One of the greats:

I'm very much a fan of neo-Kantianism and Kant's 'copernican revolution in philosophy'. But I think he lacked the essential dash of mystical insight to complement his brilliant rational analysis of knowledge. I agree with the statement that The Critique of Pure Reason is the key philosophical text of our age. But Kant did not have any hint of 'gnosis' about him, which I think Hegel did. (Now there's a massive can of worms.) — Wayfarer

I was mostly interested in lifting the fact that arguably the most influential philosopher of the enlightenment lifted Christianity right into the heart of its project. Nietzsche makes a scolding remark about this and the romantics in his later writings (I believe it is The Anti-Christ) and makes us aware that all the germans (philosophers) were bottom-and-up pietists.

*Edited my post about secular as I was a bit to generalising*

What I'm getting at is that most people have a really stereotyped understanding of 'religion' based on the hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity that dominated early Europe. If that is religion, then they don't want a bar of it, and neither would I. But that is something very specific to the way it has been constructed in Western culture. — Wayfarer

I very much agree with this.

Thank you very much for the welcome!

To the topic at hand:

Concerning what Wayfarer raises about »post-secular« and the »Enlightenment« it's interesting pondering about Kants position in his Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason where he equates Christianity as the advent where a pure morality is made possible; but only by removing the dogma out of the equation you will find its kernel. Thus he moves Christianity into the heart of Aufklärung. I believe this is one illuming example of the closeness of philosophy and religion. The whole way we stand in a judeo-christian-latinate-greek trajectory.

I am completely new to this forum; but they intersect in many ways and delving into the nature of either can end up in the other. Theology though on the other hand is a science which presupposes the dogma as a precondition for its field of study (though this could be argued about) and isn't philosophy. It is also a bit vague of a topic as »Religion« is a very complex concept, far from agreed upon as to the extent of its nature. Thus I'd say that as an inquiry religion is very much a question for/of philosophy, and worth thinking about.

Plus, as a subject for modern philosophy, the past 20-25 years has seen an increasing interest in religious texts and figures, not the least in political philosophy.