Search This Blog

Showing posts with label meaning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label meaning. Show all posts

Friday, 4 July 2014

Can unlimited power and wisdom be limited by stubbornness?




Knowing what ethical monotheists mean by "God" is a necessary condition for asking why they say that The One exists and whether anyone is in a position to know whether they are right or wrong.

Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
  • Polytheism - the belief in or worship of more than one god.
  • Monotheism - the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
Monotheism has been an arena of high theological development with the result that many of the dimensions of this view of God have been very precisely articulated, parsed and re-parsed. There is nothing that can limit what a completely non-contingent being can do and/or know.

Ethical monotheism incorporates all the dimensions of general monotheism and adds one important further characteristic, namely, that the divine is "without moral flaw." How could the sole source of all that is be simultaneously omnipotent omniscient, without moral flaw, and interested in us and the world be the way it is -- beset by host of all too familiar "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"?

It is generally held that no more than one being can be "all powerful, all knowing and all good" -- thus, ethical monotheists tend to believe that all other worshippers are following after "false gods," at best, or are "idolaters," at worst. Even if there an be no more than one such being, however, it is not clear to everyone that there is one at all.




Monday, 30 June 2014

Sociology is intriguing, valuable and important


Just as there are many notions of what philosophy is, and many notions of what religion is, there are also many notions of what philosophy of religion is.

There are many valuable enterprises that philosophy of religion might be but isn't.  Unlike apologetics which are always committed in advance, philosophy of religion, like all philosophy, requires suspending judgment on how the arguments will turn out.

It is not comparative religion and it is not psychology.  Psychology of religion looks at religion from a historical or genealogical perspective, not from a consideration of the coherence or truth of their beliefs.

It is not history of religion.  History of religion does attempt to explain as well as describe, but it is concerned with how people believe and act, not with whether their beliefs and actions are "correct."

It is not theology, and it is not religious philosophy.  Those are much closer to apologetics then to philosophy of religion.

There are a few not-very-valuable enterprises that philosophy of religion might be but isn't so we are going to leave our direction to one central question and it is an epistemological one -- Is religious knowledge possible?

The sort of religion we might do in philosophy with, contra "multiculturalism and diversity," is a narrow perspective called "ethical monotheism."  The religions that have been most important historically in the world in which we live are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all examples of ethical monotheism.







Wednesday, 25 June 2014

Theatre began in the church



There are as many ideas of religion as there are societies, perhaps as many as there are people in the world.
The idea is to imagine a state of total religious amnesia, so that we’d all be starting from scratch. If we wiped all religion away, anthropology suggests, it would rapidly reappear in new yet familiar forms—but probably without monotheism, assuming that history is any guide. Religion in the broad sense clearly represents a human instinct, since we find it in all human societies. But we can safely say that there’s no instinct for monotheism as such, since no society ever came up with the idea independently after it first appeared.

There are importantly different approaches to 'definition' that must be taken into account when trying to define anything as complex as religion. Plato was convinced that every word has an essential definition, an essence. He set as his task to try to discover the essence of crucial ideas and concepts such as truth, beauty and justice.

There are a few important family resemblances that identify religion. Albert Einstein, in his essay Religion and Science, suggested that one can experience a "cosmic religious feeling...which knows no dogma" from the sciences and it was not just exclusive to traditional religious structures. Einstein, in his case, talks about a "profound reverence" for the universe as seen through science and he even goes so far in his letter to Hans Muehsam (dated March 30, 1954) to call himself a "religious nonbeliever". Religious belief systems tend to be all-inclusive, subsuming all aspects of the world and the events that occur in it. Belief in the eventual occurrence of a 'judgement', on which occasion human lives will be appraised and suitably rewarded, is also a very frequent, but not universal, component in religious belief systems.

Religion typically involves construing everything that occurs in the world as intentional and , consequently, as the locus of value and purpose. Modern western empirical science has surely been the most impressive intellectual development since the 16th century. Religion, of course, has been around for much longer, and is presently flourishing, perhaps as never before. (True, there is the thesis of secularism, according to which science and technology, on the one hand, and religion, on the other, are inversely related: as the former waxes, the latter wanes. Recent resurgences of religion and religious belief in many parts of the world, however, cast considerable doubt on this thesis.) Religion typically is a prolific source of cultural artifacts, such as music literature, poetry, and theatre, and a dramatic influence on other cultural artifacts, such as science, history and philosophy.

The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.






Monday, 23 June 2014

What is the meaning of life? - if it has one



Much of what people call philosophy today is a parody of the real thing - pretentiously obscure, often unintelligible, cryptic at best.

  • In the last few decades, science and cosmology provided us great insights about our place in the universe. However, the scientific worldview strives to be value-free; we thus need to extend it to give a meaning to our lives. A broader philosophical worldview answering our existential questions is such an extension. This worldview provides people a meaning of life, in harmony with cosmic evolution.
  • Philosophy does not deal only with the questions that currently do not allow complete answers. It studies the questions that are in principle not answerable. "There are many questions - and among them those that are of the profoundest interest to our spiritual life - which, so far as we can see, must remain insoluble to the human intellect unless its powers became of a quite different order from what they are now." In other words, there are questions that are in principle insoluble although very important and interesting. For instance, the questions like "What is the meaning of life?", "Does God exist?", "Does the universe have a final purpose?" resist definite answers by their very nature. Typically these unanswerable questions tackle either Cosmology (pertaining to the whole of the universe) or Theology (pertaining to the transcendent of the visible world). Philosophy is interested in these two realms but it cannot encompass the whole of the universe as a given object nor conclusively prove or disprove the transcendent content of religious beliefs.
  • Scepticism is a Hellenistic school of philosophy. At its simplest, Skepticism holds that one should refrain from making truth claims, and avoid the postulation of final truths. This is not necessarily quite the same as claiming that truth is impossible (which would itself be a truth claim), but is often also used to cover the position that there is no such thing as certainty in human knowledge.
  • The world-view contains something more than scientific information. It is a crucial regulative principle of all the vital relationships between man and social groups in their historical development. With its roots in the whole system of the individual and society's spiritual needs and interests, deter mined by human practice, by all man's accumulated experience, the world-view in its turn exerts a tremendous influence on the life of society and the individual.
  • 'Philosophy' is derived from a Greek word literally meaning 'love of wisdom'. But it is better and more accurately defined as 'inquiry' or 'inquiry and reflection', allowing these expressions their widest scope to denote thought about general features of the world and human experiences within it.
  • It would be a mistake, therefore, to insist on a fixed definition of science and of religion before undertaking this treatment of their historical relationship. Yet in spite of the complexity that blurs the line separating them, peoples in the West have continued to distinguish between scientific and religious outlooks. Here again history renders assistance, for by providing us with vast source material it enables us to evaluate as fully as possible the claims that have been made about the similarities and differences present in religion and science.
We can hone in on what philosophy really is by distinguishing these kinds of questions --
  • If a relativist catches you audaciously suggesting that there is such a thing as (absolute) truth, then you are bound to be asked the rhetorical question: "But who is to decide what the truth is?" Apparently the relativist thinks that if you hold that there is an absolute, objective truth, then you have to believe there is some authority whose word on that truth must not be questioned. The rhetorical question appears to be meant as a challenge to your presumed right to set yourself up as such an authority. It is supposed to make you either abandon the whole idea of absolute truth or else reveal yourself for the arrogant dogmatist you are. But the possibility of skepticism shows very graphically that this is a false dilemma. Skeptics don't deny that there is an absolute truth, but they are as far from dogmatism as it is possible to be, since they deny absolutely that anyone (least of all themselves) could ever be in a position to say with certainty what the truth is. Even if you aren’t a skeptic, you can believe there is an (absolute) truth without thinking that anyone counts as an infallible authority about what it is.
  • If one wanted to ask the question “What is the relationship between philosophy and religion today?” and one turned to the current literature in philosophy of religion for the answer, it would be difficult not to conclude that the discipline is primarily concerned with metaphysical or conceptual arguments for the existence/non-existence of God, the problem of evil, epistemic discussions of the relation between reason and belief, and (occasionally) questions related to religious pluralism and exclusivism. There is a sense in which this simply reflects the academic and scholarly interests, not to mention the religious/irreligious commitments, of those contributing to the field, as well as a certain historical continuity with questions that animated early modern philosophy. Yet while this might be the way things are, or the way they have historically come to be, one can always ask the question of whether this is the way things ought to be. The descriptive question regarding the relationship between philosophy and religion today could be taken as implying the normative question “What ought the relationship between philosophy and religion be?” While it would be arrogant to provide a strong prescriptive answer to this question, it does critically orientate us on the way this philosophical sub-division is practiced.