Which One: Religion, Philosophy, or Science?

I am impressed by your knowledge, CS.

I would choose to not favour either 'eternal truth' and 'exclusive truth'.

I am neither convinced nor cynical about the status of mystical knowledge.Since mystical knowledge is available to only the people who have the time and special tuition to acquire it, and intellectual knowledge is available to all, in this age of 'universal' education. I wonder why priests and ministers don't make more of an effort to tell the truth about modern historical Biblical studies. I am sorry to gainsay you, but even in the UK one Anglican priest lost his job because his bishop disapproved of the priest's honest and forthright approach to orthodox doctrines.My server is so slow that I cannot now access a suitable ref about this story and I will do so when I can.

I would like to think that all church institutions are not wasting away, but this is my impression.

A day or two ago I got an email that contained all the ethical messages of Jesus,in plain language,in short sentences, from St John's as well as from the other Gospels.There was plenty here to keep us all going, without any supernatural stuff whatsoever.

>I am impressed by your knowledge>

Thank you, I appreciate that.

>I am neither convinced nor cynical about the status of mystical knowledge>

As mystical knowledge deals with the metaphysical, and metaphysical claims cannot be assessed either positively or negatively for objective validity, I apply a pragmatic truth-test to them. If it seems fruitful for human life, I'm happy with it. If it seems harmful, I'm not. This is a field where it really is possible to apply your imagination and your personal vision- and if the results are beneficial, they are just as valid as any other metaphysical claim, as all are equally beyond proof or disproof.

>I wonder why priests and ministers don't make more of an effort to tell the truth about modern historical Biblical studies>

Born again ministers in the US don't believe in applying historical or textual analysis approaches to Bible study, but priests generally would be aware of this info. I honestly don't know if they share it or not, as I don't attend any church.

>A day or two ago I got an email that contained all the ethical messages of Jesus,in plain language,in short sentences, from St John's as well as from the other Gospels.>

Would you be willing to forward that to me? I'm curious to see it.

-Chris

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26

CS, the above is the address of an article in The Times which mentions the Rev Anthony Freeman who was dismissed by the Bishop of Chichester.Anthony Freeman is now a published author.

I will have to ask the permission of the man who sent me the email and I think this will be okay.

It is my belief that there is a link between philosophy, science and religion. Philosophy, consists of the contemplative investigation of the most fundamental aspects of existence, life, knowledge, and value. In saying that, a lot of philosophical inquires, such as: How was our universe created? How did the first form of life come to existence? What is the meaning of life? Why are things the way they are? Why are we unique in our own way yet we are able to value similar thing e.g. love, success? etc., all seek out a greater cause for our existence in a spiritual sense. Philosophy, however is also not much use if everything is argued by thought. Empirical evidence mostly by conducting a variety of tests is needed to assert a theory and bring us closer to 'truth'. But there are still questions which are physically impossible to test and there are still a lot which science isn't able to explain which brings us back to more philosophical inquires. Sort of like a jumbled cycle.

Hi Melanie,
I agree. I think each of the three addresses a different area of human experience. They overlap and are mutually complementary, yet cannot substitute for each other. Unfortunately, there is a widespread view among intellectuals that the area of philosophy is very narrow and of limited value, that religion is meaningless, and that only science is truly relevant. I am not at all in sympathy with this view.

-Chris

Hi Belinda- I can't say I'm surprised that he was dismissed. You don't have to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus walked on water to believe in God, but if you don't believe in God I can't really see how you can be a practicing priest. Ethics is a major part of religion, but religion can't be reduced down to a set of ethical teachings because ethical teachings alone cannot transform us. We find ourselves consistently unable to live up to them, whether they come from Jesus, Buddha or Lao Tzu. The changes that spirituality can produce within a person have a mysterious quality. Without that mysterious quality, you have prose and not poetry if you get my drift. Without poetry, you have only a set of rules, and try as you might you will not live up to them. The very rapid growth of the church in the Southern hemisphere has something to do with the fact that they still take their religion seriously as a religion. To me, the attitude of the "Sea of Faith" folks is that they are embarrassed of their own religion, because they no longer actually have faith. Allegorical interpretations of myth, in my opinion, should lead away from the literal and toward the mystical- not toward the mundane.

At the outset of this discussion the question was raised as to whether we need all three – religion, philosophy, and science – to help us to lead the good life. The responses are generally affirmative with respect to philosophy and science and mixed with respect to religion. The affirmative answer for religion asserts that mystical knowledge and spiritual experiences are needed.

Long a skeptic of religion in general and of claimed miracles in particular, I have had a tough time opening up my mind on this subject – and probably am still too biased. But, in the face of CS’ informed and articulate argument, I could not help but lose some of my skepticism.

I lost Some skepticism – but not all. It seems to me the argument in support of the need for spiritual experience became weaker as it went along. Concessions were made. One said this need could be addressed for some people by philosophy. Another pointed to the danger of interpreting myths too literally. And another says that “pragmatic truth-tests” should applied to the metaphysical claims to make sure they are beneficial – seemingly reaching back for the comfortable reliability of philosophical and scientific knowledge.

Thanks Dewey. The basis of my later arguments wasn't so much a concession as an unstated initial assumption. Here's an example. Tibetan Buddhism makes certain metaphysical claims; Taoism makes others; Catholicism makes still others. They aren't exactly compatible with each other, but all are equally untestable. Therefore I reject the claims of any of these traditions to absolute and exclusive truth, and I examine the effect these claims have for the lives of those who follow them. *If* they all seem equally beneficial, I consider them equally beneficial and equally true in some sense, though not in the strictly objective sense. I would see them, in that case, as equally valid interpretations of unknowable metaphysical reality. If any of them seemed to have a negative or less positive effect on people's lives, I would view it as correspondingly less true, or a less valid interpretation. This is what I mean by a "pragmatic" truth test. I hope this clarifies.

I think that it is a mistake to suppose that people can choose for themselves what they need most out of life. I think that using a secondary indicator is a good way to determine what people need the most. What responses does a person have when their needs are met that differ from their response when they are not? I do not know. But assuming that needs can never be met as a solution to any problem is temporary then neither of the three philosophy, science or religion can fully satisfy anyone.*


*Note - sorry if this is off topic, totally new to the forum and I just jumped in on this one.

Hi Grim,

Welcome!

Don’t worry about being off topic here. You got us out of religion, which has a habit of entering discussions no matter what we start out to discuss.


“I think that it is a mistake to suppose that people can choose for themselves what they need most out of life.”

In this thread we just talked about people choosing what they think they need in order to live what they think is the good life,


“But assuming that needs can never be met as a solution to any problem is temporary then neither of the three philosophy, science or religion can fully satisfy anyone.*

I have taken it for granted that between them those three cover everything we know, or think we know. Or, did I misunderstand you?

To me, the attitude of the "Sea of Faith" folks is that they are embarrassed of their own religion, because they no longer actually have faith. Allegorical interpretations of myth, in my opinion, should lead away from the literal and toward the mystical- not toward the mundane.

(CS)

I am not at all embarrassed about not having any fixed beliefs.I know of no other member of Sea of Faith who is the least embarrassed about their former religion, or about their present one. The Sea of Faith Network is not a religion, is entirely democratic, and relies upon the strength that people can have when they accept that nothing that we can know is certain. Sea of Faith Network members promote and explore religion as a human creation, and this being so, mystical and mythical experiences are honoured as genuine experiences that can lead to good things. However, some myths are so encumbered by ancient baggage that they are useless , or even harmful.It would be a good exercise to sort the useful and life-inspiring myths from the defunct myths.

Faith is fine and life-enhancing, if it not confused with certainty, but is an optimistic attitude, combined with working hypotheses . Idolatry enters when a person claims to know for certain what is the true theory of existence, pertaining to every person, forever.

This, idolatrous, claim is the stultifying and stagnating effect of religion, because it is so hubristic.The case is that each person's God is peculiar to that person at any particular time; and not that one person , perhaps some politician like Constantine, or a magnate like a pope, or the head of a rich American religious foundation,has decreed should be received doctrine.

Anthony Freeman is in the tradition of the rebellious Jesus who said that man is not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath is made for man, whereas the Bishop of Chichester probably was trying to protect his institution from disruption, perhaps schism.

Hi Belinda,
Thanks for the clarification on the Sea of Faith movement. I am entirely in sympathy with the goals of this movement as you just described it- but not if they are taken so far as to explicitly deny God or the supernatural, which is what I understood or misunderstood their position to be.

-Chris

according to your time and your power take as much as you can from these branches and take care " do not loss one of them " .

I would like to jump in with a new definition for religion.

It seems to me that religion is not just evangelicals or jihadist muslims or catholics, even though these are the first examples that spring to mind.

Religion is NOT a belief system - it is a culture that grows from a common belief system.

With this definition it may be easier to see how religion meets a basic human need - the need to BELONG.

People are not pure islands of thought. Science and philosophy stem from our natural curiosity - our need to explore our world. But religion feeds our need to tell someone ELSE what we have learned. (I think anyone on this forum can understand the desire to share what they are thinking. )

The word 'religion' is toxic these days. It conjurs up sweaty, screaming lunatics who are happy to kill for their faith. If we replace 'religion' with 'culture' all of those foaming-at-the-mouth pastors and mullahs dissappear from our minds.

I don't think that anyone could disagree that we need a culture of somewhat like-minded individuals (no matter how big or small)in order to live the 'good life'.

I am new to the forum...this seems like a good a place as any to jump in...

I think the first thing to be understood is that there can be only one Truth. Whether humans have the faculties to understand it or not, the “universe, existence, and everything” can only have one explanation. It is not logically possible for there to be more than one, for, suppose there were two, say now “this” and at other times “that”, this “this then that” is itself a single Truth.

Mankind—at least some of us—seeks to understand that Truth. How do things work? Why do they work? Is there an ultimate purpose?

Next it helps to understand that humans, as a social animal have a near pathological need to be comfortable…physically, emotionally, spiritually. It is this need that leads to the formalization of belief systems. The most obvious example of this is when a truly profound system of ideas or beliefs is set forth by an individual—a Buddha, a Christ, a Muhammad, a Zoroaster, etc.—within a few years of the passing of the individual the followers have subverted the profound beliefs into ritual and tradition. It is easier to chant and light candles than to truly try to understand. I’m certain it amuses the Buddha that people pray to him, and build statues and icons, rather than seeking to become a Buddha themselves, as he taught. While “religious” belief systems offer obvious examples, systems in philosophy or science become equally codified and more-or-less thoughtlessly followed.

At its most extreme, this tendency to comfort results in fanaticism. The psychological well being (i.e., “comfort”) of the fanatic depends on an unshakable and continually fed sense of being right.

What has all this to do with the question: religion, science, or philosophy? Every individual is, as a human, uncomfortable with not understanding Truth and his or her personal relationship to it. The complexity and variety of individual human psychology results in each person seeking their own path to understanding and “comfort”. The majority accept a ritual or codified system of some sort or other. It takes great courage to pull the rug out from under one's beliefs. I am not sure but what continually doing so—continually doubting and questioning everything—is possible without going mad. So we hunker down in the lab, or sit in the dim silence of an incense-filled room, or delve into dusty tomes in search of Truth. But we, each of us, must plant our feet firmly and will tend to reject any new belief that discomfits us. The natural bell-curve of human character says that a few are comfortable questioning and seeking—whether through religion, science, of philosophy, a few will kill rather than give up their beliefs, and the majority accept something, anything—again whether in science, religion, or philosophy, that makes them comfortable enough to get on with their lives.

The Truth remains smugly there waiting to be discovered.