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. — Jack Cummins

Jack that's not what I wrote. Sorry Bud. I have met many people experiencing suicidal despair and emptiness with a perfectly intact sense of transcendence. The myth of transcendence as an inoculant against meaninglessness is enduring.

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. — Wayfarer

Just as they would likely accuse you. Re Hart - if sophisticated theology based on scrupulous patristic sources counts as atheism, so be it. :grin:

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.

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...

:death: :flower:

That's fine, Jack. :pray:

The only problem with religion is its unshakeable conviction that it's true and not just that, for eternity. That is to say religion is, in @180 Proof's dictionary, maladaptive -like an organism that fails to make adjustments to alterations in its environment it's doomed. There's a rather Parmenidean ring to it as in (religious) truths are treated as eternal (changeless).

The only religion that's thankfully Heraclitean and may outlive other faiths is Buddhism (anicca/doctrine of impermanence) and if it does become obsolete, at least it saw what was coming down the pike.

The only problem with religion is its ... — TheMadFool

... magic trumps its logic.

... magic trumps its logic. — 180 Proof

:up:

... magic trumps its logic. — 180 Proof

And that's why we talk about is as an issue of faith. If it would all be logical and provable, it wouldn't be a religion, an issue of faith. We would be talking about facts, or scientific theories.

Science (and logic) has obviously increased our ability to make sense of the World around us, yet religion will still have it's role on saying what is right and wrong, just as moral philosophy has. And in those issue there is no reason why religion would lose as it has in explaining objective reality around us (as with genesis stories etc.)

yet religion will still have it's role on saying what is right and wrong, — ssu

Certainly that is the case in theocracies. In the West it is generally the legal system, no? Which is often at odds with the fading fanaticisms of religious views.

Certainly that is the case in theocracies. In the West it is generally the legal system, no? Which is often at odds with the fading fanaticisms of religious views. — Tom Storm

For many people who aren't basically religious, the foundations of what is right and wrong have come from religion, christianity, islam etc. Not from reading or learning moral philosophers, but basically what their parents have taught them. Surprisingly much of that still is based on religion, even if people aren't devote worshippers anymore and religion has lost ground.

I don't disagree with the history, I disagree with the 'still have a role' emphasis. Most people have no clue about the origin of things. But age and culture plays a role. It's not really worth debating.

Origins do have an important role, even if people are unconscious about them. I would agree that for example there isn't the societal role for the church in Western countries as before. Yet if the focus aren't the religious organizations, for example the various churches of Christianity, but the basic ideas that religions promote, religions still have a major influence compared to let's say various schools of philosophy. Perhaps the religious aspects often blend in to what commonly is viewed as "culture" or "cultural aspects" as we don't want to admit the religious undertones in them.

Enjoy the essay.
— 180 Proof

I didn't. Not a well mind. — Wayfarer

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

In a way which avoids diverting this thread too much, I wonder, why? Specifically, does the Zapffe essay represent, or rather indicate such a malady? I had never read Zapffe before reviewing this thread, but have discovered in him a "kindred spirit" (for lack of a better term) of sorts. I had arrived at some similar conclusions independently of the man, and via a different route: that the basic problem facing humankind is, and that the global crises looming on "the horizon" are caused by, what is essentially an evolutionary mishap: the overdevelopment of the frontal brain within one (our) species of mammal, allowing for powerful reasoning, scientific, and abstract thought without there being a proportionate cognitive development allowing for self regulation of those abilities. I (almost) fully expect that homo sapiens will, ultimately, destroy or nearly destroy itself by it's conspicuous inability to regulate it's productive capabilities. I think that J.R. Oppenheimer may have come to this realization in his later life, his innate pacifism intensified by his realization of his personal contribution to a horrible human competence: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/oppenheimer-from-the-atomic-bomb-to-pacifism/amp/

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. — Jack Cummins

I hope someday you get the perfect job for your thinking mind. Perhaps you can become a professor of philosophy. I think your statement, that it is not just what the holy books say that matters, but also how we approach them that is also important, is a very wise concept. Of course! Anything can become a subject of philosophy because it is a matter of how we approach our studies.

I like the saying, "when we think we know God, we know not God". The Bible says as much. The Bible speaks of the unknown God so that our minds remain open. The God that is beyond our comprehension. Had we stayed with that there might have been less trouble, but I think Islam is clear on that, and yet it too divided and the people fight each other. That truth saddens my heart. So much sincere effort to give us something to believe that would help us be our better selves and we destroy that with our arguing and literally killing each other.

This is so sad, but I think those who deify Jesus have made a terrible mistake. They have made the unknown God a very human and known God, destroying our sense of awe and our open mind and open heart. We need to be less sure of what we think we know, and that is philosophy. The cure is teaching good thinking skills. I think you could do that well with the education to become a professor.

The meaning of life without theology is simple: Life has whatever meaning you give it. That's it.

As for the difference between theology and philosophy for explanations and truth: Theology concerns itself primarily with just that. It provides people some ultimate "Truths" and explanations. All the answers pretty much boil down to God.

Philosophy concerns itself with the questions as much as or perhaps more than the answers. What's the meaning of life? The philosopher immediately digs deeper: what is meaning? what is life? what does it matter what the meaning of life is? Is there one answer? Who's asking? How can we know? What does it mean that we are beings that can ask such questions? etc etc etc.

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! — tim wood

I have not read Kant in a while and it is time for me to refresh what I know of his ideas.

Last night I listened to an interview with the Christian woman who wrote "Saving Us: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World" by Katharine Hayhoe. It was a wonderful explanation of the importance of being hopeful and seeing answers instead of just problems.

Kind of like the woman who came up with the Virtues Program for families. She stressed it is not good enough to tell children what they are doing wrong, we almost must teach them how to do it right.

Doom and gloom will not get us to a good place.

I think that if we are to evaluate Mr. Cummins' question adequately, it will be helpful to precisely define "religion" in both it's expansive and particular senses. To that end, an examination of the Latin morphemes comprising this English lemma might be helpful. Therefore:

The etymology of English "religion" and it's various cognates is uncertain for having been lost to history, but is yet reasonably surmised.
English religion < Latin religio, composed of the morphemic elements: re ("again", "repeatedly") + lego ("I choose" or "I gather/bring together", passively "I am chosen" or "I am gathered") or ligo ("I bind", passively "I am bound") + -io (suffix creating either abstract or result nouns). Medieval Christian writers tended to interpret this with ligo, for what seem like obvious reasons, but to my mind this is almost certainly incorrect, and an example of purposeful mis-reinterpretation. Cicero and other ancient grammarians (Cicero, the original 'rennaisance man', wore many hats) had it include lego, an assertion to which I agree, and argue appears most reasonable. This yields: re ("again", "repeatedly") + lego ("I choose" or "I gather/bring together", passively "I am chosen" or "I am gathered") + -io (suffix creating either abstract or result nouns). From this we have a chioce between three semantic options: [re ("repeatedly") + lego ("I choose") + -io (suffix creating abstract nouns)], and alternatively [re ("repeatedly") + lego ("I gather") + -io (suffix creating abstract nouns)], and again alternatively [re ("again", "repeatedly") + legor ("I am chosen", which is lego in the passive sense) + -io (suffix creating result nouns)]. So, this renders to us three related meanings for the word: the meanings of the first is, "I choose repeatedly '-ness'", and so "scrupulousness"/"scrupulosity" (in observance). The meaning of the second is, "repeated gathering" or "repeated convergence" (particularly as a community of people). The meaning of the third, which is probably most suited to our purposes as an expansive definition, is "that which is repeatedly chosen (or done)". Given such a definition, "religion can refer to anything done repeatedly or "religiously", if you will, such as (hopefully) brushing one's teeth. To summate: the aforementioned etymological meanings of Latin religio indicate to us that our religion, our "religions" are by necessity communal and scrupulously ritualistic by definition.

It is easy to see how these three meanings might yield the particular modern definition which I understand to be the sense in which "religion" is used by Jack, to wit: "a particular system of spiritual or metaphysical belief, and the rituals and practices, all scrupulously observed, proper thereto". The way that all this semantic investigation relates to answering the question initially posed by @Jack Cummins, is that it highlights that "religion" need not be theistic, or even "spiritual", to be referred to thusly; it needs only to display scurupulously approached, communal ritualism in the service of metaphysical pursuit, especially in the pursuit and reinforcement of a coherent metaphysical worldview. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to suggest that philosophy, which as has been suggested, involves the application of rational principles and methodologies to the understanding of metaphysical realities, can possibly be translated into a religious framework; philosophy can possibly become religious, and become an integral component of "a religion". In so doing, philosophy would assume an alternate role within the religious context to that enjoyed within the context of theistic religion, to that enjoyed by "divine (particularly scriptural) revelation".

However, philosophy is not religious as it is...as it has ever been practiced; it lacks the necessary communal, ritualistic, and scrupulous elements which define a "religion" as we understand one to be. In order for philosophy to assume such a role within the context of a religion, it would have to be adapted to reflect the three "key elements" of religion, community, scrupulosity, and ritualism, and would have to be expressed in a communal, scrupulous, and ritualistic manner.

Whether philosophy is well suited to assuming such a role is another, different question, probably beyond my own capabilities to discern with my not being a professional philosopher. In order for it to do so, philosophy would have to de subjected to processes of communalizing not and ritualization. Philosophy has always been a rather solitary pursuit...an individual striving for metaphysical comprehension, although various "schools of philosophy" have arisen over the centuries. Philosophy is ever evolving, and advances as one thinker builds and elaborates upon the thought of his predecessors. In this, it opposed religion, which is necessarily a communal endeavor. In addition, philosophy has ever eschewed the trappings of ritual, in direct opposition to the methodology of religion. Philosophy would require much adaptation in order for it to be suitable to the religious context. Is such adaptation possible for the philosophical enterprise? Whether or not the discipline of philosophy might be amenable to the circumscribing and confining structures of scrupulously observed ritual, and/or the communalizing and diluting influences of communal observance, are questions which must be answered by those more steeped in the philosophical tradition than am I.

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.

"Saving Us: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World" by Katharine Hayhoe. It was a wonderful explanation of the importance of being hopeful and seeing answers instead of just problems. — Athena

Almost a TQM approach. That is, problems not central, but the emphasis on continuing and continual improvement, problems being almost incidental. Or if relevant, then identifying correctly what the problem is critical. (Ex.: complaints about slow elevator service in the lobby of an office building; the elevators weren't slow but the lobby itself was uninteresting: solution - that worked because the problem was finally correctly understood - installation of large mirrors so folks could look at themselves and each other; no more complaints!)

Anything in her thinking expressible in just a few sentences?

I have not read Kant in a while and it is time for me to refresh what I know of his ideas. — Athena

For the billy-goat in you, if you care to butt heads straight on.
"Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason." Seeming a good, modern translation.
https://www.amazon.com/Religion-within-Bounds-Hackett-Classics/dp/0872209768/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
But also a lot of commentary available. If you're interested, the author's intro. is interesting (Amazon "look inside). The book itself is a bear.

But maybe if we ask nicely, @Mww would offer a comment here. Mr. w?

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

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.

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'?

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'? — Jack Cummins

I think philosophy breaks down at the point where it becomes an "appeal to authority." So if a philosopher is an expert, it should be the kind of expertise that manifests as and through cogent discussion (similar to Habermas' ideas on communicative rationality I guess).

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.

In your asking about the difference between philosophy and religion, I have difficulty with taking either as a given circumscribed set of activities that may or may not overlap. Is there a way to separate them that is not already a choice?
When you say: "I am wondering about the way in which philosophy provides an alternative way of finding explanations and meanings", it sounds like religion had this job we can distinguish beyond the confines of choosing it or not over philosophy.
I would like to hear more about this job. It sounds more important than deciding who should get it.

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.

Your question of how one might do the work of another led me to think there is viewpoint prior to either by which to compare them. Is that a psychological point of view? Asking that means I have not gotten as far as asking what the differences are. There must be many. But what is the background of comparison?