Or, am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

I recently admitted publicly, on this forum -- only partly tongue-in-cheek -- that my personal Religion is Philosophy. It doesn't promise deferred gratification in another life. But it does allow me to define & refine my personal beliefs into a coherent worldview, which helps me to navigate the ups & downs of the only life I know for sure, here & now. I comfort myself for losing the anticipation of a better life tomorrow, by telling myself that "a living bird in hand is worth eternal life in the mythical bush". :joke:

Or, am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

I don't think you are wrong. Something like humanism replaces religion for a certain kind of philosopher (Hume & Hobbes both come to mind.) I'm not saying that they'd call it that, or that 'humanism' is some magically perfect name. Love him or hate him, I think Pinker's Enlightenment Now is a good example of what I have in mind. (Pinker annoys me when he writes about Nietzsche, and I think Hobbes and Hume are better writers/thinkers. I mention Pinker because he's alive and famous now, addressing contemporary concerns in the timely data-driven manner.)

"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion." ~Spinoza

I am wondering about the way in which philosophy provides an alternative way of finding explanations and meanings. — Jack Cummins

My understanding of philosophy is that it is not theoretical, that is, it does not "provide" "explanations" (or "meanings") but rather merely – insightfully – proposes reflective interpretations (i.e. critical descriptions, dialectical examinations, aporetic formulations, etc) of natural, social & other cultural forms (e.g. assumptions) of knowing and evaluating.

Or, am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion?

Is astronomy an "alternative" to astrology?
Is history an "alternative" to fantasy?
Is waking an "alternative" to sleeping?
...
Is thinking (unanswerable questions) an "alternative" to believing (unquestionable answers)?

In the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, yeah Jack, IMO you're wrong to believe so.

Is it possible to think about philosophy without any reference to questions posed within religious worldviews?

Not very deeply. "Religious worldviews" are the fertilized soil within which philosophy's reflective roots sink deepest and spread farthest. 'Existential questions' are seeds of the life of the mind of both the religious believer and subsequently the philosophical thinker.

Logos striving against (yet never without) Mythos. — 180 Proof

:fire:

:up:

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 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. — Jack Cummins

The more passionate, firm and emphatic someone is about their position, the more skeptical I tend to be that it is true. Great pathos is often making up for lack of logos.

:up:

↪180 Proof
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' ... 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.  — Jack Cummins

I've thought all my adult life that the most effective inducement to unbelief is the preaching & proselytizing of 'true believers' and scriptural literacy (especially comparative studies). On these fora I often feel almost sorry for 'believers' who categorically seem incapable of making reasoned arguments in defense of or justifying their so-called "religious beliefs" and any supernatural / metaphysical basis for such "beliefs". I'm often tempted to make the damn arguments for them because I'm well versed in what I've found in over three+ decades (or have myself composed) to be the strongest defenses of "religious belief". But what's the point, right?

If seeking "answers" motivates you, Jack, then seek them; I just think a site dedicated to philosophy is more frustrating than not for believers since a considerable majority of us here are skeptics, fallibilists, freethinkers & naturalists – even some of the idealists (neo/platonists) too. This is as good a place to be as any if you're seeking to sort out the 'right questions' from the 'wrong questions' and then to improve upon – critically, imaginatively, reformulate further – those 'right questions'. Philosophizing, to put it simply, clarifies and makes explicit and seeks new questions and problems by critically interpreting or dialectically examining (given) "answers" and "solutions". Why? What's the point? To begin with, I think, to help one think clearer and deeper and more consistently (in spite of oneself, or one's subjectivity) about whatever one says or does in order to make one's life feel significant.

This lead me to think how for many the pursuit of philosophy may fill a void in the loss of religious ideas. — Jack Cummins

A side issue: but thanks largely to Nietzsche and an abundance of Christian and Islamic apologists, the idea that a void is opened when religion has gone has become a prevailing myth. I think this ought to be examined, particularly so since it is used as a springboard by many as a kind of aesthetic justification for a belief in the transcendent.

In other words, a universe without transcendence is ugly and empty and therefore can (or must) be filled with malevolent or pointless alternatives. Currently one of the most popular propagandists of this view is Jordan B Peterson who has made it a kind of chorus to his endless song of Jungian praise. (Yet if ever there were a case of 'physician heal thyself' it must be JBP.)

Religion and spirituality is no protection against the void. People work hard to paper over it with their Christianity or ostentations experiments in mysticism, but there is no guarantee against ontological dread and chronic feelings of emptiness. In my work I've known countless people in distress who were desperate and suicidal - most of them were believers and yet they were overwhelmed by meaninglessness. Their faith offered no protection from the void.

I suspect if faith is for anything, it is for whistling in the dark in the vain hope that you will distract yourself from your terrors and your moral failings.

Faith versus meaninglessness, or versus philosophy, or versus acquisitive materialism - this kind of dichotomous thinking is surely a good example of the false dilemma fallacy.

philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

Our division of philosophy and religion may be a false one considering they begin with debates. I know people want to believe their particular religion is God's truth revealed, but that is not want history tells us. Let us begin with Judaism

Within Judaism there are a variety of religious movements, most of which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism,[14][15] which holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah.[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism — wikipedia

A variety of religious movements. These people were, and still are, storytellers. It is a cultural thing to handle conflict or correcting someone's behavior with a story rather than a straight-on attack. They always worked together on problems such as the destruction of their temple and being taken into slavery in Babylon. The way they worked a system for not being assimilated into other cultures and keeping their own culture intact is amazing. Their story of creation appears to be a Sumerian story adjusted to be a story of one god instead of many gods and I don't think they take that story literally as Christians do.

Now the Christians, yi yi yi! What a bunch of argumentative people! When Constantine legalized Christianity he was horrified by all the fighting this set off and called the Christians together to come up with agreements and stop the fighting. But for a while the fighting continued and Christianity was divided and the East and West divide has remained, and Protestantism shattered Catholicism. The US made freedom of religion a constitutional right to stop people from persecuting and killing each other.

Then we have Islam, there is another divided God of Abraham religion with the divided people killing each other and although the Quaran says Muslims should respect all people of the book, Jews and Christians, we know the people of the book are fighting each other. Something else is happening besides wanting to know God's truth and how to live together. People continue to argue God's truth and how can we separate that from philosophy? Really? all these people continue to argue about God's truth and why do we say these arguments are different from philosophy?

Personally, at age 8 I asked a Sunday School teacher why Protestants and Catholics were divided and I didn't like her answer so I determined to find that answer for myself. That meant doing my best to know what everyone around the world believes and that includes Eastern and Western thinking. I am blown away by people wanting God's truth and not doing the same. That is like reading one history book and thinking the one version of history is the absolute truth and all other history books are wrong. :smirk:

Or, am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

Is this a role that philosophy assigns to itself? Many social philosophers explicitly state that, for various reasons, modern culture has evolved away from traditional value-paradigms, which were mostly religion-centric, and that our society is suffering many problems as a result. Some of these would absolutely assign philosophy this role.

Alternately, is this a role that philosophy assumes in a practical sense, in the population at large? This is the more important question, because it seems to me this is exactly the context in which religion is most important. Not its ostensible self-definition through the conflicting claims of different sects, but through the actual influence it exerts and the potentials it confers on and through the minds of believers.

In this latter sense, I think philosophy should aspire to to this role, perhaps not as an alternative so much as a complement.

but thanks largely to Nietzsche and an abundance of Christian and Islamic apologists, the idea that a void is opened when religion has gone has become a prevailing myth. — Tom Storm

Exactly! When everyone agrees on God's truth, I may agree with them.

but there is no guarantee against ontological dread and chronic feelings of emptiness — Tom Storm

Yeap, that comes with being human. It also comes with being a political animal and disagreeing about the best way to have a good economy and resolve our social and economic problems.
I wish we had a project like building a pyramid or a Chaco reflection of the heavens to ease our uneasiness. Our excitement over the New Age and then over what technology will do for us, is waning and we need something besides dread of the future.

we need something besides dread of the future. — Athena

A (maybe the) question to ask about troublesome feelings is, "What is this feeling doing for me right now?" The idea being - you're thoughtful answer here likely to be better than mine - that feelings are for a reason, and serve a purpose. With respect to what the future holds, those feelings understood aright may yield to feelings of acceptance and freedom, and to seeking appropriate personal action under that acceptance and freedom, whatever that might be.

As to organized religion, it seems hackneyed to call it a drug. But I on occasion see it and hear it in action. And a drug it seems, in the worst sense. The most charitable sense of it being as a medicine. And to be sure, some people need medicine - maybe all, at one time or another.

Dig into that, the necessity of some belief, and one finds reason-based faith. Oops. Hello there, Mr. Kant!

I am aware that it is not a simplistic division and many may see explore religion and philosophy together. However, many people who come to philosophy have stepped outside of mainstream religious thinking and I am wondering about the way in which philosophy provides an alternative way of finding explanations and meanings. Or, am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

Searching for and finding alternative explanations and meanings is corrosive to religion because it disrupts faith in its authority. Religion is replaced by finding explanations, community, a sense of being part of something greater than yourself... or in a word, meaning, for yourself.

This lead me to think how for many the pursuit of philosophy may fill a void in the loss of religious ideas. — Jack Cummins

I think that answers your question. Existential questions were the root for philosophy in humanity at first place.
Well as not to go it further and say that death is the actual mother of philosophy.

Philosophy is the refugee of the atheists. Where they turn as to find some peace inside them since they can't rely on any God to answer their questions.
That doesn't mean of course that theists aren't or can't turn into philosophy too. But, imo, their kind of philosophy is starting from a different base. Trying mostly to define God's word as to live accordingly. Atheists try to define "God" himself.

I've been reading a master's dissertation on Schopenhauer's philosophy of religion which you might find relevant - Schopenhauer 's Philosophy of Religion and his Critique of German Idealism. He writes:

Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.

Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different. Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa. He nonetheless recognizes that the metaphysical need of most people is satisfied by their religion. This is unsurprising because, he contends, the vast majority of people find existence “less puzzling and mysterious” than philosophers do, so they merely require a plausible explanation of their role in the universe that can be adopted “as a matter of course” (WWR II 162). In other words, most people require a metaphysical framework around which to orient their lives that is merely apparently true. Therefore, the theologian has no functional reason to determine what is actually true. By contrast, the philosopher is someone whose metaphysical need is not satisfied by merely apparent truths – he is intrinsically driven to seek out actual truths about the nature of the world.

In my opinion, a great deal of current philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world, denies 'man's need for metaphysics' altogether - has lost sight of what that need is, why it exists, etc. So a lot of current thinking is neither philosophical nor religious.

@Jack Cummins Are you familiar with Peter Wessel Zapffe's "The Last Messiah"? In the essay Zapffe obliquely discusses this "metaphysical need" and suggests why, perhaps, it seems to be ignored or neglected by we moderns.

(The full essay is linked at the end of the wiki article.)

Atheists try to define "God" himself. — dimosthenis9

I have never needed to "define God", only demonstrate that 'what theists claim sine qua non about "God"' is not true. It's delusional to believe in (trust) untrue claims, no?

thanks largely to Nietzsche and an abundance of Christian and Islamic apologists, the idea that a void is opened when religion has gone has become a prevailing myth. I think this ought to be examined, particularly so since it is used as a springboard by many as a kind of aesthetic justification for a belief in the transcendent. — Tom Storm

No myth. The Schopenhaur essay I linked above notes that Schop. reads religions allegorically, as allegorical descriptions of the human condition. Read thusly, the abandonment of religion amounts to the abandonment of any over-arching sense of purpose. Of course in Schopenhauer's philosophy we are entirely driven by the blind irrational will so most of what humans do is meaningless, except for the fact that humans are able to see through that (i.e. 'transcend the will'.) So despite Schopenhauer's vociferous atheism, in the end 'St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) subsequently emerge as Schopenhauer’s prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, in conjunction with the ascetics from every religious tradition'. (SEP)

'Zapffe views the human condition as tragically overdeveloped, calling it "a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature."

This is what exactly I mean when I say that the goal of modern political liberalism is 'to make the world a safe space for the ignorant'. (I will take time to read that essay later, it seems pretty important).

I might be wrong, because I never put a lot of thought into religion, but I always thought it was spiritual group-think, and subsidiary to philosophy. If some other subsidiary of philosophy were to sit around in a back-slapping circle-jerk, then it too might be a religion. But to carve it out as distinct from philosophy would, it seems to me, ostracize some philosophers who were way smarter than me. So there's that.

Actually I think that Zappfe essay is a profound expression of the malady of Western culture.

I have never needed to "define God", only demonstrate that 'what theists claim sine qua non about "God"' is not true. It's delusional to believe in (trust) untrue claims, no? — 180 Proof

Define "God" I mean in the sense of trying to find answers that theists have already from their God. Even atheists have to find something to believe in. Even if that "something" is their own self, or universe or whatever. Fill that existential void as Jack mentioned. That's why I mentioned philosophy as refugee for them.

I find it delusional also but if a theist doesn't try to enforce his beliefs on others and he just finds peace in any God then I don't care.
At the end don't we atheists also believe in other untrue claims? Not specifically about God but about anything in general. We might be delusional and believe in lies in other fields. Nobody is perfect.

Me personally I don't have the need to prove his "God" wrong .As long as he isn't fanatic.
Since science hasn't reached to the answer of everything yet, God is still an "open issue" (well not for me but for some is and I can accept that).

Non sequitur. :roll: Enjoy the essay.

Even atheists have to find something to believe in. — dimosthenis9

Perhaps. But that "something to believe in" is not the trust in (worship of) a supernatural mystery of theists. False equivalence (& tu quoque) fallacy.

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. — Jack Cummins

I feel you. You're not.

Enjoy the essay. — 180 Proof

I didn't. Not a well mind.

Read thusly, the abandonment of religion amounts to the abandonment of any over-arching sense of purpose. — Wayfarer

Arthur Schopenhauer is a heck of a writer, and that's certainly the correct reading, but I believe he is wrong about this for reasons I already mentioned. Religion may save your soul, but it lacks the power to inoculate people from dread, depression and meaninglessness.

But that "something to believe in" is not the trust (worship of) a supernatural mystery of theists. — 180 Proof

No it isn't.

I am writing this, having come from a Christian background, but with so much questioning. — Jack Cummins

This is probably true for many of us, certainly for myself.

Is it possible to think about philosophy without any reference to questions posed within religious worldviews? — Jack Cummins

Yes, indeed, if by "religious worldviews" you refer to those religions most familiar to us here in the west. Philosophy in general takes a rationalist approach to various types of questions, and "our" religions, those monotheistic religions which emanated from the Levant between roughly 2000 BCE and 600 CE, are patently anti-rationalist in nature, particularly in their dependence upon divine revelation as the origin of knowledge and wisdom. Even those of the world's religions which are more rationalist in nature, such as Buddhism, yet retain a germ of anti-rationalism which is antithetical to the philosophical approach to life.

...am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

The $50k question. I think yes. Even if a religion were formulated which does not oppose rationalism in any way (a great hope of myself), the foci of philosophy and religion are utterly different. The purpose of philosophy is to provide man with the most helpful/useful way of regarding existential problems and uncertainties. Religion serves other purposes, which have been mentioned above...

Read thusly, the abandonment of religion amounts to the abandonment of any over-arching sense of purpose.
— Wayfarer

Arthur Schopenhauer is a heck of a writer, and that's certainly the correct reading, but I believe he is wrong about this for reasons I already mentioned. Religion may save your soul, but it lacks the power to inoculate people from dread, depression and meaninglessness. — Tom Storm

I rather think, Tom, that this is precisely what our monotheistic creeds purport to do; these are their primary purposes. Your average Evangelical Christian is a person who has wilfully suspended his or her rationality for the feeling of purpose (dissemination of "the gospel") and security (the surety of eternal life with God) which accrues to them from an unthinking acceptance of and commitment to their creed. This type of religion may lack such powers with respect to yourself, but you are undoubtedly a rationalist unwilling to suspend reason in favor of such purposes; to the Christian, these powers of their religion are very real.

@Michael Zwingli

to the Christian, these powers of their religion are very real

I agree (having been raised Catholic). I'll need to go and read the Zapffe essay but so far I think my interest in philosophy comes from viewing it as a "more legitimate" (more structured and less dogmatic) enterprise, in comparison to precisely religion.

to the Christian, these powers of their religion are very real. — Michael Zwingli

Indeed. To the (insert magical thinking system of choice) the powers of their (insert spurious belief of choice) are very real. Yes... and therein lies most of the problems.

One of my good friends is a Catholic priest and a devotee of Thomas Merton. I grew up within a Baptist tradition so I know the faith and its promises well. As Father Bill would say, "People who call themselves Christians often tend to be members of a social club, with a faith so thin and stunted, I long for the company of secular humanists.'

that this is precisely what our monotheistic creeds purport to do; these are their primary purposes. — Michael Zwingli

Absolutely, which makes the irony of their lack of success so much deeper.

Your average Evangelical Christian is a person who has wilfully suspended his or her rationality for the feeling of purpose (dissemination of "the gospel") — Michael Zwingli

One of the most interesting Christian writers and thinkers on philosophy and theology, David Bentley Hart makes the point that American Evangelicals are not Christians at all but a strange cult of politics and American identity. I wonder if this is the 'no true Scotsman fallacy'...

"Enjoy the essay."
— 180 Proof

I didn't. Not a well mind. — Wayfarer

:sweat:

Norwegian, right?



Hart's been accused of being near to atheism on Uncommon Descent, for what it's worth. Because he doesn't subscribe to the sky-father trope.

There are...a great many people who say “God” and mistakenly believe that they have the notion, at least, in common. Hart is interested in clarifying the notion, and one of his deeper points is that the major theistic religions do indeed have something in common when they say “God.” In a churlish review for Harper’s, Jane Smiley writes that Hart “is robustly convinced that there is only one definition of God, and that is his own.” She then quotes Hart’s “own” definition: “one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.”

As Hart makes plain, however, and as anyone even slightly familiar with the history of metaphysics is aware, that definition is not Hart’s, but one shared by most major religious and philosophical traditions. It is as much Aristotle’s definition as it is Moses Maimonides’s and Thomas Aquinas’s and Mulla Sadra’s and, indeed, Spinoza’s. — He is who He Is

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.