From what I know about Marcel, he understood Descartes to be saying, "when we get to the very basics of being a human, we see the world, then we start to analyze/reflect on it..." Marcel is of the opinion that before we analyze anything, we experience it.
From the Stanford Enyclopedia:

Marcel therefore develops the view that human beings are fundamentally beings-in-situations first, and then thinking or reflective beings second. Yet, in developing a critique of the obsession with primary reflection (with the world of “having”), he is not advocating any kind of relativism, or even suggesting that conceptual knowledge is not important; his aim is to illustrate where it fits into the analysis of the human subject, and to point out that it is important not to overstate its range or its value. In presenting these themes, Marcel wishes to do justice to, and to maintain the priority of, human subjectivity and individuality while at the same time avoiding the relativism and skepticism that has tended to accompany such notions. In this way, many of his admirers believe that he avoids the relativistic and skeptical excesses that have plagued recent European thought since Heidegger and Sartre.

Contra nausea, Marcel concentrates on openness (as opposed to egoism), hope, and love. His is an optimistic (as opposed to Sartre's pessimism) philosophy.

Edit: Marcel also criticized Descartes' notion that we are a being (or even a mind) w/ a body.

this body also is me, it is what I am. On the other hand, it cannot be said that I simply am my body either. I can dispose of my body in certain circumstances by treating it instrumentally. A person who loses a limb in an accident is not less of a person and, therefore, there is a sense in which our bodies are objects that we have.

My own studies are rather haphazard. I just read and study what I like. I have found it useful to learn what I can about the history of philosophy. This podcast has helped.
MOOCs are also a great resource.

I'm assuming that Marcel agrees with Sartre in regards to Existence preceding Essence. I'll have to look over Marcel's essay called Existence and Human Freedom, where he critiques Sartre's views. Marcel did have some good things to say about Sartre's views. He definitely saw issues with Sartre's pessimism, and the sense I get is that he thought that Sartre was being inconsistent by implying that humanity is free, but not free to believe in God.

What I get from "Existence precedes Essence" is the idea that we (individually and as a species) don't start by analyzing our situation, we start by experiencing life. I've been led to believe that even for Christian Existentialists, there is the idea that man is searching for meaning in a seemingly meaningless universe. (I'm not sure that Marcel did believe that we create our own meaning or purpose- I may have been wrong about that).

p.s. I see your paper about Marcel and his views, and I'll raise you another... Atheistic and Christian Existentialism: A Comparison of Sartre and Marcel.

Have you considered the arguments for and against scientific realism vs instrumentalism?

@The OP. I wonder if some books by Daniel Goleman might be of some help.

Emotional Intelligence
Destructive Emotions

Heidegger had a long and highly problematic romantic relationship with Hannah Arendt and a steamy affair (over many decades) with Elisabeth Blochmann, both students of his. Arendt was Jewish, and Blochmann had one Jewish parent, making them subject to severe persecution by the Nazi authorities. He helped Blochmann emigrate from Germany before the start of World War II and resumed contact with both of them after the war.[38] — Wikipedia

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen it.

The Stoics write in a way that help one focus on one's own behavior and self-improvement, and give advice on how to deal with people who challenge our equanimity. Have you read Epictetus' Enchirdion? And his Discourses?

I also enjoy reading through Seneca's letters. (there are 124 letters).

Getting back to the OP. I was looking into metaphysics, and Heidegger's name came up. He is controversial because he joined the Nazi party, was an anti-Semite (he made anti-Semitic comments in his Black Notebooks written in 1931-1941 , first published in 2014), and never apologized for his affiliation with the Nazis.

So, the question is: Did his personal beliefs and affiliation with the Nazi party show flaws inherent in his philosophical conceptions? Or were his personal beliefs and affiliation with the Nazi party merely personal errors, having no bearing on his philosophy?

Does Chesterton's support of WWI not move you the tiniest bit? — absoluteaspiration — anonymous66

I'll have to look into that.

I did spend some time reading these articles....

https://www.chesterton.org/shop/chesterton-on-war-and-peace/
https://juicyecumenism.com/2013/09/02/g-k-chestertons-thoughts-on-war/
http://irishchesterton.blogspot.com/2010/07/chesterton-and-world-war-one.html (including the responses)

And the issue is a complex one.

But surely they knew more about Socrates than I do. — Beebert

Really? We have the same texts. I've read quite a few of Plato's dialogues. Socrates is portrayed as a perfect man, IMHO. I don't particularly like his portrayal of the perfect society as described in The Republic, but there is always the question... Are we seeing the "real" Socrates, or just a character that Plato is using to promote his (Plato's) own views?

The imperfection of Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Socrates in their kind — Noble Dust

What would you say were Socrates' issues?

A French philosopher who died in 2010. Check out Philosophy as a Way of Life. (I hear What is Ancient Philosophy is good too, but I haven't read it, yet).

Now that I see Christianity as the culmination of Greek and Roman philosophy (thank you, Pierre Hadot), it has a different feel to it.

Regarding getting saved, and having a personal relationship w/ Jesus? Yep. That's how I was raised. The people I knew all told detailed stories about the specifics of their conversion.

I find a Christianity of Universal Salvation to be appealing. What could anyone have against a God and/or religion whose plan included Universal Salvation ?

Regarding C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesteron and their views on hell? I grew up in a very dogmatic fundamentalist church... I heard many a sermon about hell and damnation...

I've read many of Chesterton's and Lewis' books. I don't see those same attitudes in Lewis and Chesterton, at all. I like their view of Christianity. I like the God they talk about. He's kind, and just, and even has a sense of humor.

After growing up in the church I did, I found their views of God and Christianity to be refreshingly gentle.

I don't think I share Chesterton's views on birth control and homosexuality. or Lewis' views on homosexuality.

& The attitudes expressed in your posts sounds similar to the attitude of the Stoics. They talked about their heroes (Hercules, for example) in glowing terms... Those heroes had some significant flaws, but the Stoics only talked about their good qualities.

I've come across people who have had mistresses, and their wives knew about it. I can forgive that a lot easier than someone who sneaks around and pretends he is faithful.

Supporting the Nazi party seems really odd. What would the world be like if we were all Nazi sympathizers?

Isn't Kierkegaard's behavior especially strange from a Protestant perspective? Marriage is supposed to be an expression of one's devotion to God. The love between God and His church is the love between husband and wife united in holy matrimony, right? — absoluteaspiration

I spent some time researching K. He had nothing against marriage, he just thought he had a calling, and knew that he couldn't pursue his calling while he was married.

A lot of you guys seem to like Christian thinkers. One name I haven't seen mentioned so far is Rudolf Eucken. He wasn't perfect, but I like him. His philosophy was called "activism", so you can already imagine what his life was like. — absoluteaspiration

I'll have to check him out... Thanks!

You'll have to check it out.

Tolstoy was convinced sex was bad (and associated w/ sin). but, he kept having kids, and blamed his wife for seducing him. (I can't find the specifics right now. I've read a couple of biographies).

Ghandi would sleep (but not engage in sex) w/ young naked women just to prove he wouldn't be tempted.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html

(edited to add) Ghandi also preached celibacy within marriage.

Fair enough, but you did say in the OP that you've "lost interest" in some of them, presumably because of their failings. — Noble Dust

I'm not even sure that I would even label the behavior... It's more like that I'm looking for someone whose life I wouldn't mind modeling my life after... and when I find out certain things about certain possible role models, I think, "I couldn't do that."

(edited to add) And I do keep reading... and thinking about the ideas they promoted, no matter what I think about their personal lives.

Does Chesterton's support of WWI not move you the tiniest bit? — absoluteaspiration

I'll have to look into that.

What about people like:

Epictetus
Marcus Aurelius
Socrates
Musonius Rufus
Epicurus (I know he was supposedly a hedonist but he lived an exemplary life by most accounts)
Aquinas
G.K. Chesterton
Blaise Pascal
Sören Kierkegaard
Immanuel Kant — Agustino

Well, if someone lived long ago, I wonder if the stories about them aren't idealized. I do like the stories. And I like the way that Epictetus is portrayed (although he may have done some Epicurean bashing). It's hard to find fault w/ Socrates. Epicurus looks pretty good.

Kierkegaard? He lived an odd life, stressful life, and probably died young because of the stress he caused himself. He was very confrontational and a little rude, IMHO.

It's not that I dismiss their ideas altogether. I just don't see them as someone I want to emulate.

G.K. Chesterton... He's definitely on my good list.

I nixed Russell after I read about how he coldly dumped his first wife.

Chapter 2 On Epistemology and the Nature of Knowledge

[From the translator: Marcel’s essay On the Ontological Mystery is one of the clearest presentations of his work. It’s a good introduction to his phenomenological ontology, in which he concerns himself with what kind of beings we are, and how we come to gain knowledge and understanding. It’s also a good illustration of the experimental dimension of Marcel’s thought, and provides an overview of his central themes, which include: being, reflection (primary and secondary), fidelity, hope, presence, spiritual availability, and the relationship between his philosophy and Christianity.

The essay starts with Marcel noting that humans are being defined by their functions: vital, social and psychological. Our world is one in which there are problems that require technical solutions… this leaves no room for mystery. The situation causes despair because the need for being is being suppressed. He admits that being is hard to define, but suggests it is primarily an experience, one that defies an exhaustive description. Being also refers to the life of the spirit, a life that modern thought denies. From a philosophical point of view, being is a realm where the real human self is revealed through careful phenomenological descriptions, a real that we have access to through secondary reflection. Being is not deduced from an analysis of theoretical thinking, but rather through the intuition of reflective thought. This is the realm of mystery where the distinction between subject and object breaks down. Marcel uses several examples: the union of body and soul, the experience of evil (not just considering evil), inter-personal relations (esp. love), religious experiences, fidelity, and experiences requiring ethical responses. Marcel acknowledges that these can be difficult to describe, but he argues that this realm of being is objectively real, and can be revealed to some extent in conceptual knowledge, especially philosophy. “The problem is that one cannot dissociate the idea of being from the certainty that pertains to it. Indeed, the idea is an assurance of itself, a view that is the antithesis of the Cartesian approach, which is founded on the idea that being and thought are initially separate (and so the problem is how to get them back together).”

Marcel offers some reflections on “recollection” (secondary reflection). He describes it as a process of reflection that helps us to recover the experiences that exist in the realm of being. Secondary reflection can be best described as both the act of critical reflection of primary reflection, and process of recovery of the “mysteries of being.” Despair is one possible, but misguided, response to the human condition. The counter to despair is hope. Hope being an experience of trust or confidence in human life, and its meaning and value. Hope is grounded, not in external events, but in the depths of who we are as human beings… “it is an ontological experience that ultimately points in a transcendental direction.”
These experiences are ultimately mysteries, not problems. Marcel analyses the experience of fidelity in a similar manner, and introduces “presence”. This presence leads him to the idea of “spiritual availability”- we should approach others with openness and humility, not with selfishness or egotism. He considers various objections, and discusses the relationship between philosophy and Christianity.

In Part 2 of the chapter, Marcel critiques Cartesianism and the view of the self that arises from it… which leads to skepticism. It’s why modern analytical philosophy is searching for what is objectively and demonstrably knowable… and has led to relativistic and anti-realist alternatives (postmodernism). Skepticism for Marcel artificially divorces the knowing subject from the world of external objects. “At the level of ordinary primary reflection, the problems of the existence of external objects, of the existence of the body, and of the relationship of these objects to the mind, do not arise.” In the traditional view of the self, personal experience is removed, and all we have left id sharable disinterested concepts- primary reflections. “But it is no possible to motivate any kind of global skepticism from this vantage point.

“In Part 3, Marcel argues that the self is fundamentally an embodied subject”- my experience are what make me what I am. Reflection on the body and ownership reveal that we don’t “own” our bodies, we cannot regard our body as a possession. Bodies own other items, they cannot themselves be owned. The relationship of the body to the self cannot be processed objectively. The relationship is mysterious- it cannot be articulated in conceptual analysis. Descartes view is problematic in that it is not logically possible for me to regard the existence of my body as a problem. It is not possible for any person to see his body as a subject for disinterested inquiry. My body is me, so if I regard it as a problem, I no longer see it as “my” body.

In Part 4, Marcel turns to primary and secondary reflection. He points out that primary reflection dissolves the unity of experience by looking at various features of it as problems to be solved. Secondary reflection is an attempt recover the unity of experience. He speaks of embodiment, the foundation of unity, because it places us in the realm of experience (something that reflection breaks apart), and confirms our own existence in the world. In Part 5, he continues the themes of problem and mystery, and emphasizes that “mystery” does not refer to a gap in our knowledge.

“Marcel has been striving in these selections to reach a vantage point from which his main themes can be best understood, and from where he can be seen as offering a unified account of the human condition.” This brings him to the notion of being in Part 6, “where he brings together a number of important themes. The themes being: that it is impossible not to adopt the realist solution to the problem of being; the relationship between thought and being….”, “how various philosophical approaches can either deny or affirm, but cannot avoid being; how the realm of being provides a powerful illustration of the differences between a mystery and a problem; how the realm of being points us in a transcendental direction; and the important relationship between being and value.”]

Right now?

Gabriel Marcel
Tolstoy
Aristotle
Plato
Socrates
Philip Yancey
Martha Nussbaum
the ancient Stoics

I have spent some time looking into other religions.... Here's an example of the little I do know about other religions.
Islam- There was golden age of tolerance and scientific advancement. The Quran speaks of tolerance.....

Buddhism (assuming it's being labeled as a religion). - teaches that one is in danger of ending up in hell. I got to be friends with someone else in the Modern Stoicism movement. He was involved with Buddhism for years. I asked him why he left Buddhism and he said, "I got tired of reading about hell."

Hinduism- It's actually a monotheistic religion.. (okay, there is some debate over that characterization).

But, perhaps I'm getting away from the point of your OP...

As a person who tries to adhere to the idea of subjective morality and accepting any and all religions/systems of belief as being more or less equal to each other in most ways, I have some reservations about why a religion may be better (or worse) than other religion for whatever reason. However even if I feel this way about people's beliefs, I think it is fruitful to have such a discussion in the kind of context that is when one is studying or doing research for comparative religions. In such a context it is usually accepted that even if various religions/systems of beliefs have pros and cons, such discussion isn't necessarily about using such information to show why one is better or worse than anotherbut about understanding other religions; although if one wishes to it can later be used within some metrics to determine which ideology is better or worse than another but it isn't a given that it will be used as such.

Anyways I just wanted to get that out of the way in the hopes that if people reply to the OP that this thread doesn't descend too much into a shouting contest between people with different beliefs

I guess my biggest problem for theism, or it's biggest 'con' as I see it is that a large part of it just doesn't make sense on some fundamental level. Of courser this is likely because I'm an atheist and with theism being the biggest religion in influencing Western society, it is practically a given that people that think and believe like I do will be uncomfortable with theism for various reasons. But I'm not sure if that is all that it is. To me it is harder to grasp why people believe in God and go to church (other than social acceptance and being part of a group which I understand is part of the reason), but for someone who can not believe in God even if they try (which I have) the entire thought process on "HOW" someone can eventually go about believing in God is something that is virtually impossible for me without some kind of major brain rewiring which would make me into someone that I am not while I'm writing this.

Even as I say this I can not say that it is a problem with theism (although I imagine it could likely be broken up into several issues with each pointed out/argued independently) when taken as a whole I'm unsure if this is a problem with me or with theism itself since to the best of my understanding is that if what I thought was true, it would be hard for a predominate religion to get as big as it has if at it's heart there was so many issues with it. Because of this I'm sort of uncertain since my position as just someone who studies philosophy is not enough to merely pass such judgement on such issues without a little pause.

The only other issue I have with theism that I will mention in this post is that some schisms of Christianity (and likely Judaism and Islam as well) seem to tend to be more exclusive than inclusive;m although this doesn't apply to Unitarian Universalists and similar churches for obvious reasons. To me the problem here seems to be that at it's core it requires someone to believe in God (in a way that is difficult for people in the modern age may have difficulty doing) and it requires one to believe in God in the way that is prescribed by their church on how they believe one 'ought' to believe. While I imagine there are some benefits to such measures, for people who have trouble believing in God in the first place (such as myself) it makes Christianity even more hostile and aggressive than it might seem otherwise. While I know that not all churches are exclusive, as a child and a teenager in the south and mid-west I was often very uncomfortable with having to deal with such people to the point where it almost felt like I was a character in the movie "The Children of the Corn" when I was around to many of them, although I guess I could say the same when I have been around too many Wiccans as well but for different reasons.


I guess one thing that is a positive aspect of theism and Christianity is that they seem to 'work' on some level in regard to making people feel content and allowing them to just go about their lives. Although this is also true of many other socially accepted/large organizations such as Shintoism,Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc as an atheist it just seems odd that it actually works for theism as well. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that my gut instincts tell me that a system is fundamentally flawed then it should tear itself apart somehow although I don't know if Murphy's Law (ie something that can ruin a existing functional system) apply to such conditions since allowing such a system to work may cause things to be worse. Perhaps it is just that whether a system works or doesn't make much a difference when it comes to the process which allows it to exist in the first place. — dclements

Your main points seem to be:
1.You want to understand other religions (I take this to mean you want to understand other religions beside Christianity.
2. Religions don't make sense to you
3. You have an issue with Christian schisms
4. You have an issue with people who insist that others must believe in their God (but you see similar issues in practices like Wicca)
5. Your gut instinct is that if a system like Christianity were fundamentally flawed, then it should have torn itself apart.

"That's why I speak out against New Atheism."
---anonymous66

Ok, what do you feel is bad about it? — dclements

Chris Hedges says it better than I can.
Here are some of the similar attitudes present in both the Radical Christian Right (fundamentalists) and the New Atheists:

• Us vs Them (all religions are bad, vs all non-fundamentalists are bad).
• Evil is not something present in all humans, but rather evil is only present in the "other", the ones picked out for vilification. (see above)
• A utopian vision (if only everyone were to become Christians, or atheists, then the world would be a better place)
• Ignorance of world history. (including an ignorance of the history of religion)
• Hatred of Islam (or at least vilification of Islam).

I was attracted to atheism for a while and spent some time w/ atheists I found through groups I met through meetup.com . From what I have experienced, it appears that Chris Hedges is making some relevant points about New Atheism.

This is worth reading, as well.

HOWEVER if a group has a tendency as a whole to be more hostile/ aggressive/ violent than others and/or preach the same thing then that should be pointed out too. — dclements

That's why I speak out against New Atheism.

Religions may operate on such principles but it isn't a given that it is true. To me it is as or more plausible that "WE" ourselves define what is "good" and "evil" based on what is either useful or counter-productive to us than the idea there is some external metric of "good"/"evil". As far as I can tell, what we perceive as some kind of external power and/or standard of morality and good is merely our superego playing head tricks on us. — dclements

If there is no standard of morality, then why make an issue of what religions (or anyone for that matter) are (is) doing? It seems to me that if no standard by which to judge, then all we can comment on is differences in behavior.

If no standard, then aren't you just reduced to saying, "Religions sometimes cause people to act differently than I, dclements, want them to act."?

While some religious beliefs may help us to become better, this is true of any religion or system of beliefs as a whole. The real problem is what makes a religion/system of beliefs any better than any other religion or system of beliefs. I believe that it isn't really all about what religion or system of beliefs they subscribe to but more about HOW they believe and go about their lives. Of course such an idea I imagine could be seen as harmful to many organized religions based on Abrahamic beliefs where they expect someone to follow a certain doctrine and not just make up things for themselves. — dclements

It seems to me that if people believe there is a God who influences us and at least some of that influence comes from religion, then it stands to reason that people of different religions will have different perceptions of and about that God, and tolerance is required of religious believers. Jesus had a lot to say about tolerance.

I guess one thing that is a positive aspect of theism and Christianity is that they seem to 'work' on some level in regard to making people feel content and allowing them to just go about their lives. Although this is also true of many other socially accepted/large organizations such as Shintoism,Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc as an atheist it just seems odd that it actually works for theism as well. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that my gut instincts tell me that a system is fundamentally flawed then it should tear itself apart somehow although I don't know if Murphy's Law (ie something that can ruin a existing functional system) apply to such conditions since allowing such a system to work may cause things to be worse. Perhaps it is just that whether a system works or doesn't make much a difference when it comes to the process which allows it to exist in the first place. — dclements

Doesn't it seem like most religions operate on the principle that there is some good force greater than ourselves? and that we can learn to understand its goodness, and emulate it? (That's what I understand Socrates to be saying, as well).

It seems odd to me, that given our propensity for violence and selfishness, man also has this idea that there is something better, that man can become better than he is.

That is another pro: Religions help us focus on becoming better.

As for religion allows people to harm others, even though I'm an atheist I'm not really sure if this is just a hasty generalization and this is true.What I mean by this is that all societies have either some kind of religion or system of beliefs that helps explain the world around them and what they 'ought' to do so it is more or less a given that some of these religions or systems of beliefs may make the groups more aggressive/hostile than others EVEN if almost ALL of them preach peace and tolerance of some kind. Because of this, I believe it is more accurate to point out the aspects of what makes a religion or system of beliefs more aggressive/hostile than others than to just say that some of them are. Or at least that is my two cents on the matter. — dclements

I suspect we both agree that religions have caused and sometimes do cause harm. I'm sure we also agree that virtually everything that man is involved with has been used (misused?) in ways that cause harm.

I suspect neither of us want to promote the idea that "if something a group of people practices has the potential to cause harm, and/or has caused harm in the past, then that thing ought to be censured".

This 13 minute video gives a decent overview of Marcel's philosophy, IMHO.

Thanks for the link! My own experience has been that there is something missing from analytical philosophy. I've been looking for something a little more personal. Something that ties in with my past history and my own experiences.

You're very welcome.

Chapter 1: The Nature of Philosophy
[(From the translator): Marcel explains in these selections that he has no philosophical system, he is non-systematic and non-objective. He demonstrates that the scientific approach to reality, should not be regarded by philosophers as the paradigm of knowledge. The scientific approach seeks universal, demonstratable solutions that are available to everyone, but philosophical inquiry requires the existential involvement of the person engaged in the task of philosophy. A philosopher cannot detach oneself from the work/research in the way that a chemist can.

Marcel expects the reader to think along with him, to clarify his insights in relation to their own experiences. “The main aim of any philosophical inquiry is the attempt to discover the most basic truths about the human condition.” Marcel wants to reveal the necessary connections that make up the meaning of a particular human subject’s experiences in his or her individual embodied situation in existence. (this does include conceptual knowledge). But, Marcels’ approach does not avoid the objectivity sought in science… but, like art, philosophical inquiry seeks objective truths about the human condition that are open to minds of a certain sort. So, truth is not a “thing”, and philosophy does not have as its goal, practical results, but rather it tries to get at human experience in a way that reveals its own essential structures. ]

The Nature of Philosophy.
“… philosophy, like art or poetry, rests on a foundation of personal involvement, or to use a more profoundly meaningful expression, it has its source in a vocation, where the word “vocation” is taken with all it etymological significance. I think that philosophy, regarded in its essential finality, has to be considered as a personal response to a call.” From: Tragic Wisdom and Beyond.

When I called these lectures a search for, or an investigation into, the essence of spiritual reality, I choose the word carefully. The best description of philosophy is that of a search or an investigation. It’s an aid to discovery, not demonstration. If a philosopher attempts to expound on certain truths that he has discovered, he runs the risk of altering their nature.
When I was nominated to give the Gifford lectures, my first reaction was one of intense inner disturbance. I was being asked to do something that I had determined not to do: to present a systematic form to material I considered to be part of a quest.

It is known that I do have my own line of development, with a specific character. Can we talk about results in the realm of philosophy?
Take for example a chemist who invents a more cost effective way to obtain a needed substance. The specifics of that method and its processes have a separate existence. If I need the substance, all I have to do is go to a shop and ask for it… there is no need for me to learn about the processes that lead to its creation. The same is true of forecasts of eclipses. We need not trouble ourselves with the complicated calculations.

“One might postulate it as a principle, on the other hand, that in an investigation of the type on which we are now engaged, a philosophical investigation, there can be no place at all for results of this sort. Let us expand that: between a philosophical investigation and its final outcome, there exists a link which cannot be broken without the summing up itself immediately losing all reality. And of course we must also ask ourselves here just what we mean, in this context, by reality.”

In chemistry, a technician has an idea of what he is looking for. But, in philosophical investigations, one cannot know what one is looking for ahead of time. Not that an investigator would start out at random. And let’s not forget that some scientific discoveries have come about by happy accident. But, this can never be the case with philosophic investigation.
In the case of technicians and scientists, the operations are such that anybody could carry them out in his place. The sequence of the needed operations can be laid out in universal terms.

“The greatness and limitations of scientific discovery consist precisely in the fact that it is bound by its nature to be lost in anonymity. Once a result has been achieved, it is bound to appear, if not a matter of chance, at least a matter of contingence, that it should have been this man and not that man who discovered such and such a process.” There is no point in considering the personal or tragic background in which some discovery was made.
But, this is not and cannot be true in the same way for the kind of investigation presented in these lectures. “How can we start out on a search without having somehow anticipated what we are searching for?

The scientific is practical and universal and objective, while philosophical investigations are subjective and personal. Marcel portrays “the men of metaphysics” as being inept, in that they “find it impossible to conceive of a purpose which lies outside the order of the practical, which cannot be translated into the language of action….”
Marcel also asks whether there is a risk of some philosophical investigation merely reducing itself to an account of the succession of stages by which Marcel himself makes progress that is nothing more than subjective value… the investigation of which might lead from a starting point of suffering to one that is no longer one of suffering, but one that is accompanied by a certain joy.

Marcel compares this investigation to art. Just as great works of art are not able to be appreciated by literally everyone, this type of philosophical investigation might not be appreciated by everyone.
“It is none the less certain that when a genuine emotion is felt at the impact of a work of art it infinitely transcends the limits of what we might call consciousness...”
“… The task of philosophy, to my mind, consists precisely in this sort of reciprocal clarification of two unknowns, and it may well be that, in order to pose the true questions, it is actually necessary to have an intuition, in advance, about what the true answers might be. It might be said that the true questions are those which point, not to anything resembling the solution of an enigma, but rather to a line of direction along which we must move. As we move along the line, we get more and more chances of being visited by a sort of spiritual illumination; for we shall have to acknowledge that Truth can be considered only in this way, as a spirit, as a light.” From: The Mystery of Being Volume 1.

I assert that an investigation of the sort I have in mind, can only appeal to minds of a certain sort. Minds that already have a bias. Marcel acknowledges some objections to this: “Does it not imply a perversion of the very notion of Truth?” Truth is usually thought of as involving a universal reference. Something that is true for anybody and everybody. “What the objection implies, in fact, is that we know in advance, and perhaps even know in a quite schematic fashion, what the relationship between the self and the truth recognizes itself to be.”
Marcel says that in the last 200 years, there has been a great deal of critical reflection on the subject of truth. In their everyday thinking, people believe that there are established, legitimate ways of arriving at the truth, and if a man steps aside from those ways, he is in danger of losing himself in a place where the difference between truth and error vanishes away. It is this image of truth itself that needs to be critically examined, if we want to grasp the gross error on which it rests. “What we must above all reject is the idea that we are forced to make a choice between a genuine truth (so to call it) which has been extracted, and a false, a lying truth which has been fabricated.” No matter what truth is, it is not a thing. It’s not a physical object, and the search for truth is not a physical process. No generalizations that can apply to physical objects can also apply to truth.

On the other hand, anybody and everybody has access to certain minimal aptitudes. Marcel gives the example of a failed experiment wherein he was supposed to show the laws of electrolysis. Even though the experiment was a failure (because he was not able to hook up certain wires correctly), he knew what would have happened, had the experiment been a success. His own clumsiness aside, it remained true in principle that anybody and everybody could do the experiment correctly, and arrive at the correct results.
Conversely, the further the intelligence passes beyond the limits of purely technical activities, the less likely we are able to say, “anybody at all” can do this. “One might even say, as I indicated in my first chapter, that the philosopher’s task involves not only unusual mental aptitudes but an unusual sense of inner urgent need; and as I have already suggested, towards the end of the last chapter, we shall have to face the fact that in such a world as we live in urgent inner needs of this type are almost systematically misunderstood, and are even deliberately discredited.” From: Mystery of Being Vol 1.

“The kind of inquiry I have in mind will be governed by an obligation which is not easy to formulate; it is not sufficient to say that it is an avowal of fidelity to experience; an examination of philosophical empiricism shows the extent to which the term ‘experience’ is vague and ambiguous.” In philosophy, experiences become aware of themselves, and apprehend themselves. But at what level? “My only comment here is that we must distinguish not only degrees of clarification but degrees of intimacy with oneself and with one’s surroundings- with the universe itself.”
This inquiry must be based on a certitude that is not rational or logical, but rather existential. We must start with existence. From : Creative Fidelity.

“What does it mean to philosophize concretely?” It’s not a return to empiricism.
A philosopher should “know” the history of philosophy. But he should know it in the same way a composer knows harmony. Composers don’t become a slave to harmony, they use it as a tool.
A philosopher will never become accustomed to the fact of existing. It will involve a continued astonishment. There will always be a sting of reality.
No concrete philosophy is possible without a constant creative tension “between the I and those depths of our being in and by which we are; nor without the most stringent and rigorous reflection, directed by our most intensely lived experience….”
A concrete philosophy cannot fail to be attracted to Christianity, perhaps without even knowing it. And this shouldn’t shock anyone. For the Christian, there is an essential agreement between Christianity and human nature. The more one understands human nature, the more one “finds oneself situated on the axes of the great truths of Christianity.” An objection: “You affirm this as a Christian, not as a philosopher.” But: “the philosopher who compels himself to think only as a philosopher places himself on the hither side of experience in an infrahuman realm; but philosophy implies an exaltation of experience, not a castration of it.” From: Creative Fidelity.

If I can include Frederick Buechner:
The Bebb series
Godric
Telling the Truth: The Gospel As Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale
On the Road With the Archangel

And I also like several books by Philip Yancey
Disappointment with God
The Jesus I Never Knew
What's So Amazing about Grace?
The Bible Jesus Read
Soul Survivor

Here are some I like... In no particular order.

The Mind of God- Paul Davies
Reason and Persuasion:Three Dialogues by Plato - John Holbo
Ultimate Questions:Thinking about Philosophy - Rauhut
Plato's Dialogues
Philosophy as a Way of Life- Hadot
The Inner Citadel - Hadot
Crime and Punishment - Dostoyevsky
Tolstoy's Short Stories
Anna Karenina - Tolstoy
Seneca's Letters (well, anything by any Ancient Stoic really. Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, etc.)

It's easier to accept that there is some intelligence or rationality that is the reason for the existence of the universe, and that rational force is influencing us in some ways, through religion, through philosophy, etc.. than it is to accept that there is a being with a personality that some people or groups of people have access to, and others don't.

So, a rational force permeating the universe (see Paul Davies)? "yes". A deity with a personality revealing Himself/Herself through religions? "no".

The pros- Religions can be a force for good.

The cons- they can also cause people to harm others based on prejudices or rules that their religion promotes.