My own view is that religious and mythical perspectives have an important contribution to make to philosophy. — Jack Cummins

"An important contribution" such as?

I am not wishing to dismiss the views of thinkers who have developed critical analytical perspectives on religion. I am simply wishing to open up horizons beyond Western thought. I am not trying to simply look to philosophy which supports theism, but look at the widest horizons, ranging from many ideas within Western thinking, and many other traditions.

Yeah, I got that from the OP. So what is this "important contribution" that you believe such "perspectives" make to philosophy?

Keep on squeezing. :yum: Without squeezing there will be wheezing an sneezing. It's a little like the question-and-answer period in the Canadian parliament. The opposition asks the same question over and over again, and the ruling party avoids giving a straight-on honest answer to the question over and over and over again.

Except, inexplicably, once in a while a head will roll (in p-p-Parliament.) Not here. It's easier to withstand critical mass here than in front of tv cameras.

I believe that looking to perspectives outside of the frame of Western philosophy may enlarge our thinking. I am not simply wishing to point us back to a 'religious' point of view. Many of us may have struggled with traditional ways of seeing life in terms of a 'divine' plan, with all kinds of experiences of guilt. But, on the other hand, once we go beyond all 'spiritual' philosophies completely, we can go into a wasteland. But, I am not really trying to say what we ought to believe at all, but, merely look at the many possible perspectives, and, ultimately, I am not sure that there any definite, conclusive answers. But, I do believe that it useful to think about comparative aspects of religion, with a view to whether there are any ideas which seem to stand out beyond the confines of specific cultural conditioning and conventions.

I agree that every argument needs a counter argument…every position an opposition. Atheism needs theism etc. This is good for critical thinking and even if you are a theist you should respect and acknowledge the non belief viewpoint

If there is going to be a section on philosophy or religion it would seem some discussion of various religious conceptions and the role they play in human affairs should be permitted without absolute derision.

Humans are meaning seeking creatures, religion has been with man as long as recorded history.
Religion stills plays a large role in the lives of many people and is a major influence in their lives.
It is true that the more educated a person is in the scientific method and the findings of science perhaps the less likely they are to believe in traditional or supernatural theism.

Many people have turned away from traditional Western religious thought and towards Eastern religions and mystical practices. The religious inclination is still strong worldwide.

I don't see any problem with religious notions like panentheism or even outright pantheism. Regarding the universe with a certain amount of awe and consideration of it in holy, numinous or scared terms seems within the realm of rational behavior. It is even for those not entirely conceptually committed to an entirely mechanistic, deterministic and reductionist view of nature to see some self organizing inherent capability resulting in creatures capable of such considerations.

We don't all have to ascribe to Christopher Hitchens views:
As Hitchens put it so eloquently, if also partially, during his debate with Blair:
“I come before you as a materialist. If we give up religion, we discover
what actually we know already, whether we're religious or not, which is
that we are somewhat imperfectly evolved primates, on a very small planet
in a very unimportant suburb of a solar system that is itself a negligible
part of a very rapidly expanding and blowing apart cosmic phenomenon.”
Hitchens here emphasizes the absurdity of our purely empirico-physical understanding
of the larger cosmos. Based only on sensory observation of primary qualities like mass
and motion, and mathematical analysis of them in terms of measurable quantities, the
universe reveals no apparent purpose. It is only the poetic indulgence of the human
imagination that fools us into believing otherwise.

Some of us can ascribe to the views of Whitehead and other religious philosophers
Philosophy attains its chief importance,” according to Whitehead, “by fusing the two, namely, religion and science, into one rational scheme of thought” (p. 15). The revelations of modern science concerning the regularities of nature have made belief in miracles seem antiquated and superstitious, but the religious impulse itself seems to run deeper than the need for magic tricks offering proof of the divine.1 As Hitchens admits, humanity’s sense of the numinous and transcendent—of “something beyond the material, or not quite consistent with it”—is what distinguishes us from other primates. We are not only the wise, but also the uncanny species. To be human is to participate in both time and eternity, to be embedded in history with an intuition of infinity, our birthright an experience of what Thomas Berry called incendence.
The vast majority of human beings feel compelled to respond to this feeling of incendence religiously, either as evidence of a personal deity (as in the Abrahamic and some Vedic traditions) or as evidence of an impersonal creative plenum or ground of being (as in Buddhism, Taoism, and many indigenous traditions). Whitehead's dual conception of the ultimate in terms of God and Creativity, respectively, helps us understand these cultural differences.

Not all religious conceptions lead to bad behavior or to rejection of the utility of science in understanding our world.

I believe that looking to perspectives outside of the frame of Western philosophy may enlarge our thinking — Jack Cummins

Isn't what a large part of this site is already about? There are numerous threads on Eastern faiths and philosophies, Jung, etc.

But, on the other hand, once we go beyond all 'spiritual' philosophies completely, we can go into a wasteland. — Jack Cummins

I am still waiting for evidence that this is the case. People seem to cite Stalinism or the Nazi's but the connection is far from clear.

But, I do believe that it useful to think about comparative aspects of religion, with a view to whether there are any ideas which seem to stand out beyond the confines of specific cultural conditioning and conventions. — Jack Cummins

It seems to me you are asking - "What ideas from world religions are useful to human beings?"

Is it not a commonplace view that useful ideas are located in many (often unlikely) sources? No doubt there are profound lessons in many novels. Some writers think we only tell the truth in fiction.

What ideas stand out for you in any religion? Maybe you could start by giving a couple of examples so that we can get into the flow of this.

I agree that every argument needs a counter argument…every position an opposition. Atheism needs theism etc. This is good for critical thinking and even if you are a theist you should respect and acknowledge the non belief viewpoint — Deus

Low rent Hegelian? I don't think every argument needs a counter argument, it's there whether you want it or not. The question is why do you think this is important and what has it to do with Jack's OP?

I definitely believe in looking at all points of view critically, and believe that the fullest analysis of many perspectives enhances our thinking.

I don't see any problem with religious notions like panentheism or even outright pantheism. — prothero

Or pandeism.

In other words, "religious and mythical perspectives" contribute to philosophers "thinking outside the box" and contrary to their "comfort zones" and perhaps even challenging, or overcoming, their "cultural conditioning", is that it?

My view was always that religion was 'the box' and philosophy an attempt to think outside it. Often successfully.

There are many threads on this site which do look at varying viewpoints, ranging from the Taoist to Buddhism, but, often, these are separate from the scope of philosophical analysis. So, in this particular thread, I am probably looking for analysis of how these ideas can be compared critically, in the overall formulation of a way of seeing life and philosophy.

:up: Yes, very much so. We can go back to the pre-Socratics seeking to think Logos outside the Mythos box. But the OP seems to have it backwards ... Philosophers (contra sophists / woosers) still try to think outside the box even though many aspects of philosophy have historically been used to enlarged and reinforced the box.

Low rent Hegelian? I don't think every argument needs a counter argument, it's there whether you want it or not. The question is why do you think this is important and what has it to do with Jack's OP? — Tom Storm

We are not talking about the existence of the moon here but God. In certain such matters that are open for debate and especially where there is no proof and facts are wanting then arguments and counter arguments are necessary.

Aquinas, Pascal and other religious philosophers contributions are important in understanding various god-related philosophies

Sorry, you've lost me.

I read threads on various viewpoints and do have a strong interest in Jung, who looked at the mythic dimensions. But, I think that we probably formulate our own views out of a mixture of need for understanding, and many other aspects of our thinking. Some people find the answers which seem to satisfy them without looking outside of what they are taught in religious or other systems of thought which they receive in education. It is so variable, and some struggle so much more to find the ways of thinking. Personally, I am someone who has looked widely within science and religion, and I do believe that comparative religion, as well as other philosophy perspectives, are useful.

There are many threads on this site which do look at varying viewpoints, ranging from the Taoist to Buddhism, but, often, these are separate from the scope of philosophical analysis. So, in this particular thread, I am probably looking for analysis of how these ideas can be compared critically, in the overall formulation of a way of seeing life and philosophy. — Jack Cummins

It is not clear to me what you wish to discuss?
Things like: What are more common or useful notions?
Immanence vs Transcendence
Supernatural Theism (miracles and interventions) vs. the Laws of Nature
Revealed Religion vs. Meditation and Rational Inquiry
Personal vs Impersonal Notions of the Divine

Certainly, familiarity with religious conceptions from around the world and history are useful to philosophers of religion. Also certainly the advances in our understanding of science and nature gives us cause to review our religious conceptions and try to avoid the cognitive dissonance that occurs from separating our notions about how the world works from our religious inclinations.

↪Deus Sorry, you've lost me. — Tom Storm

No problem this can sometimes happen. You can’t have a philosophical position without an opposition. Consider aesthetics and beauty for example or the question what is art. In defining those terms there’s a chance that contradictory positions and explanations will emerge … it is these contradictions that constitute and are the bread and butter of philosophy. So it’s not so much to do with religion itself but rather the nature of these types of arguments…

Perhaps I am an upside down thinker, but, really, I don't have many 'comfort zones' at all in thinking. I certainly don't accept the views which I was taught within 'religious' education, especially Catholicism. On the other hand, I question all the philosophy perspectives, so enter into pluralism in the widest possible way. I read and draw upon ideas ranging from science, Hinduism, Buddhism and so many divergent perspectives and philosophy. So, I am likely to have a busy reading life, because I try to keep an open mind.

Ok. Your points didn't seem to be related to Jack's thesis. That's all. Maybe you could develop the point in relation to the OP.

It is not clear to me what you wish to discuss?
Things like: What are more common or useful notions?
Immanence vs Transcendence
Supernatural Theism (miracles and interventions) vs. the Laws of Nature
Revealed Religion vs. Meditation and Rational Inquiry
Personal vs Impersonal Notions of the Divine — prothero

Yes - that's where I was heading. Where does this take us?

Yes, it may be that my thread discussion is a bit confusing. Really, I am interested in what we can learn from the comparative analysis of religion. This probably includes the themes and ideas which arise, and it is likely that certain themes resonate with each of us slightly differently. This is probably the mythic dimension, or esoteric aspect, in the sense of being about the 'inner' aspect of religious perspectives. It is more of a symbolic viewpoint, whereas in many traditional perspectives of religion, the main emphasis can often be far more about concrete, or literal answers about 'God, life after death and many other questions. Of course, that is a way of philosophy, but I come with a view to far more scrutiny and deeper analysis of beliefs, metaphysics, and all the assumptions underlying how we approach these areas.

I am asking, beyond any one specific view or interpretation of religion, whether the symbolic ideas in various religions traditions have any relevance for consideration in the widest scheme of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

What is the purpose of religion as you see it?
What is the purpose of studying the philosophy of religion?
Religious philosophy is speculative philosophy and as such analytic philosophers or logical positivists will have none of it.
Whiteheads definition
Speculative Philosophy is the endeavour to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted. By this notion of ‘interpretation’ I mean that everything of which we are conscious, as enjoyed, perceived, willed, or thought, shall have the character of a particular instance of the general scheme. Thus the philosophical scheme should be coherent, logical, and, in respect to its interpretation, applicable and adequate. Here ‘applicable’ means that some items of experience are thus interpretable, and ‘adequate’ means that there are no items incapable of such interpretation.
Thus an adequate speculative philosophy should include religion or at least values, purposes and goals.
You could also start out with a particular theme like life after death in comparative religions.

I think it would help if you described some examples - you must have an intuition about it or why raise the subject?

'Comparative religion' is all well and good for gaining (some) understanding the cross-cultural phenomenon of religion as such. Likewise, 'comparative philosophy' for understanding philosophy as such. Each is rewarding in its own right and, IMO, indispensible for a richer cultural and intellectual soil within which to plow and sow deeper speculations; nevertheless, in over four decades of appreciating both of these comparative studies, I've not conflated or confused either with doing philosophy itself as, following the Socratic example, philosophy consists in examining (exposing, problematizing) our assumptions and biases, givens and blindspots, habits and practices, etc ... which includes and encompasses "religious and mythical perspectives" whether they are explicitly expressed or implicitly at work in our languages and customs ... examining our lives through conceptual reflection which strives to be both therapeutic (flourishing via) and creative (praxes) so that they become (more) worth living.

The OP, it seems to me, suggests a retrograde anti-philosophical (or pseudo-philosophical) approach to philosophy which, while eclectic and interesting, is much more "about ideas & mysteries" than actually thinking through them. Perhaps thinking against "ideas & mysteries" is "the wasteland" the OP mentions with trepidation? And yet isn't thinking against oneself (against one's own "religious & mythical perspective") the meaning of 'an examined life' – living philosophically (living dangerously via 'spiritual exercises')?

With all due respect, Jack, your mind seems more distracted than open. Your criterion for considering "possibilities" seems so elastic it's unfocused without direction to the point of being useless and shallow. Your provocations only tease. Yes, you're a voracious reader, Jack, but you don't really study or research, do you? No discipline just cerebral gluttony, going in widening circles without, it seems, ever diving deep. An open mind is also closed just as walking a path is also taking leave or leaving departures behind.

I am replying to you together, because I think that you are both raising the question of underlying themes. I suppose that one major theme is the idea of God, and views about God vary so much according to our backgrounds. If one is a Christian one is usually accustomed to think of Christ as the Son of God. If one is a Muslim, Mohammed is seen as the main prophet. Or, if one is an raised as an atheist, the view is that there is no God.

However, some writers have tried to step outside of this, beyond relativism, and try to look beyond, including Huston Smith and Aldous Huxley. This can be about the idea of a 'perennial wisdom' or the underlying truth beyond religion. Huston Smith goes as far as seeing both atheism and theism as limited.

There are many themes within religious traditions and various traditions of thought, so it is extremely complex, but some thinkers do believe that knowledge of the ultimate is beyond any one particular tradition.

There are many themes within religious traditions and various traditions of thought, so it is extremely complex, but some thinkers do believe that knowledge of the ultimate is beyond any one particular tradition. — Jack Cummins

And that "perennialist" sentiment is shallow. Whatever is "ultimate" necessarily is beyond all traditions made up of non-ultimate, or proximate, minds, no?

There are many themes within religious traditions and various traditions of thought, so it is extremely complex, but some thinkers do believe that knowledge of the ultimate is beyond any one particular tradition. — Jack Cummins

Well, you know, you get quotes:
"God is too big to be put in a box", "God is too big for one religion"
that is all fine.
One can state why one ascribes to a particular religious viewpoint and respond to queries, questions and challenges.
We can exchange viewpoints and try better to understand each others point of view but there is no definitive authority for religion.
Some religious conceptions are clearly at odds with reason and science and as such probably cannot be entertained or discussed on a philosophy forum.
It seems to me supernatural theism and special revelation fall into this category. Many literal interpretations of scripture (created in six days, 6000 year old earth, etc) are also beyond rational discourse.
I think much traditional Christian orthodox theology and doctrine is beyond rational discussion. Some more esoteric or mystical version or interpretations of Christianity might be accepted.
Eastern traditions especially those which emphasize divine immanence and the impersonal nature of the divine probably are more easily accommodated into a world view which includes both reason and science. What do you believe and why? or which particular religious concept do you wish to explore?

It may be that my own mind is a bit too 'elastic', but it is probably because I have not found one perspective which I believe sums up the 'truth'. I read philosophy critiques as well as ideas within Christianity, Eastern philosophy and other viewpoints and, as far as I see, they all contribute partial pictures.

I am inclined to thinking about mysteries, as evident in a couple of threads which I have started. The tradition of mysteries goes back to the Greeks, including Plato. I am not saying that I think that we should stop at the point of the mysterious, but, really, after centuries of thinking Wittgenstein still points to uncertainty. I am all in favour of science, critical thinking, but, in many ways, philosophy goes round in circles. But, I take the point of an open mind can become a closed one is closed' and I don't wish to rule out any possible definitive answers.

As far as the idea of the shallow and the deep of the Perennial, I think that it is hard to know. I had a tutor who thought that I viewed depths of the mind which were not there at all. Some people believe in depths which are 'hidden' while others regard this as absurd. In such matters, so much is speculation.

Really, I am interested in what we can learn from the comparative analysis of religion. — Jack Cummins

You could learn about the various ways that people in different cultures have imagined deity and deities. You could learn about how the ways deities have been imagined has related to proscriptions on behavior and prescriptive practices designed to appeal to, or gain a vision of deities. You could identify commonalities and differences between these various cultural phenomena. Can you think of anything else?