Religion – Part V of VI
Religion vs. Philosophy
Why do we exist? Is there a universal code of ethics? What does living a moral life mean? Is there some sort of existence beyond our time on earth?
These are but a few of the myriad questions that may be asked by both philosophers and the religious among us. Of course, depending on the perspective of the person answering those questions, there will be a wide variation in the answers. But as discussed in earlier segments of this series, it is our curiosity that drives us to ask these questions in the first place. And regardless of the means by which we seek the answers, each of us, every single person on the planet, will come up with a slightly different point of view.
These variations cannot be avoided since each one of us has our own way of interpreting the world. Our senses, as noted in a few of my other essays, are fallible. We filter all data, thereby unintentionally manipulating the input we receive. We arrive at our conclusions based on this skewed information. And we form assumptions, thoughts, and opinions as best we can through the reinterpretation of what we see, hear, smell, feel, and taste along with the baggage of past experience we all carry. Add to all of this our genetic material and we end up with 7 billion versions of reality.
This diversity boils down to a vast array of potential answers to each of the questions mentioned above. In many ways, religious ritual and scripture attempt to offer us a cadre of definitive answers by suggesting that if we place our trust in an omniscient being, the answers will be forthcoming. All one has to do is read the text of whatever holy book is at hand, remain faithful, and pray. I understand this perspective. I would also like to have answers that are succinct and fit within my world. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one’s perspective) my mind cannot fathom a commitment to this type of religious rhetoric. None of it makes sense to me, so my only choice is to find comfort and consolation in pragmatic and philosophical practices.
Before I go any further into my own point of view, I would like to offer a few perspectives from others with regard to the difference between religious thought and philosophical musings. Unlike my last post on the Worship of More, where I could find hardly any information, I discovered dozens of articles discussing the differences between Religion and Philosophy (YAY!)
The general consensus I gleaned from most of the articles is that there are similarities and differences in religious beliefs relative to philosophy. This is an obvious conclusion, but it is the reasoning I found of particular interest. The key parallels are that both are inquiries into the meaning of life and of the world at large. In addition it is apparent that both schools of thought have had profound influences on each other.
Concepts such as morality, ethics, and the common good are found both in sacred scripture and in the writings of most philosophers since the early days of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This delving into the reasons for existence are integral parts of the musings of ancient humans that led to the evolution of religious belief in the first place. It was only when philosophers began to dig deeper into those early questions that we started to sense there may be a more rational understanding of the “why’s” than the various mythologies that had been the explanation for millennia. These inquiries by philosophers were grounded in the quest for empirical data outside the realm of the supernatural, even though hard evidence is extraordinarily difficult to pin down when one is discussing the meaning of life. And so assumptions were made about human behavior and the reasons for anomalies in our environment based on personal subjective observations.
This will bring us full circle, back to the subjective nature of humans. If the ancient Greeks had been able to come to definitive conclusions about ethics, morality, and why human consciousness exists, (among other topics), the study of philosophy would have ended 2,400 years ago. But when the same events are observed by a wide range of people, a question such as: Does a realm of good versus evil actually exist?, might elicit amorphous opinions with no clearly defined answers. And so the debates about such topics are never-ending, rehashed from generation to generation. I can only imagine the discussions that took place during heated conversations at the Vienna Circle in the Austrian coffee houses of the early 1920s.
The names of participants in the Vienna Circle included luminaries of philosophy and science such as Max Ernst, Phillip Frank, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittegenstein, to name just a few of those who would add their observations to the ongoing discussions. Each of them attempting to offer a singular view of the world, arguing their perspective, and then learning from others.
It is exactly this kind of epistemological gathering that would differentiate discussions of philosophy from debates within religious institutions (for the most part). Religions exist by resting on the shoulders of rules, rituals, and faith. Arguments between various religious scholars are based on disparate interpretations of Biblical scripture or some other form of sacred text, but they are usually confined to those texts. Any concepts outside the realm of specifically accepted spirituality have been considered irrelevant or worse, blasphemous.
Still, the church, synagogue, mosque, and/or temple continues to offer something that philosophical gatherings usually cannot. That is sanctuary from the cacophonous brutality of the outside world. A place where those who seek simpler answers and a sense of quiet grace can encounter like-minded souls. Where other members of the tribe will sing a familiar hymn or where a pastor, rabbi, priest, imam, or counselor, will help supplicants find direction and purpose in life. Safe places where the secular uncertainties espoused by academics are seemingly relegated to those distant coffee houses of the past and present.
[Next week: A few concluding thoughts about this series will be offered]
Tobin, this piece concludes on a much more open-ended note than I anticipated. And your graphic suggests a face off which to everyone’s surprise is not to be the case. What if philosophy does not vanquish religion, that is under the banner of reason declares that at last, all superstition is banished from the land? Seems that you’d be somewhat disappointed with that outcome. I know that I would. Reason is a necessary tool. We simply would not have survived, any of us, apart from the exercise and development of reason by our ancestors. We stand on the shoulders of Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Wittgenstein, and the list would be long indeed.
Nevertheless religion, that gut level suspicion the beauty around us, even better, which we may engage and collaborate with (art, architecture, etc.) time bound though it certainly is – is a hint of cosmic “meaning” even if we are groping to understand what we mean by “meaning.” Religion hangs around, even with the obvious corruption in the legacy institutions, or the “totalisms” of some dogmatic forms. Often a sunset will strike me as so deeply moving, or maybe a verbal presentation made in a public forum will impress me as having just the right balance of brevity and “heart”… Feeling, involuntary, which arises on such occasions is religious in quality.
For me, I am satisfied with the diversity of views, with the challenge to achieve clarity about what is meant by “reason”, to grasp that “good” and “evil” are not likely to be as opposed as I once thought.
And texts are useful, important. A text is religious in so far as it is used as a lens. A lens demands a certain skill requisite to a good focus. A further point: no one who understands the purpose of a lens insists on meticulous examination, parsing of the very lens itself, – claiming a function of a lens, that’s erroneous in the context of life.
So, let us carry on.