Influence of Religious Beliefs when Doing Philosophy

[Seminole]

If a person has certain religious beliefs such as the Koran or Bible being the word of God, what difference would that make when he or she does philosophy? I understand doing philosophy to mean using reason to find truth and evaluating arguments.

Do you think it is intellectually constraining to do philosophy and at the same time believe that a certain book is the word of God?

[-1-]

Being a religious philosopher is liberating.

You can, for instance, reconcile by faith what logic does not allow you to do.

For instance, the axioms of mathematics no longer apply. 3-1 = 0 is a true statement according to Christian thinkers.

Also, infinite good and infinite power can create evil. Go figure. This is a shoo-in for belief by the religious, while the poor, hapless atheist philosophers throw their hands in the air in giving up trying to fathom how that is possible.

Giving up your only begotten son -- a bastard -- via a horrible, painful death, to free mankind from sin, when the whole freeing of mankind from the original sin could have been done by God downing a tasty tonic or cola. The power is in Him to do so... or to do it in any one of a million other, more pleasant ways... yet He chose to kill his only besodden son. Whom was He trying to impress?

These are just some of myriads of the liberating features that religious philosophers enjoy over atheist ones... the liberation from the constraints of logic, of reason, of being able to make sense of the world.

[Eduk]

I was listening to an interesting podcast the other day (SGU). An ex Hasidic Jew was talking about his disappointment that it took him so much of his life to apply the same critical thinking which he applied to the rest of the world to himself. Everyone else's crazy ideas were easy to spot, trivially so, but his own took many years of thought.
Personally I think every culture has these same crazy beliefs (doesn't have to be religious). So I don't believe you are particularly held back by any membership of a religion or at least no more than anyone else.
For me the problems arise when you take a belief and then try to justify it using reason. It should be the other way around.

[-1-]

For me the problems arise when you take a belief and then try to justify it using reason. It should be the other way around.

You mean, reason should take the belief, and then use it to justify the person?


(-:

[Eduk]

I think I am slowly getting your sense of humour

[-1-]

It's funny being a human. We laugh at each other's interpretation of reality, and like you said, Eduk, we do not realize we are their laughing stock in return.

There is a compelling reason which explains this.

The reason is that nobody experiences reality, we all need to depend on interpretations, which is largely made of belief.

I wrote the following poem about it some very long time ago, on the forum pages of a dating website, it's probably still there:

The Passion To Know

In the land of giants
One will erect a post
And put a sign on top.

Other giants will
Agree with what the sign says
Or else push the post over.

The sign’s supporters push
Against those who push against it.

They battle it out
Sometimes with reason,
Sometimes with force.

When it’s over, almost immediately,
Analysis of the battle follows.

The post could be a football game
Or a soccer match
Or a statement that the Earth is round
Or that we descended from monkeys.

Though the game is over,
It’s never over
For the giant’s minds,
However analytical,
Can only infer what reality is –

Yet reality they crave to know.

-----------------------

If humans could experience reality - supposing it exists - then it would not be such a big deal. At all. It is a big deal because we can't know anything about it. The emphasis is on "know". In its true sense.

Now, if one person or a few persons would know reality, truly, and the rest not... wow, "in the kingdom of the blind, a one-eyed man is king", so when the revolution comes, the "knowers" will be the first to be lined up against the wall and shot.

This actually may have been the case. We'll never know. "Unverifiable."

Reality. The biggest of all unverifiables.

[Nick_A]

If a person has certain religious beliefs such as the Koran or Bible being the word of God, what difference would that make when he or she does philosophy? I understand doing philosophy to mean using reason to find truth and evaluating arguments.

Do you think it is intellectually constraining to do philosophy and at the same time believe that a certain book is the word of God?

"The Bible: a book which either reads you or is worthless." ~ Chazal

Remember that you do philosophy but the Bible reads you. Actually rather than being opposed they are complimentary functions.

[-1-]

The Bible reads you only because you let it read you. If you chose another text, any text, to be the word of god, and you truly believed that that text was the word of god, then that text would read you.

There is nothing special or amazing about the Bible, other than the fact that many, many, many faithful believe it's the word of god. Take away that assumption, and it's a rather boring, dry, awfully written text with no rhyme and no reason.

[Nick_A]

The Bible reads you only because you let it read you. If you chose another text, any text, to be the word of god, and you truly believed that that text was the word of god, then that text would read you.

There is nothing special or amazing about the Bible, other than the fact that many, many, many faithful believe it's the word of god. Take away that assumption, and it's a rather boring, dry, awfully written text with no rhyme and no reason.

Obviously the Bible cannot read you so is useless for you.

[Woodart]

If a person has certain religious beliefs such as the Koran or Bible being the word of God, what difference would that make when he or she does philosophy? I understand doing philosophy to mean using reason to find truth and evaluating arguments.

Do you think it is intellectually constraining to do philosophy and at the same time believe that a certain book is the word of God?

I think adhering to any book as scripture is limiting. Would you want to only use a 50 year old textbook to explain biology or astronomy today? You would be handcuffing your vision. Do you really need a book – any book – to tell you if God exists? I think many so called “Christians” like the bible better than they like God. They wear the bible like armor to defend a conflicting and confusing view of religion. Religion is not the goal, if you are so inclined; spirituality or more specifically holiness is the goal. Religion is a cage – holiness is a state of being.

These are just some of myriads of the liberating features that religious philosophers enjoy over atheist ones... the liberation from the constraints of logic, of reason, of being able to make sense of the world.

Being a religious philosopher is no more limiting or liberating than any other philosophical pursuit. Studying philosophy is an obligation not an elective. Why? – Because we are all philosophers whether we acknowledge it or not. The old adage that “philosophy is the first science” is true. We ask philosophical questions of ourselves and others from the beginning of our consciousness formation. Consciousness itself is a philosophical dilemma that we deal with our entire lives. Descartes maxim – I think therefore I am – is backwards it should be – I am aware therefore I think, feel, smell, touch, sense, etc. We are aware, whether we like it or not and because we are aware, we are compelled to choose something. The thinking about and choosing is what philosophy is about. It may be very rudimentary stuff like – should I eat; or it may be bit more complex like – should I kill that guy?

Having awareness and exercising judgement is a philosophical endeavor and we all do it. Some of us are a little more deliberate in going about this daily chore. It is to our advantage to refine our thinking in the philosophical arts – that’s why I am here.

-- Updated March 28th, 2017, 9:59 pm to add the following --

If a person has certain religious beliefs such as the Koran or Bible being the word of God, what difference would that make when he or she does philosophy? I understand doing philosophy to mean using reason to find truth and evaluating arguments.

Do you think it is intellectually constraining to do philosophy and at the same time believe that a certain book is the word of God?

I think adhering to any book as scripture is limiting. Would you want to only use a 50 year old textbook to explain biology or astronomy today? You would be handcuffing your vision. Do you really need a book – any book – to tell you if God exists? I think many so called “Christians” like the bible better than they like God. They wear the bible like armor to defend a conflicting and confusing view of religion. Religion is not the goal, if you are so inclined; spirituality or more specifically holiness is the goal. Religion is a cage – holiness is a state of being.

These are just some of myriads of the liberating features that religious philosophers enjoy over atheist ones... the liberation from the constraints of logic, of reason, of being able to make sense of the world.

Being a religious philosopher is no more limiting or liberating than any other philosophical pursuit. Studying philosophy is an obligation not an elective. Why? – Because we are all philosophers whether we acknowledge it or not. The old adage that “philosophy is the first science” is true. We ask philosophical questions of ourselves and others from the beginning of our consciousness formation. Consciousness itself is a philosophical dilemma that we deal with our entire lives. Descartes maxim – I think therefore I am – is backwards it should be – I am aware therefore I think, feel, smell, touch, sense, etc. We are aware, whether we like it or not and because we are aware, we are compelled to choose something. The thinking about and choosing is what philosophy is about. It may be very rudimentary stuff like – should I eat; or it may be a bit more complex like – should I kill that guy?

Having awareness and exercising judgement is a philosophical endeavor and we all do it. Some of us are a little more deliberate in going about this daily chore. It is to our advantage to refine our thinking in the philosophical arts – that’s why I am here.

[Sy Borg]

If a person has certain religious beliefs such as the Koran or Bible being the word of God, what difference would that make when he or she does philosophy? I understand doing philosophy to mean using reason to find truth and evaluating arguments.

Do you think it is intellectually constraining to do philosophy and at the same time believe that a certain book is the word of God?

Almost all devout people I meet on forums have an agenda of swaying others to their way of thinking while not being at all open to being swayed themselves. Hard materialists tend to hve a similar one-sided approach. I find speaking with people who have a fixed and unoriginal position to be pointless because I have already been exposed to the orthodox positions of mythology and science, and prefer re-iteration of those ideas to come from experts.

However, each person has a unique perspective on life and that is where the strength of their philosophies lie IMO.

[Fooloso4]

Seminole:

If a person has certain religious beliefs such as the Koran or Bible being the word of God, what difference would that make when he or she does philosophy? I understand doing philosophy to mean using reason to find truth and evaluating arguments.

Do you think it is intellectually constraining to do philosophy and at the same time believe that a certain book is the word of God?

The way you have framed the question indicates the problem. If the philosopher uses reason to find the truth and evaluate arguments then religious beliefs should not interfere for then it is not longer a matter of free inquiry. If one believes that revelation reveals the truth then philosophy should not interfere, for religion makes appeal to what is beyond human understanding. The claims of reason versus revelation is central to the whole of the history of Western culture. There are some who claim that they are compatible but when conflict arises it becomes a matter of what one takes as the higher authority.

There is also the question of satisfying human needs and desires. Religion can provide comfort and assurance but philosophical inquiry can lead to aporia. Religion can provide direction and community, but philosophy is critical and oppositional. Religion provides answers, philosophy raises questions.

The great philosophers have generally been mindful of these problems and have provided a solution - a salutary public philosophy that provides direction and assurances and does not stand in open opposition to religion, while carrying on the kind of free and open inquiry that puts everything in question and leaves those who follow without firm foundations. Whether this is to one’s advantage or detriment is a matter of temperament and one’s tolerance for the aporetic abyss.

[Eduk]

There is also the question of satisfying human needs and desires. Religion can provide comfort and assurance but philosophical inquiry can lead to aporia. Religion can provide direction and community, but philosophy is critical and oppositional. Religion provides answers, philosophy raises questions.

This line of thinking seems to me to be similar to the claim that religion owns morals. Religion doesn't own morals, religion doesn't provide comfort, religion doesn't provide any answers. This does not mean of course that people who are members of a religion aren't moral and don't provide comfort and don't provide any answers. But they do this because they are human and in spite of their religious beliefs not because of their religious beliefs.

[Fooloso4]

A follow-up to my previous comments. Wittgenstein said:

When you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there. (Culture and Value)

Not everyone does and so unless one does a safer, more comforting road should be taken.

-- Updated March 29th, 2017, 11:57 am to add the following --

Eduk:

There is also the question of satisfying human needs and desires. Religion can provide comfort and assurance but philosophical inquiry can lead to aporia. Religion can provide direction and community, but philosophy is critical and oppositional. Religion provides answers, philosophy raises questions.

This line of thinking seems to me to be similar to the claim that religion owns morals.

I did not mean to imply that religion owns morals but that religion provides absolute moral guidelines to be followed. While it is true that some philosophers are concerned with moral principles and rules, others are critical of those principles and still others are critical of moral principles in general. Religion teaches obedience and adherence to moral guidelines, philosophy teaches critical examination of moral guidelines.

… religion doesn't provide comfort …

I agree that it does not provide comfort in all cases, for some it is a source of angst, but in general I think it true that people find comfort in their religion. As the quote from Wittgenstein above suggests, philosophy does not offer such comfort but rather requires one be comfortable in the confusion and mess that ensues from the pursuit of free and honest inquiry.

… religion doesn't provide any answers …

By way of example:

I am the way the truth and the life (John 14:6)

It may not be true but it is an answer and millions follow, the faithful flock.

This does not mean of course that people who are members of a religion aren't moral and don't provide comfort and don't provide any answers. But they do this because they are human and in spite of their religious beliefs not because of their religious beliefs.

I am not sure what this means. I am not suggesting that religious answers come from a divine source, they are, in my opinion, human answers that cloak themselves in the garb of divinity.

[Ontical]

If a person has certain religious beliefs such as the Koran or Bible being the word of God, what difference would that make when he or she does philosophy? I understand doing philosophy to mean using reason to find truth and evaluating arguments.

Do you think it is intellectually constraining to do philosophy and at the same time believe that a certain book is the word of God?

Can you give an example of where you think this might be constraining?

Spinoza, Keirkegaard and Descartes did okay as philosophers and men of faith, after all.