Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

I have been wondering about the essential unified aspects and divergent aspects of the relationship between philosophy and religion. This relates to the origins of the two quests and to what extent they come from different angles.

I have been reading,'God: A Human History of Religion', by Reza Aslan, (2017), which looks at the way in which ideas about God arise, saying,
'It turns out that this compulsion to humanize the divine is hardwired into our brains, which is why it has become a central feature in almost every religious tradition the world has ever known'.
The author is referring to images of God, and is not making any claims that such ideas correspond to an objective 'God'.

How may the need for religious ideas, especially the idea of God be understood?. Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas? Will the ideas and worldviews of religion become obsolete and, what role does philosophy have in such exploration?

[JackDaydream]

I just wish to add that the author I have referred to, although subscribing to pantheist beliefs, is not of the opinion that religious ideas can be proved or disproved, but referring to its universality, on the basis of the role which it plays:
'What remains undeniable is that religious belief is so widespread that it must be considered an elemental human experience'. I am wondering if this idea is true and how it may be critiqued in the climate of thinking in the twentieth first century. To what extent do ideas of religion stand or crumble philosophically in the context of twentieth first century ideas?

[JackDaydream]

Finally, I will just add that I am not trying to advocate any specific viewpoint, and find both the people who believe in God and those who don't have a worthy contribution. I am interested in the value of philosophy historically and in methods for opening such areas for understanding the role of religion. But, I will.log out and allow for the voices of any who see my discussion as being worthy for consideration and debate.

[stevie]

Referring to your topic question "How may the Relationship between Philosophy and Religion be Understood?":

A philosophy may be the basis of a religion but isn't necessarily the basis because a mere narrative may also be the basis of a religion. Often it is a combination of philosophy and mere narrative which makes a religion.

Since a philosophy might also include ethics the ethics which is a necessary part of religion may also be based on a philosophy.

But philosophy, like religions, may also include yogic methods as part of its ethics understood as "an ideal way of life" or "conduct".

So since both, religion and philosophy may share ethics and yogic methods and philosophy may be one portion of the basis of religion what then is the difference?
What distinguishes religion from philosophy is that religion always has a soteriological outlook considering otherworldly or non-worldly goals while philosophies as such are strictly worldly/secular even if they are speculative.

[LuckyR]

The job of religion has changed quite a bit since it was invented. In the beginning unseen forces were needed to explain observed phenomena in the absence of science. We don't really need religion to do that anymore. Later the power structure needed the promise of an afterlife to keep the rabble at bay while the elite played. Consumerism fills that role now. Of course religion has given emotnal and psychological solace both in antiquity and currently and therefore is it's main purpose right now. It has been a social rallying point, though one could argue that that has been responsible for the majority of the evils that religion has perpetrated.

Religions have described philosophical guidance to live by, though are typically short on details and nuance as well as justification.

[Belindi]

I agree it's inevitable we either personify or otherwise reify abstractions such as 'goodness', or 'America' , or 'motherhood', or 'evil', or the colour blue, or 'perfection', and so forth. How else can we think about these without having at least a private mental icon that stands for the abstraction?

[Steve3007]

'It turns out that this compulsion to humanize the divine is hardwired into our brains, which is why it has become a central feature in almost every religious tradition the world has ever known'.

It seems that we have a tendency to anthropomorphize almost everything, not just god concepts. I presume this is largely the result of being deeply social animals who make good use of theory of mind as a tool for survival. We're so used to the utility of divining purpose in other humans from our tribe and rival tribes that we naturally try to extent that successful technique into areas where the concept of purpose is not applicable.

[3017Metaphysician]

I have been wondering about the essential unified aspects and divergent aspects of the relationship between philosophy and religion. This relates to the origins of the two quests and to what extent they come from different angles.

I have been reading,'God: A Human History of Religion', by Reza Aslan, (2017), which looks at the way in which ideas about God arise, saying,
'It turns out that this compulsion to humanize the divine is hardwired into our brains, which is why it has become a central feature in almost every religious tradition the world has ever known'.
The author is referring to images of God, and is not making any claims that such ideas correspond to an objective 'God'.

How may the need for religious ideas, especially the idea of God be understood?. Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas? Will the ideas and worldviews of religion become obsolete and, what role does philosophy have in such exploration?

Hello Jack!

You may enjoy some Einsteinian and Hawking quote(s):


•“It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.”

•“Still there are moments when one feels free from one’s own identification with human limitations and inadequacies. At such moments, one imagines that one stands on some spot of a small planet, gazing in amazement at the cold yet profoundly moving beauty of the eternal, the unfathomable: life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only being.”
•“There is, after all, something eternal that lies beyond reach of the hand of fate and of all human delusions. And such eternals lie closer to an older person than to a younger one oscillating between fear and hope. For us, there remains the privilege of experiencing beauty and truth in their purest forms.”
•In the cosmic religious feeling, “the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance.”
•“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us ‘Universe,’ a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.”
•The individual feels “the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature … and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole.”
•“A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content … regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation … In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be…”
•“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”
•“The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men”
•“My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the universe which we try to formulate as ‘laws of nature.'”
•“I can understand your aversion to the use of the term ‘religion’ to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza. (But) I have not found a better expression than ‘religious’ for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason.”
•“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
•“God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified.”


Stephen Hawking quotes:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

"If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God"

“So Einstein was wrong when he said, “God does not play dice.” Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen.”

One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make itlook as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"

With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

We each exist for but a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time.



Philosophical question: are any of those questions/observations caused by metaphysical phenomena (from self-awareness)?

[Steve3007]

I agree it's inevitable we either personify or otherwise reify abstractions such as 'goodness', or 'America' , or 'motherhood', or 'evil', or the colour blue, or 'perfection', and so forth. How else can we think about these without having at least a private mental icon that stands for the abstraction?

It's interesting when we do it the other way around too. For example, the other day a news reader said "Number 10 has released a statement". Strange that an abstract concept like a number can talk!

[Belindi]

I agree it's inevitable we either personify or otherwise reify abstractions such as 'goodness', or 'America' , or 'motherhood', or 'evil', or the colour blue, or 'perfection', and so forth. How else can we think about these without having at least a private mental icon that stands for the abstraction?

It's interesting when we do it the other way around too. For example, the other day a news reader said "Number 10 has released a statement". Strange that an abstract concept like a number can talk!

Do you have a mental iconic picture of the front door of Number 10 with the policeman standing there and Boris about to appear?

[Steve3007]

Do you have a mental iconic picture of the front door of Number 10 with the policeman standing there and Boris about to appear?

Yes, I'd say so. I presume you do too. But I suspect that mental picture conjured up by the expression "Number 10..." is very culturally specific. I suppose in the US it would be "Number 1600..." but they usually tend to use the name of the house, not its address.

[Belindi]

Do you have a mental iconic picture of the front door of Number 10 with the policeman standing there and Boris about to appear?

Yes, I'd say so. I presume you do too. But I suspect that mental picture conjured up by the expression "Number 10..." is very culturally specific. I suppose in the US it would be "Number 1600..." but they usually tend to use the name of the house, not its address.

Iconic images are used for the implicit purpose of influencing others of the same culture. Iconic images are used for the same purpose as linguistic memes; icons are graphic memes.

Memes and iconic images have in common that they are constructed from a few ideas that are culturally accepted as important and are assembled in the one image. For instance Marilyn Monroe is an icon of both tragedy and beauty which larger than in an ordinary life and assembled in the one individual makes her iconic.

Religions are rich with icons and memes.

[JackDaydream]

I thought that your description was a good summary of some of the key unifying features and differences between philosophy and religious outlooks. Some thinkers have combined the two and some have thought about them apart. This was probably different in the ancient world than in today, although it could be argued that Socrates was the first atheist.

Many in the world embrace religion, especially Christian and Islamic faiths, but many others have stepped outside of religious perspectives. This is connected with an emphasis on this world rather than 'otherworlds', and find background for this on the basis of science. My understanding of Darwin is that he was not intending an opposition to religion, but in many ways his ideas have been a starting point for challenging the religious worldview. Of course, not all scientists are opposed to religious views but science has ushered in materialism and it may be asked does philosophy replace religion? It may not be possible to have religion without philosophy, but it may be that many find it possible to have philosophy without religion, although I am not convinced that religion will ever be absent from its role in culture and understanding.

[JackDaydream]

I forgot to add your name, so the post above is my reply to you. I also apologise that I do not include boxes with quotes, but it is a bit difficult to do on my mobile phone, and it does not have a mouse.

[JackDaydream]

@stevie: Please see posts above.