" differs from something else, but am interested to learn more as your time permits.
In case it's not already blaringly obvious, I don't have any kind of philosophy education, unless you wish to count my attendance at Netflix University. :smile: Point being, I'm viewing academic philosophy from the outside, and don't claim to have a complete view.
Eh, my formal training is minimal. I'm more on the outside than in. All classes in philosophy I've taken are undergraduate level, which is where I'm forming some of my opinion from, though.
But just take a look at this article. I'd include people with a bachelor's degree in philosophy in the set I'm talking about in addition to the doctoral degrees. Whereas, in the case of a professional philosophical education, I'd count just those with a PhD (though not all of those actually go on to be professional philosophers, it should be noted too -- so the culture of academia could also differ from those who just get the education).
But note how there is a much greater number of Bachelor degrees awarded to the number of doctoral degrees. So there are more people with a philosophical education than there are people with a professional philosophical education.
The same would hold for a religious education. Most of the people who undergo some kind of religious education are not there to become priests (or their equivalent). So we'd have to actually look at the set of people who underwent said education to make a comparison.
Yes, I think so.
Quoting Jake
I didn't say that Christianity was about ideology. Some people think it is, though. My "operating system" is Christian theology, basically, even though I disavow belief in the Creed. I might wish that I had grown up among liberal Manhattan atheists, but that just wasn't the case.
Um, with respect, you appear not to be following the Catholic rape scandal too closely. The investigations very clearly reveal that it was precisely the fault of Catholic Church officials that the child rapists retained their access to children. The Pennsylvania investigation showed that there was a longstanding systematic effort by the Church to coverup these crimes and protect the rapists, and it's all documented in detail in carefully hidden Church documents which have now been revealed.
Apologies, but the child rape scandal is very much the fault of the Catholic Church, including the laity who have contented themselves with sanctimonious hand wringing, and have yet to overthrow the clerical class.
There is a solution which could preserve the Catholic faith while solving these problems in a convincing manner. The priests and nuns should switch places. The nuns should be put in charge of everything, and the priests should work in support roles.
But this will never happen, because anybody capable of such decisive thinking probably left the Church long ago, just as I did.
Yes, now that you have been clear about your accusations. The church is not responsible for paedophiles. They are responsible for covering up instead of prevention. :rage: :fear:
Once the bishops knew that a priest was a child rapist, and did not immediately report that priest to the police, those bishops became party to the crime.
It's reasonable to accuse "The Church" of being party to these crimes, because we are not talking about this or that bishop, but rather an organized global conspiracy that went on for decades in many different jurisdictions.
The laity became party to the crime once they learned of the coverup, and kept donating funds to the Church and lending it their moral support and credibility by attending mass etc.
Please note a couple of things if you would please:
1) I'm not attacking Catholicism, but the corrupt clergy. They are not the same thing.
2) A comprehensive sweeping convincing solution which would restore the credibility of the Church is available, put the nuns in charge of everything. The nuns are every bit as Catholic as the male clergy. The failure to take such a decisive step shows YET AGAIN that the male clergy are more interested in themselves than they are in what's good for the Church.
3) I have endless generations of Catholic DNA up my family tree, and was born and raised Catholic, baptized and confirmed etc. I don't hate Catholics or Catholicism. I hate the out of control incompetence and unspeakable corruption which puts this ancient religion in danger of collapsing in our lifetimes.
You asked us to "direct your ire at those who deserve it." And that's exactly what I'm doing.
Some priests raped a LOT of children. They need to go, to jail, or to the gallows, I'm not fussy.
The rest of the male clergy raped the Church, either by helping the rapists, or by looking the other way. They need to go too. Let them clean bedpans for a few centuries as the nuns have been doing since the beginning. This exercise in humility will be good for their souls.
And it would restore the credibility of the Church.
If the Catholic community is not capable of clear minded decisive action on this scale, it would be better if the whole thing melted away to be replaced by other Christian denominations.
Fair enough. :up: I am only concerned that blame is assigned where it is due.
Quoting Jake
Some PAEDOPHILES raped a lot of children. Quite a few people knew it was going on, and turned a blind eye. Blame where it's due. And an appropriate response too. Blame alone is pointless. :up:
We are in agreement. :up:
Some paedophile priests raped a lot of children.
The word "priests" should be included to make clear that this is happening in the Catholic Church to a degree that it's not happening in say, the Teamster's Union, schools, the NFL, any other Christian denomination etc.
The word "priests" is important because it focuses on the betrayal of trust which is the heart of the injury. You know, these aren't random weirdo guys in raincoats who attracted kids to their car with the promise of candy. The rapists in this case are those whom the kids should have been able to trust above all others. Now these kids probably don't trust anybody, and that's a big deal, a special kind of injury.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I'm not sure that's even allowed on philosophy forums, so you're probably in violation of some rule. :smile: Just kidding...
Are we in agreement? Should the nuns take over the management of the Catholic Church?
:up: Yes Yes
What about if I say that religious study of philosophy is tainted with belief in a God but philosophical study of religion is, then, more objective?
If as Kierkegaard said, "Faith is holding onto uncertainties with passionate conviction," then how is philosophy distinct? Is it not that the faithful simply refuse to admit the uncertainties are uncertain, yet, as the quote suggests, the faithful must recognize at some level their faith is of an uncertainty.
I don't have an answer to that one. Sounds about right to me, but, the quietism in me tells me that is wrong to some degree. We go along changing our convictions in life, hopefully, to some degree, so taking that quote on a hard reading would be too short-sighted. I don't think you can argue with that.
You edited your post so, I'll readdress the edited part.
What about the fact that philosophy gave birth to all the humanistic fields that have attained, through the scientific method, certainties and even truths. Yes, we can bash psychology and religion for being far out there; but, philosophy does begin in wonder, and the (un)-wondrous mind would be of little use to any field of study.
It's all good so long as people are prepared to examine their bedrock assumptions - even if they come out at the end of the process still holding to them, the journey is instructive for them, and for their audience.
I think there is an important misunderstanding going on here. Religion is a kind of philosophy (a religious world view), any kind of world view, be it religion or otherwise, has at it's core a kind of philosophical thinking. There are many things wrong with this kind of religious world view, just as there are many things wrong with many non-religious world views. There are philosophical world views that put forth the contention that and truth is a matter of subjective beliefs. I find this just as appalling.
The point is that one can find philosophical confusion no matter where you look. The biggest problem is in epistemology. Religion and many other world views are confused about what it means to have knowledge, i.e., how is truth acquired and defended. Most of the arguments are about how we justify our beliefs. Many Christians believe that the Bible is their primary source of truth when it comes to spiritual matters, and again, this is partly an epistemological problem. This problem spans every world view, so it's not limited to religious belief.
Finally, religion for the most part, is an example of a philosophy that's poorly done.
I'm not religious myself, but just for the exercise I'll argue the other side of the coin.
The bottom line point of philosophy would seem to be to serve human beings. Most of the humans who have lived over the last 5,000 years or so have concluded that philosophy in the form of religion serves their needs better than philosophy minus the religion.
Your point may stand, it may be true that religion is philosophy poorly done. But that doesn't automatically equal philosophy minus religion being superior to philosophy in the form of religion. I'm assuming that was your point, but I may be assuming too much, clarify as needed.
If the standard we are measuring against are the formal rules of philosophy, you have a point. If the standard we are measuring against is serving the needs of human beings, you may not have a point.
Quoting Sam26
It's appalling if one first assumes that what human beings want and need is the objective truth. I would agree the objective truth is necessary in meeting the needs of the body, as would most religious people.
Meeting the needs of the mind is a different matter. Fantasy is a pervasive part of the human experience, a phenomena which reaches far beyond the boundaries of religion.
Because many, if not most, hold that there is some absolute, higher power that has made the rules.
Religions may or may not have authority and power. If they have authority, it is because the authority is recognized by the people, then commands are effective; people will not only obey, they will affirm the rightness of their obedience.
If the religion lacks authority, but has power, people can be compelled to obey, whether they affirm the rightness of their obedience or not.
Sometimes religions have both authority and power, sometimes one and not the other, and sometimes neither. Where religions have neither authority and power, the religions is likely to be increasingly irrelevant and on the way to extinction (unless the religion can resurrect its authority).
The same situation applies to secular institutions too. Donald Trump has real power--no doubt about it. Presidents have power. Among many Americans Trump has both authority and power, and among others he has only power and no authority whatsoever. I grant Trump no authority, but I recognize he has power -- which is why I find him upsetting. If he was merely the village idiot, he wouldn't be a problem. Instead he is a village idiot with a shady past and nuclear weapons at his disposal. That's quite unsettling.
In many communities, the police have both authority (the people grant them the rightness to command them) and they also have power. Where there are communities who do not grant the police authority, police have to depend on the exercise of power -- usually brute force. If they have neither authority nor power (such as UN Peace Keeper forces), they are pretty much useless.
The answer is obvious. Religion operates on the basis of authority; philosophy, reason.
That is why people find religion noxious. It is the poster-child of illegitimate authority.
Religious belief is generally similarly deluded about its origins and function, but its function is not to sustain verbal quibbles, and so it tends to have more substance. Your religious beliefs, to some extent, matter – your philosophical ones don't, outside of an academy.
I do not think religion is based on an appeal to authority.
Religion operates on the basis of art. You glance into any ceremonial form of a religion... What do you see?
Art. Symbolism. Aesthetics. Poetry. Music. Forms of behavior and thinking that appeal to the most visceral, fantastic aspects of the psyche. Religious ecstasy for instance.
Religion is a form of ambiguous, symbolic expression instantiating feelings that cannot be endowed with reason. They are artistic. Is it a coincidence that religious people worship creation?
The hypocrisy of religion is stagnation.
"The disintegration of Protestantism into over four hundred different denominations is a sure sign that the restlessness continues" (C G Jung, Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious).
The idea of reincarnation or communion with the divine, or virgin birth, or a savior, the conquering of death, a great flood, earth goddesses and nature gods, etc etc etc, gods of creation, destruction, light, darkness, death, life, love, hate, good, evil...
These are symbolic anthropomorphizations of psychical qualities expressing a hemimorphic shape, the base of which is unconscious and fantastic, and something ergomorphic, as the conscious mind is a sort of organ--the unconscious meaning changes shape in its expression.
Imagine if you could travel back in time and reveal some of modern day scientific achievements during any period of any of the religious revolutions. It might be that they would think of you as a prophet. Now, imagine how hard the religious instinct must have fought to survive through, at the least, all the scientific revolutions we've had. Clearly, it's no mean feat.
I think the need for religion is a genuine one whether addressed appropriately or not. There is an innate need to realise the greater unity or that we are 'bigger' than ourselves and religion does that better than any other philosophy has. In this sense, I think religion has, so far, been superior than philosophy.
Therefore, perhaps we should perceive religion as a form of philosophy which, like most others, has been turned into a caricature of its actual identity.
Within religious traditions there are various sources of practice and understanding, notably, on the one hand, invocation or workship of deities, subsumed in the monotheistic faiths under the heading of the One True God. But another [although much less-appreciated] source is the shamanistic tradition and the disciplines which originated with that, typically including yogic practices, cultivation of trance-states and transmission of esoteric wisdom.
The problem in Western culture is that much of this became absorbed into the monolithic structure of the Church and to all intents locked in the vaults and only to be approached on the churches’ terms. Meanwhile there were parallel and underground esoteric movements such as Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and so on, which are religious in some ways, philosophical in others. But the predominant mainstream influence was first institutional Catholicism and later its Protestant offspring which tended to impose a particular understanding of religiosity, which, in turn, Enlightenment rationalism reacted against. And this manifests as the kind of ‘anything-but-God’ subtext underneath much scientific-secular philosophy [see for instance the Protestant Atheism of Richard Dawkins.]
The upshot is, much modern philosophy is consciously or unconsciously defined to distinguish itself from ‘religion’ - meaning that certain kinds of broad themes or ideas are encouraged, others are tacitly taboo. Certain ideas, themes, ways-of-thinking, are seen as compatible with science, therefore sound, while other are categorised as generally ‘religious’ and treated accordingly.
-3rdClassCitizen
How many people did Communism kill?