Religion thinks it already has the answers to philosophical questions.

When I was reading some philosophy as a Catholic teenager I was not aware of the complexity of the relationship it had with religion. The first niggle was when a member of staff at my school said to me that he was worried that if I followed philosophy as a subject that I would end up questioning religious belief. That seemed strange and it was several years after that comment that I realised how the philosophy issues lead to deep questions about religious truth.

For many religious thinkers religion and philosophy were united, but as people have become aware that the assuumptioni of religion, especially Christianity cannot be accepted as evident truths it seems that the two have parted to a large extent, with the philosophy of religion being a branch of philosophy. Of course, there is theology, which is philosophy based, but from it's own reference point of certain 'truths' rather than from a wider angle.

Religions borrow from philosophy. Christianity had an entire worldview based upon Neo-Platonism. Some people would regard religious figures like the Buddha and Confucius as philosophers. I think much religion is dogma and antithetical to philosophy, in as much as wisdom isn't valued as much as obedience.

I agree. And in the religious context the truths of such undecidable things as karma, reincarnation, resurrection, nirvana, heaven and so on are taken for granted; whereas I think philosophy well practiced should take nothing for granted that doesn't need to be for the sake of the inquiry, and even then the context dependency of what is taken for granted should be acknowledged.

Can Buddhists do this with karma and rebirth or Christians do it with the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus? I don't think most can, because to admit that such things are not absolute would be to undermine any faith for most people.

How are these topics related? — TiredThinker

From an open-minded (and perhaps naive) perspective, the use of philosophy in religion can be seen as a method of acquainting someone with religious concepts who might otherwise not be inclined to believe them. If I remember correctly, Aquinas thought that philosophy can help a person get started on their path in the faith; reason is used to demonstrate that the beliefs of a religion are worthy of consideration. For instance, once a person understands the conclusions of a philosophical demonstration that purportedly demonstrates the necessity of a prime mover, they can take the next steps in their relationship with this prime mover.

From a cynical (and perhaps paranoid) perspective, the use of philosophy in religion can be seen as nothing more than propaganda, used to swindle people into believing nonsense under the guise of impressive, intimidating and esoteric arguments. Religions commonly manifest as hierarchical power structures, and philosophy helps justify the structure by convincing people that it is legitimate.

My own opinion is a mix of both of these perspectives, but fundamentally I believe that regardless of whatever merits a religious philosophy may have, in actual practice this intellectual apparatus functions as a propaganda device for the powers that endorse it.

When I was reading some philosophy as a Catholic teenager I was not aware of the complexity of the relationship it had with religion. The first niggle was when a member of staff at my school said to me that he was worried that if I followed philosophy as a subject that I would end up questioning religious belief. That seemed strange and it was several years after that comment that I realised how the philosophy issues lead to deep questions about religious truth.

For many religious thinkers religion and philosophy were united, but as people have become aware that the assuumptioni of religion, especially Christianity cannot be accepted as evident truths it seems that the two have parted to a large extent, with the philosophy of religion being a branch of philosophy. Of course, there is theology, which is philosophy based, but from it's own reference point of certain 'truths' rather than from a wider angle. — Jack Cummins

At seminaries, Kierkegaard is only grudgingly taught. Thinking about religion both delivers one from the yoke of dogma, and puts the "reality" of religion in full view.

fundamentally I believe that regardless of whatever merits a religious philosophy may have, in actual practice this intellectual apparatus functions as a propaganda device for the powers that endorse it. — _db

I think it's the same for any philosophy; it's just a matter of different scales.

As much as we hate to admit it, I think we in philosophy rely on dogmatism to the same extent that any religions we can name do. Even the idea that there are philosophically enlightened individuals and non-enlightened ones presupposes a philosophical system. So any system by nature has individuals who aren't going to think about its concepts and ideas in their consciousness; does that make them lesser human beings? Personally, I believe that to be narcissistic, and Christians are right to avoid it because it goes against their teaching. Expecting everyone to be a philosophically free thinker is like expecting everyone to know how to calculate the electric field of a dipole or to know all the Latin names of all the plants in their home town; ironically, such an ideal system wouldn't function properly in actuality.

At seminaries, Kierkegaard is only grudgingly taught. Thinking about religion both delivers one from the yoke of dogma, and puts the "reality" of religion in full view. — Astrophel

Yes, any serious thought about it dispels the illusion that it can be anything more than faith. Which is not to say that belittles it, since faith is not to be sneezed at.

. I think much religion is dogma and antithetical to philosophy, in as much as wisdom isn't valued as much as obedience. — Tom Storm

Yeah, that is the despicable nature of popular religion. Philosophy, one like myself would argue, is the true religion. In the East they call in jnana yoga.

I think we in philosophy rely on dogmatism to the same extent that any religions we can name do. — kudos

Heh, heh....this certainly can't be true. It would assume authentic inquiry is no better than myth.

My own opinion is a mix of both of these perspectives, but fundamentally I believe that regardless of whatever merits a religious philosophy may have, in actual practice this intellectual apparatus functions as a propaganda device for the powers that endorse it. — _db

You sound like Foucault. Is there nothing substantive beneath the propaganda?

Ideas and concepts lead to actions, beliefs, notions. Don't you think so?

Ideas and concepts lead to actions, beliefs, notions. Don't you think so? — kudos

Of course. But they also lead to other ideas, and perhaps there are meanings in play that are not invented, but there to be witnessed, discovered. True inquiry can take one there. Dogma does not.

Is ordinary life not also a type of true inquiry? Not to sound offensive, but your zeal for true inquiry sounds a lot like a form of dogma. Why do you need this true inquiry?

s ordinary life not also a type of true inquiry? Not to sound offensive, but your zeal for true inquiry sounds a lot like a form of dogma. Why do you need this true inquiry? — kudos

To ask the question, e.g., why are we born to suffer and die can be authentically encountered, and can actually bring one to the threshold of deeper meaning, I would argue. Religious dogma keeps this kind of encounter at bay. (Having said this, I do see the value of a ready to hand dogma for those in crisis, and would not for a moment deny the the relief religion can give them. But this is another story.)

much religion is dogma and antithetical to philosophy — Tom Storm

Much philosophy is dogma and antithetical to philosophy. There are plenty of examples here on the forum. And no, I'm not talking about you.

R.G. Collingwood wrote that one absolute presumption of all science is that God exists. That may seem absurd at first take, but I interpret him as meaning that all science is dependent on the existence of a universe that operates in accordance with lawful principles that we are capable of understanding. I'm not any kind of historian of science or philosophy, but it seems reasonable to me to ask if that presupposition depends on, or at least once depended on, religious understanding.

Much philosophy is dogma and antithetical to philosophy. There are plenty of examples here on the forum. And no, I'm not talking about you. — T Clark

Sure. There's too much dogma everywhere. It's worth identifying when we see it, whether it be religious or secular.

:up: :fire:

The elephant in the room is what exactly you mean by 'dogma.' Looking at the definition online this came up:

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. (Oxford Dictionary)

So when we say that religions claim things to be 'incontrovertibly true,' what does that mean? If I say, "Jesus died for our sins," am I claiming that there was a person named Jesus who really died and it was because of a group of people around him, or is the 'truth' of this statement something beyond the pure material representation? In my observation many Christians seem to have the view that accepting the statement as true without having individuals making this distinction is not considered a problem; this generalization characterizes it to us as dogmatic. But in reality, it's just not feasible to have such a massive number of people truly making this distinction. That's a product of its form, not just its content. Is there any reason to believe the apparatus of traditional philosophical inquiry you call 'true inquiry' would not take the same form if it were widely studied?

Don't we see the same scene in philosophy when we allow freshmen to study Plato and give them a pat on the back even when they're totally off base? We see a light at the end of the tunnel, just as the religious people we snuff our noses at do.

I assume philosophy is open to all possible ideas but after talking to a Catholic priest who made it seem like he considered religion and philosophy to be synonymous. However the idea of reincarnation certainly wasn't up for debate at all. The conversation seemed entirely dogmatic. How are these topics related? — TiredThinker

I had another thought, or maybe it's the same idea as my previous post. I have often thought, and more than once written on the forum, that a belief in objective reality requires an objective observer. Someone who can stand outside the reality we experience and see it as it really is. The only entity I can think of that could fill that role is God.

It's not my intention to argue for the existence of God here. Rather, I'm arguing for the philosophical relevance of religion.

I had another thought, or maybe it's the same idea as my previous post. I have often thought, and more than once written on the forum, that a belief in objective reality requires an objective observer. Someone who can stand outside the reality we experience and see it as it really is. The only entity I can think of that could fill that role is God. — T Clark

Not sure exactly what your point is, but it sounds a little like Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology wherein God is seen as a properly basic belief, the necessary foundation for objective reality and coherence. This is worked up from Kant's transcendentals.

Don't we see the same scene in philosophy when we allow freshmen to study Plato and give them a pat on the back even when they're totally off base? We see a light at the end of the tunnel, just as the religious people we snuff our noses at do. — kudos

If they're off base, they will fail the exam.

If you are studying the history of philosophy, then your exam will be dogmatic, you could say. The point would be to get you to understand something. More so if the course is about particle physics or genetics. The ground has to be laid. But with all of the paradigms you might be exposed to, there comes a point in your career at which you can actually put yourself at the cutting edge and see how those paradigms stand up to criticism. Human knowledge is, all of it, open.

Philosophy is different in that its foundations are less stable than science, more arguable. Popular religion is far worse. It doesn't require justification, only faith (and exegeses that are intra-justificatory, you might say) . What makes philosophy so important is that, like religion, it subsumes the whole of human knowledge claims (you know, God the creator rules over all, and so forth), all categories and disciplines, but it insists on objective justification. A tall order, you can say, obviously. The tallest, really. But note how philosophy and religion compete. Philosophy takes up thematically all that religion takes up, principally ethics! Science cannot touch ethics. Religion has ethics as its core concern. Only philosophy subsumes all.
Of course, you can say philosophy goes nowhere, or has no where to go since everything has been said. True and not true. Not much more to be said, but what has been said is hardly understood.

If they're off base, they will fail the exam.

All hail the mighty examination, the true judger of all...

Doesn't this super-materialism just look like Christianity with the crust cut off?

Doesn't this super-materialism just look like Christianity with the crust cut off? — kudos

Okay Foucault. And grades are the punitive consequences, the threat, that keeps you line. The classroom is a microcosm of Christendom.

LOL, seriously though. Something massive leaving creates a void that creates a vaccuum.

I guess we are misunderstanding (from academician point of view) the concepts of theology and philosophy. They seem to be similar but in long-term are pretty different. This is why there are PhD in both matters.
Some years ago, at least in my country, when you picked up philosophy, you were included as student in liberal arts. While, if you decided to dedicate to religion, it was called traditional. In nowadays, it is different...
If you study a philosophy degree you would see a brief content of religion. Like it or not it is literally a way of reasoning or believing for a lot of people.

As much as we hate to admit it, I think we in philosophy rely on dogmatism to the same extent that any religions we can name do — kudos

It could be but the main difference is that we can easily change of dogma because we are not rendered to a "God"

What about the interior self, emphasized by theologians and philosophers throughout history, what was the basis for that? Doesn't the word philosophy itself mean something like, 'love of wisdom?' The philosophically liberated and wise self is pretty much your version of Jesus Christ. It it fully rendered and unquestioned.

It it fully rendered and unquestioned. — kudos

Literally the opposite. This is what philosophy stands for. To question everything or at least all what is connected to our awareness or concerns.
That is why we can see different theories and thinkers through the history of philosophy: Ancient Greece, rationalists, empiricism, British/German schools, etc... They all tend to refute the previous thesis or essays of whatever they are debating.
But inside religion, I do not know anyone who is not rendered to God because it could cause the opposite.