Are religious folk renown for practicing what they preach? :lol:

So the question becomes, what is the cornerstone of religion? — praxis

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. Religion is like boot camp. Extreme training, recruits physically and mentally stressed to breaking point - many apply, few qualify. True, most fail but what about the success stories? To focus only on those who fail to match words with deeds is like thinking the army is a myth because of a large number of those who don't make the cut in a manner of speaking. Yet, the army exists and has proven its worth on more than one occasion.

If "praxis is the cornerstone", then why many, actually most, e.g. Christians do not 'act Christ-like' very often (i.e. live Christ-like lives) and haven't done so throughout history? — 180 Proof

Read my reply to praxis above. To reiterate, being good is tough, both physically and mentally taxing because it goes against the grain - we're selfish, we've evolved to be so, nothing pays dividends as much as being self-serving. Given this obvious fact, expect many/most to drop out of religious training programs. Too, many self-proclaimed religious people turn out to be hypocrites.

However, there are a few who do manage to make the grade and that's what I feel authentic practice does - makes us better people.

Religion as such makes far more hypocrites than it "makes us better" people. Read Dante. Read Erasmus. Read Spinoza. Read Paine. Read Nietzsche. It's an archaic, though somewhat still effective, system of control. Nothing more. It's intelligible content is mostly nil. "WWJD" is merely a punchline or tattoo. No longer even "Platonism of the masses" ...

Religion as such makes far more hypocrites than it "makes us better" people. Read Dante. Read Erasmus. Read Spinoza. Read Paine. Read Nietzsche. It's an archaic, though somewhat still effective, system of control. Nothing more. It's intelligible content is mostly nil. "WWJD" is merely a punchline or tattoo. No longer even "Platonism of the masses" ... — 180 Proof

Truth is I'm one of those who don't practice religion in the way it's prescribed. Why? Plain and simple - it's just too damn hard. Naturally, since as I said, it goes against our nature (we're not good) or if that's not to your taste, it seeks to tap into a part of our nature (the good in us) that's not so easy to get to, overshadowed as it is by self-concern, let alone cultivate in any meaningful way.

As for hypocrisy,

Hypocrisy is the best we can hope for. In hypocrisy people acknowledge something is nice and pretend to be that. — Joe Wong (comedian)

I know this Buddhist monk who's broken his vow of chastity and now has a partner :lol: . He told me something very interesting around a decade or so ago. According to him, all good begins as hypocrisy - it's an uphill task to practice what one preaches and many end up as janus-faced double-dealers - BUT, as he put it, the outward show of goodwill though dissonant with one's own selfishness will, in good time, be internalized i.e. there will come a point when one can/will be truly good; the image of goodness one habitually projects will finally match one's real self. Hypocrisy then a stepping stone and not a stumbling block as regards becoming a good person à la Jesus/Buddha.

Coming from a hypocrite, I don't know what to make of this piece of Buddhist advice? What sayest thou?

All I will say is that I know some believers who do manage mostly to practice what's been preached to them. Being a secular absurdist freethinker, my ethical struggles just don't include hypocrisy as par for course the way it is practiced, sometimes ethusiastically, by so-called "religious" folks. Yeah, I fail occasionally to live-up to being better than I was yesterday but that's the (any) discipline – striving to overcome myself (which, you're right, is difficult as hell to do daily) – and not a profession of "grace" or "faith" in some messiah / prophet / guru. Anyway, the only advice I'd take from a "hypocrite", if I was interested, is 'how to be one and make it work for me somehow'. :smirk:

All I will say is that I know some believers who do manage mostly to practice what's been preached to them. Being a secular absurdist freethinker, my ethical struggles just don't include hypocrisy as par for course the way it is practiced, sometimes ethusiastically, by so-called "religious" folks. Yeah, I fail occasionally to live-up to being better than I was yesterday but that's the (any) discipline – striving to overcome myself (which, you're right, is difficult as hell to do daily) – and not a profession of "grace" or "faith" in some messiah / prophet / guru. Anyway, the only advice I'd take from a "hypocrite", if I was interested, is 'how to be one and make it work for me somehow'. :smirk: — 180 Proof

It's odd that when people are bad, we immediately conclude they're really bad but when someone is being good, we're on guard, highly suspicious of their (hidden) intentions, the possibility that we're dealing with two-faced sons/daughters of jackals taken seriously, very seriously in fact.

I suppose we all know, deep down in our hearts, how people really are - bad - but at the same time we hope that there are exceptions - good folks. Thus, knowledge & hope come together to weave a rather incoherent tale of hard facts (people generally care only about themselves) and cautious expectations (we keep our eyes peeled for the good Samaritan). Most of the time people fall short of the mark but on rare occasions we're treated to a pleasant surprise and might I add, this is one of only a handful of situations where we're more than happy to be proven wrong.

I'm rambling. Just ignore me!

I think someone must've already mentioned this before but I believe there's a fundamental distinction between the epistemic methodology religion and philosophy practice. The former is, excepting Buddhism of course (more on this later), revelatory while the latter is rational.

What this means is religions (the Abrahamic big 3) rely almost exclusively on truths handed down from, literally dictated by, a higher power - God - through a chosen person - the prophet/messenger. In most cases, criticism of revealed truths is forbidden on pain of torture and death.

Philosophy's lifeblood is reason, rational criticism of truth-claims, in fact philosophers are trained, to use a martial analogy, to attack rather than defend, the latter being either a skill less worthy of a genuine thinker or a skill that's pointless given how rare it is to find a belief system immune to a full frontal assault, cunning flanking maneuvers and taking out the rearguard. The bottom line is fault-finding to philosophers is as annoying as it is to religious establishments but, the difference is, in philosophy it's a valuable asset to be cultivated and mastered to the point where you can pick out imperfections in perfection itself.

Buddhism, it appears, took a philosophical path and attempts to, as best as it can, eschew revelatory modes of truth-seeking and truth-finding. The Four Noble Truths - the axioms as it were of Gautama's system of beliefs - are clearly discernible to anyone willing to analyze them in the reality everyone shares. 0f course, there'll be disagreements but the point is not whether Siddhartha's right/wrong but Buddhism's epistemic approach to truths which sets it apart from other religions.

Another point worth noting is the Buddha was reluctant to discuss metaphysical issues and avoided discussing such matters, instead adopting a noncommital stance on all such questions - Noble Silence.

praxis is the cornerstone of religions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!
— TheMadFool

Are religious folk renown for practicing what they preach? :lol:

So the question becomes, what is the cornerstone of religion? — praxis

Just because most people are hypocrites doesn't mean this doesn't hold true for those whose practices are authentic.

Another point worth noting is the Buddha was reluctant to discuss metaphysical issues and avoided discussing such matters, instead adopting a noncommital stance on all such questions - Noble Silence. — TheMadFool

If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him.

Just because most people are hypocrites doesn't mean this doesn't hold true for those whose practices are authentic. — Pantagruel

One good argument I suppose that God exists is the existence of the Devil. It's the same thing with hypocrisy - bad people can get some idea of what good is and even if they don't practice, they at least preach. The point here is not to compare those who don't practice what they preach with those who practice what they preach but with those who don't even preach.

If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him. — Pantagruel

Timothy Ferris's "The Science of Liberty" brings up the subject of science and totalitarianism. Both The Nazi and Russian Communists believed they were committed to science, and we might all know under the Naxi, Germany did very inhuman experiments using Jews. The Russian communists were also deterministic and did a lot of killing for political reasons.

Today we might look at China and some concerns. It is using cell phone technology to monitor citizens' thoughts and behaviors. In the US millions of dollars are spent on learning how to manipulate people and influence their behavior and this information is used mostly for commercials, but it is also used for political purposes.

I am sure others can think of examples of science being evil and this is very much behind the argument that we must have Jesus and concern about being saved. So, Jack, we might want to ensure religion and philosophy have a place in our society. But we have serious reasons for opposing religion and that leaves philosophy as the most important source of knowledge to moderate both science and the religious folk.

We might want to pay more attention to culture and education because Christianity without liberal education is not the same thing as Christianity with liberal education was. We can not live on truths alone, but must also have morals, ethics, and principles.

Are religious folk renown for practicing what they preach? :lol: — praxis

Which one of the Greek philosophers spoke of our higher selves? I think here we need to follow the line of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. None of us is functioning on the level of our higher selves all the time. What is important is to constantly educate ourselves and surround ourselves with people who have liberal educations because our social nature brings out the best or worse in us depending on the people we associate with. That is where religious people have a distinct advantage- they congregate regularly and intentionally focus their minds above their bases instincts. They intentionally develop themselves and support each other in this endeavor.

You are probably right that I do tend to approach philosophy as a quest for 'ultimate answers' in the way that people approach religion. It probably goes back to how I used to see it as a unified quest when I was a student. I often make the assumption that other people come from this angle. So, I will try to bear in mind that philosophy is probably best not approached in that way, but I do find it hard to step out of the tendency to look for the 'ultimate' answers and truth.

I was reading one of your posts here about Abrahamic religions and it is true that these do involve the idea of evil being necessary in the overall scheme of things. If Satan did not exist there would be nothing to battle against. Also, if Lucifer had not been a fallen angel and not encouraged human beings to fall too, there would have been no history at all within the drama portrayed in the Bible.

Similarly, I used to wonder how paradise as envisioned after the resurrection at the end of the world would work. If evil had been cast into the abyss forever, it would be a static condition, and I am sure sure that the idea of bliss for eternity makes sense really.

What is important is to constantly educate ourselves and surround ourselves with people who have liberal educations because our social nature brings out the best or worse in us depending on the people we associate with. That is where religious people have a distinct advantage- they congregate regularly and intentionally focus their minds above their bases instincts. — Athena

The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes a liberal education in this way: "Ideally, a liberal education produces persons who are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds." Liberally educated people are skeptical of their own traditions; they are trained to think for themselves rather than conform to higher authorities. So your advice here is rather contradictory, to pursue a liberal education which tends to erode 'traditional' views, yet you praise traditional views and conformity to 'higher authorities'.

Incidentally, studies from the Pew Research Center indicate that Liberals are about half as religious as Conservatives (those who uphold traditional values and norms).

They intentionally develop themselves and support each other in this endeavor. — Athena

They are strongly bonded, sharing traditional values, norms, rituals, etc., and that bond is the essential purpose, to be a unified tribe. Self-development is entirely beside the point, or intentionally suppressed, because self-development leads to self-determination.

I believe that it was Plato who spoke of the higher self, as the daimon. I think philosophy, including the Greek ideas is extremely important, and it is a way of making sense of both religion and science. Definitely, religious views are focused on being saved and, of course, haunted with the threat of eternal damnation. This the reason why I really wanted to think my way out of a religious point of view, and, on top of the idea of hell, it is frequently suggested that people should not question. Ideas are meant to be accepted through blind faith.

But, I do think that the social support in congregations does help people, and I think that this may be one of the real reasons that many people go to church. As a teenager, most of my life outside of studies was church based. I would say that I had a liberal education within Christianity. I went to a Catholic school and I studied at S. Martin's College in Lancaster after leaving school. I think that it was only really when I moved on to study in London that I began to explore other perspectives outside of religious ones, although I was interested in Hinduism while I was still going to so many church events.

But, it is definitely true that once we step outside of religious views that morals are still important. In a way, morality can be seen as more important outside of religion because the focus is on life in the present, rather than about happiness in an afterlife.

:up:

he American Association for the Advancement of Science describes a liberal education in this way: "Ideally, a liberal education produces persons who are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds." Liberally educated people are skeptical of their own traditions; they are trained to think for themselves rather than conform to higher authorities. So your advice here is rather contradictory, to pursue a liberal education which tends to erode 'traditional' views, yet you praise traditional views and conformity to 'higher authorities'.

Incidentally, studies from the Pew Research Center indicate that Liberals are about half as religious as Conservatives (those who uphold traditional values and norms). — praxis

I really appreciate what said and especially that definition of Liberal Education. However, I see your interpretation of it is not the meaning of my words that I intended. I do not know how you came to the conclusion that I said we should rely on a "higher authority" other than our own inner higher authority? :gasp: I think in general all civilized people rely on traditional values and norms to some degree. That is the meaning of being civilized. I would say not everyone among us is civilized and they are controlled by laws and fear of punishment to some degree. That is not the same as doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Hopefully, civilized people and educated and do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

They are strongly bonded, sharing traditional values, norms, rituals, etc., and that bond is the essential purpose, to be a unified tribe. Self-development is entirely beside the point, or intentionally suppressed, because self-development leads to self-determination. — praxis

What you said may be true of members of religious groups, but religion is not the only core model of life. This is perhaps the most important point to me. The other core model for life in a democracy is a culture built on liberal education. When this was the primary purpose of education in the US we had a strong and united Republic. That education ended in 1958 with the National Defense Education Act. We stopped transmitting our culture and left moral training to the church. That is a complete disaster! Thomas Jefferson devoted his life to universal education when education meant a liberal education because he understood that is the only way to have a strong and united Republic and to protect our liberty. There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. We dropped the culture, leaving us with only authority over the people, and this is destroying our democracy.

I need to clarify, if our schools were transmitting the necessary culture for democracy and liberty, we would be as united as religious groups. We would be forming organizations to resolve our problems as people did when fraterities, unions, and granges were popular because schools would prepare everyone for resolving problems in this democratic way. The dependency would be on ourselves, not the government over us. Not only would we be empowered as Tocqueville said the citizens of the US were but we would be meeting our human needs in a way no government can do. Without a united effort to transmit a culture, we are no longer united by a culture. Leaving only churches to meet the human needs, and perhaps forums like this one. We are not sharing a culture here, but at least we can talk about that. Where else can we meet and discuss what is so and what should be, and our part in all this?

*

I believe that it was Plato who spoke of the higher self, as the daimon. I think philosophy, including the Greek ideas is extremely important, and it is a way of making sense of both religion and science. Definitely, religious views are focused on being saved and, of course, haunted with the threat of eternal damnation. This the reason why I really wanted to think my way out of a religious point of view, and, on top of the idea of hell, it is frequently suggested that people should not question. Ideas are meant to be accepted through blind faith. — Jack Cummins

I think there's a lurking and very deep issue at back of this, which you in particular might be able appreciate.

There has always been a tension in Christian doctrine between Greek philosophy and the Hebrew tradition of prophecy. This is expressed in sayings such as 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?' On the one side, the Greek philosophical tradition is rationalist, although with religious aspects, while the Hebrew prophetic tradition is held to be based on the revealed word of God.

In the early formation of Christian doctrine, the Greek-speaking theologians assimilated many elements of Platonic thought and tried to integrate them with Hebrew religious conceptions. Platonism and neo-Platonism provided the philosophical framework within which Christian doctrine was developed and interpreted. But this was not itself a particularly deliberate process, it took place through conflicts, political agitation, conquests, and campaigns, borrowing and mixing of ideas and doctrines. It was a total ferment in the first few centuries of Christian history. To even begin to summarise that history would take an enormous amount of reading, and I acknowledge I have barely scratched the surface myself (although Henry Chadwick seems the go-to for that subject).

But there's a couple of themes to explore. When I started on the quest, much as you're doing now, I assumed that what was fundamental was the kind of experiences that would arise from entheogens. Of course, such agents have a stigma, and I'm certainly not wanting to encourage their use. But the point was, for brief moments, at least, the curtains were parted, and a clear vista could be seen which was transformative in its meaning. It goes without saying that this can't be explained or communicated, and so it is very easy to dismiss. But the thing that stayed with me was the noetic element, the idea that there was a 'seeing' that put everything into perspective.

It seemed to me that there was a crossover between these kinds of experiences and Eastern or counter-cultural spirituality - the various roshis, gurus, yogis, and seers whose ideas were circulating at that time. Certainly as it turned out, some were charlatans - but not all. In any case, the message seemed to be that one had to train oneself to look within for the real source of these kinds of experiences that we had had glimpses of. (I don't know if you've read Alduous Huxley's Doors of Perception, but that is one of the key texts of that time.)

Hence began the quest for enlightenment, for me and many others. That's why I studied comparative religion (fat lot of good that'll do you, said most, with some justification). Also got trained in a meditation technique and went to a couple of retreats. Not that I have progressed far, or made a career out of it.

At that point, when I was doing comparative religion, I formed the view that the experiential element of philosophical spirituality had been overall suppressed in the mainstream Christian tradition. I had the view that the early gnostics were most like the Indian yogis and sages who had appeared and taught in the West, but that they had been suppressed by the mainstream Church. And this was for the political reason, that belief is a much easier thing to control than knowledge. So whereas Buddhism, for instance, tends to be much less centralised - more like a 'passing of the torch' - the impulse in the Catholic church was always centralised power, with the Pope as the representative of God on earth and the wielder of absolute power.

I think that has had a massively distorting effect on what religion means in the Western world. I learned the interesting fact that in the very early days of the Roman church, a very influential Gnostic bishop, Valentinus, had come within a couple of votes of being elected Pontiff. But, it was not to be, and history was written by the victors.

I have since come to understand that there are still some gnostic or experiential aspects remaining in the Christian tradition - mainly they show up in the medieval mystics, like Eckhart, which is why he always skirted, and was charged with, heresy. And also there were underground movements, like the Cathars, Hermetics, Rosicrucians, and many others, that kept alive some of those elements of gnostic spirituality.

But that is some background as to why the emphasis on 'blind faith', which, I think, was exacerbated by Protestantism - I don't think, for instance, that you'll find the same emphasis on it in Aquinas or in the Church Fathers. But again, a lot of the dynamics are driven by the politics of supression and control, and it has left a deep shadow on the collective psyche.

:pray:

Your entry is extremely interesting from my own point of view, because I am interested in the whole history of esoteric traditions. I have read a certain amount on Gnosticism, mainly in connection with Jung's interest in the area. But, apart from Gnostic ideas having been suppressed, it does seem that Hermeticism, and movements like the Rosucrucians have been an underground hidden aspect behind the surface of religious philosophies. There are also particular individual thinkers like Emmanuel Swedenborg, who influenced Blake. One writer who I also believe is an extremely important one is Rudolf Steiner. I think that these thinkers are often suppressed and hidden from mainstream religion, but from philosophy too.

It's like forensic pathology, trying to figure out the specifics of some ancient crime from the dessicated remnants of extinct belief systems. But there's treasure in the trashheap.

I think you should concentrate on trying to get something published in this subject area. You're an interesting writer and thinker in your own right. Enough with noodling around on public forums, find some way to make it count!

I would love to at some point, and I definitely think you should write a book too. But, it also depends on life circumstances and having a specific audience. For example, over the time I have been on the forum, I have got to the stage where I know who may respond to my threads, and who will probably not. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't any surprises and it is all completely predictable. But, I do see writing on the forum as useful practice. Perhaps, many of us here will write a book, including @TheMadFool, @180 Proof, and many others.

... the whole history of esoteric traditions ... I think that these thinkers are often suppressed and hidden from mainstream religion, but from philosophy too. — Jack Cummins

They are "suppressed and hidden" by whom and why?

I had the view that the early gnostics were most like the Indian yogis and sages who had appeared and taught in the West, but that they had been suppressed by the mainstream Church. And this was for the political reason, that belief is a much easier thing to control than knowledge — Wayfarer

I agree with your description. I would qualify it with two observations:

The Gnostics saw themselves in relation to "non-believers" in ways that do not conform to an idea of a group only practicing for themselves.

The form of life in early "Pauline" groups is an experience that the formation of dogma also hides from our view. The complaint of some early Church Fathers was that the Gnostics were too "intellectual."

What's the common thread, the leitmotif, that unites the following personalities? (I'm restricting myself to major religions)

1. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism)
2. Mahavira (Jainism)
3. Moses (Judaism)
4. Jesus (Christianity)
5. Mohammed (Islam)
6. Zarathustra (Zoroastrainism)

1. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism)
2. Mahavira (Jainism)
3. Moses (Judaism)
4. Jesus (Christianity)
5. Mohammed (Islam)
6. Zarathustra (Zoroastrainism) — Agent Smith

Speaking for myself, not Jack, the common denominator (besides them all being more or less patriarchal males) seems to be that they each promise in his own way that 'personal salvation from self-immiseration is possible' (in effect) after death. Holy Hustle, Batman! :yikes:

personal salvation from self-immiseration is possible — 180 Proof

Yup, that's one way to look at it. There were, back then and as is true in the here and now, the Siamese twins of suffering & evil. Given the diversity of religions, it's obvious that there's more than one way to skin a cat but the catch is they're all mutually inconsistent; so it's not the case that there's some commonality among the faiths that we could isolate, work on, and perfect.

They all have the same destination - salvation - but the methodologies (paths) proposed are as different from each other as the passengers on a ship (merchants, scientists, priests, colonizers, slave traders, etc.) in the age of exploration/colonization. You already knew that of course.

One major theme uniting the various figures, although I don't know anything about the one you describe in Jainism, is the specific role attributed to them as leaders. Of course, within the framework of the particular religions they are seen as much more, but looked at more from an anthropological perspective, they could be seen as having a shamanic journey and role. They went further in their exploration of reality than those around them and brought knowledge and wisdom for other people.

True, another interesting perspective on these founding fathers of world religions.

However, I'm looking for a deeper, more satisfying, connection that can become the basis for clubbing them all together under one banner - religion. 180 Proof came close but, in my humble opinion, failed to hit the bullseye.

Try going into their lives - one was a slave (Moses), one was a priest (Jesus), one was a merchant (Mohammed), last but not the least, one was a prince (Gautama). What made them turn to religion?

For what it is worth…

Christianity 2.382 billion 31.11%
Islam 1.907 billion 24.9%
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.193 billion 15.58%
Hinduism 1.161 billion 15.16%
Buddhism 506 million 5.06%
Chinese traditional religion[c] 394 million 5%
Ethnic religions excluding some in separate categories 300 million 3%
African traditional religions 100 million 1.2%
…
— “From Wikipedia on Religious Membership”

So like 1% of the world doesn’t fit into one of those buckets. Only 3 of the religions on Agent Smith’s list of major religions are in the 7 “religions” that make up virtually the entirety of religious adherence in the modern world.

Moses wasn’t Jewish (if he existed at all). He did not promise anything about the afterlife and certainly nothing about salvation from self-immeseration. Judaism is not Christianity without Jesus and it isn’t interested in the same themes as Christianity is. The majority of Jews do not believe in revealed truths that come from authority.

I really fail to understand what the value is of doing “comparative religion” when all that seems to be discussed is Christianity, Christianity adjacent tokens, and some theorizing about the Buddha. How about start with a religion of about 1.2 billion people and see what it says as compared to modern science and some of the thoughts of philosophy - you know, Hinduism. Maybe we could do a bit of discussion on Pramana, Brahman, Purusartha, and Naya (epistemology, metaphysics, axiology, and logic). Although we manage to abstract “philosophy” (I know, it isn’t about wisdom anymore, it is all about methods of proper thinking) from context (which was religious until fairly recently as a predominant orientation) in the West and so pretend like there is philosophy outside of religion, when looking at other cultures, the philosophy is still unabashedly maintained in its religious context.

Religious malcontents trolling the philosophy of religion section with no real interest in philosophy of religion (philosophy that comes from religion) or philosophy of religion (philosophy about religion) leads to nothing but impoverished conversations. I often feel tempted to refer to SEP on the philosophy of religion just for the introduction - a rather earnest and sympathetic exploration of why philosophy of religion.

Today, philosophy of religion is one of the most vibrant areas of philosophy. . . .What accounts for this vibrancy? Consider four possible reasons.

First: The religious nature of the world population. Most social research on religion supports the view that the majority of the world’s population is either part of a religion or influenced by religion (see the Pew Research Center online). To engage in philosophy of religion is therefore to engage in a subject that affects actual people, rather than only tangentially touching on matters of present social concern. Perhaps one of the reasons why philosophy of religion is often the first topic in textbook introductions to philosophy is that this is one way to propose to readers that philosophical study can impact what large numbers of people actually think about life and value. . .

Second: Philosophy of religion as a field may be popular because of the overlapping interests found in both religious and philosophical traditions. Both religious and philosophical thinking raise many of the same, fascinating questions and possibilities about the nature of reality, the limits of reason, the meaning of life, and so on. . . .

Third, studying the history of philosophy provides ample reasons to have some expertise in philosophy of religion. In the West, the majority of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers philosophically reflected on matters of religious significance. . . .

In Chinese and Indian philosophy there is an even greater challenge than in the West to distinguish important philosophical and religious sources of philosophy of religion. It would be difficult to classify Nagarjuna (150–250 CE) or Adi Shankara (788–820 CE) as exclusively philosophical or religious thinkers. Their work seems as equally important philosophically as it is religiously (see Ranganathan 2018).

Fourth, a comprehensive study of theology or religious studies also provides good reasons to have expertise in philosophy of religion. As just observed, Asian philosophy and religious thought are intertwined and so the questions engaged in philosophy of religion seem relevant: what is space and time? . . .
— “Excerpt from SEP on Philosophy of Religion”