You may be querying the basis of the way in which Christians are using Wittgenstein's ideas but I find your claim that it makes you 'ill' as a bit extreme, even though I realise that you may be speaking metaphorically.

I have not read Wittgenstein in any way as much as I wish, and I do hope to read his writings more fully at some point. However, from some of what I have read I have wondered if there is some mysticism in his thinking insofar as queries the limits of language. So, what you have just written about Christians incorporating his ideas does seem to be one be one possible way of using his ideas, although it is possible that his ideas and statements have so much ambiguity that they could be interpreted to fit religious views or atheism.

In speaking of combined origins of religion and philosophy, rather than simply common origins, the point which I am trying to make is that many thinkers blended the two, to the point where they would have probably been rather surprised by how they are different disciplines now. I am partly referring to ancient religions, such as the Egyptian and Hindu ones. However, the whole development of Christendom involved a combination of religious ideas and philosophy. In particular, Augustine and Aquinas came from a religious stance, but incorporated the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, almost trying to merge the two seamlessly.

It is likely that it may only be in the last couple of centuries that philosophy and religion are seen apart from one another, following the ideas of science and other movements, such as existentialism. One point which may be important is that it may only be that in recent times that philosophers have seen life from the standpoint of scientific materialism. Of course, many thinkers of the past did not adhere to the theism of the Judaism and Christianity, or of Islam, but the cosmos of the previous worldviews, including Eastern philosophers, the ancient Greeks and the pagans was more of a 'religious' one , insofar as there was an underlying belief in some kind of 'supernatural' order.

When speaking about the harshest aspects of existence, I am referring to the existential aspects of existence which cause so much suffering, ranging from fear of one's own death, experiencing the death of significant others, poverty, and seeing atrocities in the world, including people treating others in an inhumane way, and all forms of suffering.

It is true that there is religious thinking and, on the other hand, the ideas within wisdom and spiritual thinking. It is possible to have spiritual ideas without any religious ones. The term 'spiritual' conjures up notions of religious or metaphysical entities, but in its most fundamental root, spiritual can be seen as relating to the inner life of a human being. I think that it is interesting that Eastern religions perspectives seem able to explore the inner life with less emphasis on 'God', especially in Buddhism.

It is true that science and logic cannot disprove God, but, on the other hand, science and logic cannot prove God's existence. There was Anselm's ontological argument, but it probably falls short of its' claim because all it really shows is that God is an idea in the human mind. If it logic was followed, it would be possible to argue that all possibilities conceived by humans exist independently of the human mind.

Aside from books being written on philosophy and religion, there was the whole tradition of theology, and it was a vast body of thought. I tried reading some theology at one point. A central area of discussion appeared to be about whether the idea of God and the problem of evil could be reconciled. However, I could not really gain a proper grasp of theology though, because it seemed that it begins from the standpoint of acceptance of certain religious premises, as opposed to philosophy, which approaches perceived 'problems' from a wider angle and reference point.

I like your image of multiple keys, but not being able to find one that fits, in thinking about the esoteric. I can see that Gnosticism and Rosucrianism may be seen like the keys which don't fit. Of course, the esoteric does involve the 'secret' traditions, so it is likely that it involves a lot which is not known by many, although it is likely that many do not wish to know that side of the religious picture. I do manage to read a fair amount, because I live in London, where there is a large esoteric bookshop, but I am sure that there is a lot that remains 'hidden' and unknown, and some aspects may be hard to gain access to.

There is plenty of literature on esoteric aspects of religion and philosophy, ranging from Gnosticism, the Rosucrucians, theosophy and the ideas of Rudolf Steiner.

Yes, that book sounds worth reading. You are good at finding them online, while I seem to still find most of the ones I read as paper books on shelves.

The idea which you refer to of there being one true reality is an approach which many, especially thinkers of religious viewpoints adhere to. I find such an approach extremely restrictive because there are so many different ideas of 'reality' and this can lead to a plurality in understanding. For any philosophical or religious perspective to be seen as the one above all others is questionable, although it is likely that many people seek to find the most accurate one, although many may keep to the one which they have been brought up with even in a multicultural society.

Your answer offers a good summary of the way in which religious and philosophical approaches have unifying but slightly different angles 'as operating in the same dimension'. They both look at the issues of what is a human being and human nature, morality and aspects that the human condition. It is likely that for some individuals there is an overlap, although it is possible to formulate philosophy without religion coming into the picture at all.

Yes, I probably wanted answers to the existential questions and was extremely disappointed when they could not be found. Instead, there may be those who have ideas which are more important than others, as the 'experts' of philosophy, although this is open to questions and interpretations. I guess that the 'void' which I struggle with is that of feeling some kind of 'let down' by a lack in answers and the 'cruelty' of life, as involving some kind of existential despair, even though I am aware that human beings create their own meanings in life.

The question is whether the idea of the 'void ' leads to meaningless or potential sources of finding meaning in life. What is the void, is it an absence of belief, or something else?

I didn't have a particular theoretical basis for choice of the word 'secular age'. I used it because, as I understand, statistics show that people have moved away from religious perspectives, although I would not be able to quote official statistics, and I am sure that it varies so much in different parts of the world, and I wonder how accurate the statistics are and whether it is true that the 'secular age' is a fair reflection of the picture of human beliefs in the twentieth first century.

Charles Taylor's book sounds interesting and I will try to find out more, so thanks for the recommendation.

You raise many questions, and Socrates as well as Jesus accepted the pain of death, as did some Christian martyrs.

Part of the problem in understanding Jesus is that there is so little to go on apart from the scriptures and it is likely that these were written such a long time after his death. It is accepted in theology that the authors of the Gospel were not those as they were named. So much of Christianity was based on the ideas of Paul, rather than Jesus. There is also the big question about what was included or excluded from the Bible, which is so bound up with the history of the early church. Figures like Origen were central and the controversies surrounding Gnosticism. The discovery of the Gnostic gospels in Nag Hammadi lead to accounts which are very different from traditional ideas about the life and teachings of Jesus. So, the quest to understand the historical figure of Jesus as a person is complicated.

The origins of Western religion is interesting and I am sure that Greece was central, but it is probably extremely complex. That is because there was so many cultural crossovers, including the ideas of the Egyptians. Also, there are many divisions, including the mainstream and esoteric, as well as the political factors. It is likely that these came into play in the underlying relationships between philosophy and religion. It is such a wide area because both areas have played such an important role in providing a basis for the exploration of metaphysics and what it means to be human, even though many people have moved outside of religious traditions, and science offers such an important source for understanding.

I was just reading your reply and it would probably be too simplistic to say that philosophy provides a replacement for religious ideas. I was thinking about the ideas, but I am aware that religion provides a whole social structure.

I am aware that many thinkers combine philosophy and religion. However, in the secular age, philosophy may be more of a means by which people think about the big questions of human existence. I began within religious thinking and philosophy, and try to read and think as widely as possible. Sometimes, I probably take it all a bit too seriously but, generally, I wish to approach life and the philosophy underlying the religious quest in an open, but critical way. I find the area of religion fascinating.

One aspect of your thread question on knowledge gained by smelling and touching etc is the aspect of sensory pleasure. The reason why I say this is because in the story of the fall of mankind in the Biblical account of Genesis, this is probably central. In a way, it is about the experiences of sexuality, but probably in connection with the whole range of pleasures of the senses and how they provide 'temptations', probably in contrast to rationality.

Perhaps Kant's philosophy is relevant somehow because he speaks of a priori logic, and his whole philosophy was based on puritanical values. Recently, I was reading Nietzsche's view in 'The Dawn of Day' , that Kant developed his ideas about rationality to back up his own views about morality.

But, in connection with knowledge, the sensory world comes with pleasure. William Blake critiqued this in his understanding of the philosophy of John Milton, who developed the myth of the fall of the angels.

Your reply is interesting and I come from a Catholic background, and I do still go to church with a friend at times. However, I feel that going to church is extremely stressful, especially the rituals. I actually wrote this thread on Saturday after going to church. I approach the questions about God with mixed thoughts.

But I do agree that religion is often more than ideas and is based on the community elements and the rituals. One interesting contrast to Catholicism is the movement of the Quakers, which is about sitting in silence and speaking when inspired to do so. I went to a meeting once and I do hope to go to another one at some point.

I think that it may be likely that I wish to 'have a cake and eat it', but, beyond this, I do wonder about how the idea of the collective unconscious stands in philosophical credibility. Part of the problem may be about seeing it as an abstract entity, and Jung contributes to this by arguing in terms of an objective psyche. However, in its favour is the shared aspect of symbolism and cultural meanings, even to the point where there may be considered to be universal 'truths', beyond cultural significance. The question may be about shared cultural meanings as aspects underlying myths.

I began a book by Victor Frankl last week, so I will bear in mind your question, and, hopefully be able to give an answer to this in a few days; and maybe this will be of significance for the thread discussion which I initiated.

I am not sure whether one may remain happy or not with Jung's analysis. He looked at the aspects of experience, and I did spend some time in Jungian analysis. It made me aware of so many conflicting aspects of myself and, to a large extent, humanity.However, I would say that I am interested in Jung's ideas, including his critique of religion. However, from a philosophy point of view, I wonder how much stands up to philosophical scrutiny, especially the idea of the collective unconscious.

Part of the issue may be about whether religious thinking is about finding 'healing' or meaning', or objective truth. Also, there is the question as to how much it matters. Coming from a philosophy perspective, I am more inclined to think that objective aspects of 'truth' are important. However, in some ways this focus goes back to an original religious stance, and, in some ways, without a bigger religious perspective, it could be argued that the psychological and personal meanings are the most which can be achieved or imagined.

I am sure that many people have different angles on what is 'psychological'. In many ways, my own is shaped by the psychodynamic thinkers, including Freud and, especially, Carl Jung. Both of these writers spoke in great depth about religion and its mythological significance. The two writers did not agree, and even became enemies, but they both looked at the way in which religious ideas became important in culture for fulfilling psychological needs.

In many ways, Jung saw the need for some kind of 'mythos' or religious way of seeing as being positive. He drew upon mythology and anthropology. In some ways, he offers a critique of Western religions, but he was suggesting that there was an overriding need for meaning. I am sure that he was aware that the ideas of religion were breaking down, as he made reference to the ideas of Nietzsche.

The psychological point of view is worth taking into consideration, because it comes into play in explanations. However, philosophy does seek to go beyond this, but, in many ways, people are bound up with their own psychological subjectivities. It is hard but may be the task of the philosophers to see beyond this.

Psychology and philosophy were once more united and psychology has developed so far, in neuroscience. How metaphysics lies in this is questionable; and it is possible to ask whether metaphysics is based on physics? This leads to the question of where, if at all, religious perspectives fit in? In relation to your question about the background of comparison, it may be that it is extremely complex.

I can see that my question raises questions about the role, purpose and limitations of religious and philosophical perspectives. You raise the issue of the difference between philosophy and religion, and I would not wish to make great generalisations because it is likely that people who are religious or philosophical try to come to authentic answers about life, and the metaphysical questions. The point which I am trying to make is that it is about different angles, as to one begins from specific premises about God or a 'divine order'. There may be overlaps, such as in ideas about ethics, but, on the other hand, specific beliefs about God, and the idea of an afterlife, may lead to a very different basis for thinking, and many philosophies may be picking up the broken pieces of 'religious' perspectives which were based on 'otherworldly' forms of thinking, which do not make much sense to many in the twentieth first century.

It could be a problem if philosophy appeals to authority as a basis of argument rather than rational arguments. That would be like the trust and 'blind faith' advocated by religious perspectives. I understand that philosophy comes from a very different angle, but, at the same time, authority of opinion may be open to scrutiny and criticism.

Yes, the question philosophy assigns to itself in making sense of ideas is important. It could be asked to what extent are philosophers to be regarded as the 'experts'?

I think that your ideas on trying to define 'God' are important because the idea is so ambiguous and used in such different ways. The analysis of language may be so important in discussing religious concepts.

Thank you for your reply and I will try to follow through Schopenhauer's ideas about religion.

2
Your discussion of the terms religion and philosophy are extremely useful, because I opened up a debate which involves distinguishing the terms. It may be such a big area of thinking on an individual and cultural level, so it does seem important to think about the meanings of such ideas for careful analysis, and the way in which religious and philosophical perspectives about life are constructed and understood.

Sorry, if I misinterpreted you, and I have just got out of bed. Perhaps, I will drink some more coffee and look and the replies later...

I agree with you that the writers of religious texts are 'storytellers' primarily. It is about mythic aspects of existence, but with some philosophy mixed in. It may be that philosophy can enable this distinction because some people, those who cling to concrete and literal interpretations often don't do this. If the Bible, for example, is read like a newspaper or textbook, this involves a rather rigid kind of perspective and misses the symbolic dimensions.

As you say there has been a lot of fighting for what is believed to be right. One aspect which I am thinking about is not only has there been literal fighting, as in the Christian crusades, but, also, division amongst Christians. There was great controversy in England when the Bishop of Durham said that he did not think that the resurrection happened in a physical sense.

I am glad that you can relate to the idea of there being a void opened up by loss of the idea of transcendence. I think that Nietzsche's writing describes it so well. It may be that some people can find meaning, through the arts and even catch connect with the numinous, but others may fall into meaningless. Some may cling to religious beliefs, even fundamentalist ones, to try to avoid facing up to the harshest aspects of existence.

It was one of your posts to me a few months ago which lead me to realise how I am inclined to treat philosophical matters as if it were 'religious', in my focus on finding 'the truth'. In the past, I used to assume that others did too. Of course, I expect that all individuals approach the questions of philosophy a bit differently.

Initially, when I began reading philosophy I had not questioned religion at all. I remember someone saying to me when I was about 17 that his only concern with me studying social sciences and philosophy was that I would get to the point where I stopped believing in God. At the time, I thought that was strange and it almost suggested that religion was a delusion which could be seen through. Funnily enough, I did not even question the idea of God that much in my Nietzsche phase.

But, I do still find that my thoughts shift and strangely when I am with people who are very religious, that is when I often find that I think like an atheist. I think that the posters on this forum who propose theist arguments are more inclined to swing my thoughts against belief in God than the atheist ones. I wonder if I am the only person who finds this.

I think that I look at this site too much and see what's popular here. I do find that I learn a lot from reading lots of thread discussions though. I like to be reading a mixture of ideas. I do find book reading particular useful as a personal way of exploring ideas. I was feeling in a rather miserable mood when I wrote the thread discussion, but I am not imagining that it is one which will continue for very long, especially as I have noticed since that there is one on personal gnosis and one on not needing to read philosophy to be a philosopher, so there may be some others almost having slightly similar thoughts at the moment.

That has some bearing on the issue of popularity, as to whether it is about people specifically following trends or coming to similar points of view. One thing which is recognised in art therapy is how when people are in a group, but working in separate spaces and not observing one another, there is often some shared imagery in the art work. But, I won't go any further, or I will be back to the topic of synchronicities...

I am in favour of reading philosophy in a scholarly or academic way too. I just sometimes wonder if I am being pretentious in doing so, but I definitely believe that it is important to be familiar with the thinkers who have devoted time and energy to it. If one comes up with ideas which are just personal it is extremely unlikely that they would have the depth of analysis equal to someone who has pursued it in a disciplined way.

My question was also about the nature of what is popular or fashionable in philosophy, and this probably changes or fluctuates within certain groups. An aspect of this may be about access and familiarity with certain ideas, but it may be that there are trends, or even cliques. For example, on this forum Wittgenstein seems to be so popular whereas Hegel is not. I am not saying that Wittgenstein is overrated but I do wonder if in general it is possible to be influenced by mainstream trends, to the point where it is can be difficult to take risks in exploring the less popular or obscure writers. It may be worth knowing the esteemed writers and ideas, but also worth being aware of those at the periphery too, to see what new angles these can offer.

I am not suggesting that rationality and science are totalitarian at all. The point which I am making is that in understanding the nature of beliefs it is important to understand that human beings form value systems which are underlying these. Rationality is extremely important but would not work if other aspects of consciousness are not taken into account.

This is captured in Iain Gilchrist's book, 'The Master and the Emissary' in which he suggests that the right and left brain aspects of consciousness, need to be understood, as in the various functions of rationality, feeling, intuition and imagination. He traces this in philosophical developments in culture, including romanticism and the enlightenment, and the way in which science emerged. He suggests that it is important that rationality is not lost, but that a balance or integrated picture of the human being is developed.

On the basis of this, it would follow that to try to encourage systems of beliefs which follow logic and rationality alone are probably not compatible with human nature and, therefore it probably would not work to strive towards systems of ideas which only meet the requirements of logic. In other words, people are not simply cerebral and that is probably why apart from rationality, emotional intelligence and empathy are important on a personal basis for the development of personal and cultural perspectives.

I am in favour of going beyond personal biases but recognising them initially may be a starting point for this. Critical thinking is important, but the question as to what extent a person can be neutral or value free is another matter. To strive towards that may be to go beyond what it means to be human and may be an approach which could be used to usher in totalitarian regimes.