Seems like you're intent on spinning the "religion bad" yarn which I am not interested in and also isn't particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

If your point is that individuals have used religion as an excuse to do terrible things, I wouldn't disagree. However, I believe that says more about the nature of man than it does about the nature of religion.

At the "heart" of religion (esoterica) is "the mystery"; the rest (exoterica) is public-facing, dumbed down, ritual reenactments via mneumonic narratives of aspects (metaphors?) of "the mystery". Philosophy is the rational exorcism of self-abegnating, stupifying, infantalizing, reality-denying/escapist "mysteries" of which religion (i.e. cultic (conspiratorial) thinking) consists. — 180 Proof

The same can be said for any human field of thought. At the heart of our reality lies a mystery, and philosophy is there to expose our ignorance first and foremost, and if we're lucky offer some wisdom and understanding along the way.

You say that the division between religion and philosophy is not related to science and are 'the same roots, different trees'. This may be true in the original differences, but, surely, the role of science must have some bearing in the twentieth and twentieth first century, because scientists have played such a role in explanations for so many aspects of life, and almost made the ideas of religion seem untenable. While philosophy still draws upon the ideas of many previous ages, it makes it easier to divide philosophy from its relationship with religion.

Perhaps an example or two of modern science driving a wedge between philosophy and religion may make your point clearer to me, Jack. Of course, modern science has diminished religiosity in the main (as well as mobilized anti-modern, anti-scientific, anti-intellectual fundamentalisms on the margins) among general populations; however, I don't see how popular trends or fashions affect the development of philosophical schools or paradigms (e.g. p0m0 since the 1950s).

Movements like postmodernism are extremely interesting because they are able to sidestep the big divisions between theism and atheism, as well as between idealism and materialism. That may be where the social sciences come in, by focusing upon the aspects of human nature and cultural constructs. In a way, logical positivism may have paved the way for this to happen by suggesting that metaphysics is pure speculation. In the twentieth first century, there may be a juggling between focusing on social meanings and ideas which can be measured empirically, alongside people going back to the big questions which are both central to religious and philosophical quests.

Okay, well, we disagree. As I understand them, the divergent differences of philosophy and religion are fundamental to both (as a rule) and that there have been historical periods (the exceptions) where they have been comingled for mostly exogenous purposes (e.g. "new age" (esoteric) movements, pseudo-science enthusiasms, theological apologetics, etc and various flavors of "idealism" (such as phenomenology, hegelianism/marxism, neokantianism, vitalism, Aristotleanism, etc)).

If your point is that individuals have used religion as an excuse to do terrible things, I wouldn't disagree. However, I believe that says more about the nature of man than it does about the nature of religion. — Tzeentch

Whut??? :worry:

Allow me to refresh your memory. In my previous post to you I wrote “I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power.”

I offered an extreme example of this in an attempt to substantiate the claim.

That philosophy lacks this degree of influential power indicates, to me anyway, that the purposes of philosophy and religion are of a vary different nature.

I have just been reading, 'God: A Human History of God', by Reza Aslan (2O17), and this may offer an interesting perspective in regard to the question of ultimate 'truths'. However, this author is far from seeing religious ideas and images of God as referring necessarily to a reality beyond human concepts, but as an aspect of thinking, arguing,
' What remains undeniable is that religious belief is so widespread that it must be considered an elemental part of the human experience. '
I wonder how this idea of religious 'truth' stands and how philosophy may aid in bringing forth discussion in the most helpful and critical ways.

I did a search for that quote and got a fuller quote:

What remains undeniable is that religious belief is so widespread that it must be considered an elemental part of the human experience. We are Homo religiosus, not in our desire for creeds or institutions, nor in our commitments to specific gods and theologies, but in our existential striving toward transcendence: toward that which lies beyond the manifest world.

We don't need religion to pursue 'transcendence', and like morality, religion may hinder our development more than help it.

We are not Homo religiosus. We're a social species that can coordinate and form social bonds, via shared values, narratives, and norms, etc., with the help of concepts that are often fictitious.

I would definitely agree that religion is not necessarily to achieve 'transcendence'. But, I am still left wondering what is needed, because so much of life is based on ideas of the mundane? What leads people to go beyond the basics, is it questioning, suffering, or some other factors?

Primarily existential anxiety, I would guess.

Reza Azlan could have written instead 'What remains undeniable is that magical fantasy is so widespread that it must be considered an elemental part of the human experience' without altering rhe veracity of the sentence one iota. Any "idea of religious 'truth'" must be considered, at most, analogous (or merely figurative) in so far as "religious beliefs" do not refer to matters of fact and, as a rule, are not soundly inferred; thus, they are mere preachments of "mysteries" which amount to dogmas – exhortations to "obey and believe" almost always at the expense of engage and think.

... how philosophy may aid in bringing forth discussion in the most helpful and critical ways.

For a start I recommend (re)reading:
• Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, B. Spinoza
• The Essence of Christianity, L. Feuerbach
• Denial of Death, E. Becker
• Escape From Evil, E. Becker
• Dreamtime, H.P. Duerr

I can see your point about magical fantasy. Reza Azlan quotes Feuerbach. Part of the problem which I see is that it possible to back up almost all arguments for and against religious viewpoints. I don't know if the problem is subjectivity itself or how difficult it is to frame the questions of religion. I am not sure how far philosophy goes, or whether other disciplines such as anthropology are more helpful. Obviously, each individual comes to some kind of viewpoint, but I presume that within.philosopy, this may encompass a certain amount of rigour, although conclusions may be variable, with no absolutes.

My short list covers biblical criticism, philosophy & anthropology. It's not a question of arguing "for or against" religion but describing its role in social, cultural or intellectual developments in contrast to philosophy, etc. The pan-cultural ancestrality of religion is well-established and therefore its expression as well as amplification of human atavisms & biases (i.e. conspiracy-wishful-magical-group thinking) are abundantly manifest throughout history.

Someone must've beaten me to it but I thought I might as well say it. Religion gets it right as to what we should all train our sights on - the truth. However, it slips up on how that's supposed to be done - revelation instead of reason, the latter being philosophy's choice for uncovering the truth

Nevertheless...the unconscious, I hear, does most of the thinking and we only get to see the finished product - the truth. Revelation!

Well, "the truth" is imaginary, thereby a denial of (E.Becker) or distraction from (L. Feuerbach) the real: ineluctable ephemerality ... oblivion. Philosophy reminds us to 'make life significant' because of, not despite, the real (e.g. daoija, (early) buddhism, ... epicureanism, spinozism, absurdism).

Well, "the truth" is imaginary, thereby a denial (E.Becker) or distraction from (L. Feuerbach) the real — 180 Proof

If "truth" is imaginary, then "real" is imaginary too.

Perhaps :roll:; I didn't say "truth is imaginary" though, did I?

Then with imaginary you mean that "the truth" doesn't exist? Cause I don't see how the meaning is different otherwise.

Well, "the truth" is imaginary, thereby a denial (E.Becker) or distraction from (L. Feuerbach) the real: ineluctable ephemerality ... oblivion. Philosophy reminds us to 'make life significant' because of, not despite, the real (e.g. daoija, (early) buddhism, ... epicureanism, spinozism, absurdism). — 180 Proof

Yep, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about the truth. I no longer believe such a thing exists. Still the myth persists - I wonder why? Who's keeping the flame of this illusion of the truth burning? Starry-eyed adolescents? Older folks? Who, god damn it, who? It's a dangerous idea - the truth. Many lives will be, have been, wasted in search of a mirage.

Maybe my meaning would be clearer to you if you read it in the context of the whole of the post (in the context of the broader discussion).

*

Who's keeping the flame of this illusion of the truth burning? — TheMadFool

Bad philosophy. Religious apologetics. "New Age" perennialists. Etcetera.

I did that from the beginning. But still isn't,to me at least.
Only if you somehow mean that "the truth" that Mad talks about doesn't exist at all. Anyway.

Bad philosophy. Religious apologetics. "New Age" perennialists. Etcetera — 180 Proof

:ok: So some are still on this wild goose chase. Someone should tell 'em.

I'm beginning to have second thoughts about the truth. I no longer believe such a thing exists. Still the myth persists - I wonder why? — TheMadFool

I would suggest moving on to "third thoughts" also, as to get back to your first thoughts!
Why to doubt about that? That an Absolute Truth actually exists? Isn't there a perfect explanation about how universe works? Its purpose(if of course there is any)?? And the explanation of the way that everything there "works" in such harmony?

Why to doubt about that? The thing that we humans are still very far away from discovering it, discovering "universe's way", doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist.

Everything we discover about universe eventually "makes sense" at the end, when our limited human knowledge gets expanded .
At the Eureka moment we yell "But of course! That's how it is!".
So yes there must be an "Absolute Truth" or as you call it "the Truth" indeed!

everything there "works" in such harmony — dimosthenis9

This is not as cut-and-dried as you might believe.

Probably not. But still it should have its own "way".

In my view a lot of current philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world, denies 'man's need for metaphysics' — Wayfarer

While this might be the case in more mundane, less philosophical contexts, I think it a misreading of the progress of philosophy over the last, say, 150 years. The return of analysis to the centre of philosophical thinking displaces much that was really very poor in philosophical terms.

I actually intended that comment for the other thread on this topic, so had moved it (having copied it from an earlier comment in this thread.)

Is it all a 'wild goose chase'? Is it all a mixture of 'bad philosophy', and running round in circles literally, or on various threads about 'truth', the existence of God etc? There are many threads tackling the same issues, and they keep going on, which shows how tricky some of the areas of thought are.