Philosophy Discussion Forums

...Tillich along with most 20th century theologians follow in his footsteps.

Yes, but why?

-- Updated March 21st, 2017, 2:30 am to add the following --

"Science seeks to identify, analyze, and classify the segmented parts of the limitless cosmos. Religion grasps the idea-of-the-whole, the entire cosmos. Philosophy attempts the identification of the material segments of science with the spiritual-insight concept of the whole." Where is "war" possible except among the insane?

DM:

...Tillich along with most 20th century theologians follow in his footsteps.

Yes, but why?

Because philosophy still leads the way. Philosophy provides the framework, the concepts and language. It is what Plato did for Augustine and Plotinus, what Aristotle did for Aquinas, and what Heidegger did for Tillich.

No...why are Tillich and others not threatened?

Religion is the impetus behind philosophy, giving it its foundation. (Please refrain from presuming religion is just about ideas. Its that assumption that makes it like an old, toothless hound guarding the gates of anti-religion forces.)

DM:

No...why are Tillich and others not threatened?

Why would they be threatened by what allows them to think and say what they struggle to think and say?

Religion is the impetus behind philosophy, giving it its foundation.

The impetus behind philosophy is the desire to gain wisdom. Ever since the emergence of philosophy in ancient Greece there has been tension between the claims of philosophy and those of religion. As can be seen clearly with the case of Socrates the claim of atheism could mean the end of both the philosopher and philosophical inquiry. Plato found a way to overcome that threat. Philosophy set the standard and religion came to find it increasingly difficult to defend the claim of divine knowledge, something it found the way to do only in terms of a philosophical framework of concepts and language.

(Please refrain from presuming religion is just about ideas. Its that assumption that makes it like an old, toothless hound guarding the gates of anti-religion forces.)

Religion, or more precisely the self-understanding of religion relevant to this conversation, is about the belief that it has tapped the divine. Some believe that the divine force is real and that means not a product of the imagination, but others believe that the imagination is a divine force, and some who believe that the divine is supernatural, but others that it is natural. And since I have not doubt that people will continue to believe as they believe we will continue to find religion in some form.

Fooloso4 wrote:

The impetus behind philosophy is the desire to gain wisdom. Ever since the emergence of philosophy in ancient Greece there has been tension between the claims of philosophy and those of religion. As can be seen clearly with the case of Socrates the claim of atheism could mean the end of both the philosopher and philosophical inquiry. Plato found a way to overcome that threat. Philosophy set the standard and religion came to find it increasingly difficult to defend the claim of divine knowledge, something it found the way to do only in terms of a philosophical framework of concepts and language.

May I interpose some examples of philosophical frameworks which underpin religions?

Cartesian dualism which underpins the Christian idea that the mind, and God, are separate from the brain and the body proper.

Neutral monism which underpins the pantheist idea that God and Nature are the same.

Platonic Forms which underpin the religious idea that we make sense of the world by sort of 'remembering' the supernatural Forms, e. g. the form of Justice. or e.g. the Form of the True.

I would welcome some more or better examples.

You got it backwards, Belindi. It is religion that underpins your examples. Science, music, art, dance and even philosophy originate in religion.

-- Updated March 21st, 2017, 4:55 pm to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote: The impetus behind philosophy is the desire to gain wisdom.....

Which is a religious endeavor: man's attempt to reconcile the self with the universe and beyond.

Dark Matter wrote:You got it backwards, Belindi. It is religion that underpins your examples. Science, music, art, dance and even philosophy originate in religion.

-- Updated March 21st, 2017, 4:55 pm to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote: The impetus behind philosophy is the desire to gain wisdom.....

Which is a religious endeavor: man's attempt to reconcile the self with the universe and beyond.

I flatly disagree. Belindi does not have it backwards. You might say that "all" disciplines originate with the human desire to explain things. None of the disciplines you mentioned are subordinate to religion. As a matter of fact I would argue that Religion by it's most widely held definitions has nothing whatsoever to do with seeking answers to questions...once established it presumes to already have those answers and one is to have faith in those answers. How it's established is usually by some kind of divine or supernatural revelation, not by some rational or epistemological process. Questioning of a religion and it's dogma by it's followers is not usually appropriate or accepted. Religion is most assuredly about having "FAITH" in something regardless of the rationality of the belief. Your attempt to make religion the primary and indeed the first discipline so to speak is just not supportable. Man's attempt to reconcile the self with the universe may have given rise to all of the above disciplines including religion but the religious response to that question comes from superstition rather than any kind of science or philosophy. Philosophy is most aptly described as the mother of all knowledge seeking disciplines. Many try to support or prove their religious beliefs using philosophy of some kind but that is just a fools endeavor as when you do that you completely miss the point of having "FAITH" in something in the first place.

Philosch wrote: None of the disciplines you mentioned are subordinate to religion.

I didn't say they were. (This kind of misrepresentation is hardly something someone genuinely interested in philosophy would do.) The part of your comment regarding faith and belief is nothing more than propaganda and/or ignorance and was discussed in another thread.

Religion must ever be its own critic and judge; it can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside. Your only assurance of a personal God consists in your own insight as to your belief in, and experience with, things spiritual. To all of your fellows who have had a similar experience, no argument about the personality or reality of God is necessary, while to all other men who are not thus sure of God no possible argument could ever be truly convincing.

True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

So, if you think you're in a war against religion, then I suggest you go to a turkey farm where you will have a more receptive audience.

-- Updated March 21st, 2017, 9:34 pm to add the following --

You're at war against your idea of religion.

Dark Matter wrote:

Philosch wrote: None of the disciplines you mentioned are subordinate to religion.

I didn't say they were. (This kind of misrepresentation is hardly something someone genuinely interested in philosophy would do.) The part of your comment regarding faith and belief is nothing more than propaganda and/or ignorance and was discussed in another thread.

This was your statement "Science, music, art, dance and even philosophy originate in religion." which means religion is the parent with the other disciplines coming out of religion and that's patently false, your tone is quite belligerent and even arrogant. Who are you to judge what a person genuinely interested in philosophy might or might not say? Why is faith and belief being the hallmark of religion propaganda? I care not that it was discussed in another post. Religion by definition is about having faith and belief in something not requiring any proof, sorry if that definition doesn't suit you but I don't really care, you trying to impugn the motives and intelligence of someone pointing that out is nothing more than classic Ad Hominem. Same tactic you use on the next poster..."try a turkey farm" is that your attempt to demonstrate how someone truly interested in philosophy would respond to a post? The height or arrogance and hypocrisy.

Bottom line is your claim is that religion is where the other disciplines get there start and that's nothing more than an opinion, which as I stated I flatly reject. Religion has a generally accepted meaning. You claim the other areas of study and practice originate in religion and I say that's nonsense.

"Originates" does not mean the same thing as "subordinate." I originate from my parents; that does mean I am subordinate to them.

Dark Matter wrote:"Originates" does not mean the same thing as "subordinate." I originate from my parents; that does mean I am subordinate to them.

Do you mean that science, music ,image-making, philosophy, etc. (I refer to your list, Dark Matter)

1. Could not have existed had man not first been religious?

or
2. Existed because and only because man was religious?

or
3. Will cease to exist if and when man stops being religious?

or
4. Science, music, image-making, philosophy, etc, are as good now in the age of reason as they ever were in the age of faith?

or
5.Just as I am different from my parents but not subordinate to them so reason is different from faith but is not subordinate to faith?

-- Updated March 22nd, 2017, 5:09 am to add the following --

Belindi wrote:

Dark Matter wrote:"Originates" does not mean the same thing as "subordinate." I originate from my parents; that does mean I am subordinate to them.

Do you mean that science, music ,image-making, philosophy, etc. (I refer to your list, Dark Matter)

1. Could not have existed had man not first been religious?

or
2. Existed because and only because man was religious?

or
3. Will cease to exist if and when man stops being religious?

or
4. Science, music, image-making, philosophy, etc, are as good now in the age of reason as they ever were in the age of faith?

t

or
5.Just as I am different from my parents but not subordinate to them so reason is different from faith but is not subordinate to faith?

******************

I believe you to be sincere, Dark Matter, and you are fluent in written English. Please don't spoil your work with intellectual arrogance or injured ego.

DM:

Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

Is the “true experience with eternal realities in time” your own experience?

Fooloso4 wrote:DM:

Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

Is the “true experience with eternal realities in time” your own experience?

Don't take it out of the context of the whole.

Religion "can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside."

Religion is not "a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism."

Religion grasps the idea-of-the-whole, the entire cosmos.

In answer to your question: we are all endowed with a sense for the Divine. It can be denied, ignored, distorted, dismissed as superstition or explained away (such as calling it a projection of human imagination), but it's the reason religion isn't going to go away.

DM:

In answer to your question: we are all endowed with a sense for the Divine. It can be denied, ignored, distorted, dismissed as superstition or explained away (such as calling it a projection of human imagination), but it's the reason religion isn't going to go away.

You did not answer the question: Is the “true experience with eternal realities in time” your own experience?
Yes or no will suffice.

A better question is: do you deny, ignore, distort, dismiss as superstition or explained away your own sense of the divine?