PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION:
Paths of Explanation
Sam Otten
9/19/04
PHI 310
We, humankind, have throughout our history and to this current day been in a
state of query. We ask questions. We ask questions about the physical world. Why
does the sun rise and set as it does? Why do hurricanes exist, causing so much death
and destruction? We ask questions about our societies. Why do human beings kill each
other? Why do some deserve more possessions than others? We also ask very personal
questions. Why am I the way I am? Why did I end up with this body? Why do I exist?
What will happen to me when I die? To be human is to question; more than that, to be
human is to yearn and ache for answers to those questions. Thus, we as a human
collective have developed systems that aide us in our search for answers, for “truth”.
Philosophy and religion are disciplines that go back many centuries to the relative
infancy of human intellect, because it is over this entire period that our questions have
existed.
Philosophy and religion are cornerstones of humanity because they offer
answers, or least a means with which to find the answers, that we as humans so
innately and desperately desire.
A common description of philosophy is of a discipline that “arises from the
history of its primary activity of asking and answering questions about reality,
meaning, and value.”1 Most topics of study in philosophy can be identified by the
broad questions attempting to be answered: What is knowledge? What is morality?
How can God and evil both exist? Generations of people have been searching for
answers to these questions, and philosophy provides a method. Religions are also built
on questions and answers. The first few chapters of the Bible, subscribed to by Jews,
Christians, and Muslims, provide explanations for the following: Who created the
1
Philosophy, Department of. Grand Valley State University Undergraduate Catalog 2002-2003, p 483.
universe? What actions are right and just? Why do women feel pain during childbirth?
Why do we see rainbows? What should we eat? This list is by no means exhaustive,
but it does provide evidence that religion comes forth from a desire for answers.
Andrew Sullivan, in a 2001 New York Times article, refers to this idea of religion when
he discusses fundamentalism and its “blind recourse to texts embraced as literal truth.”
Essentially he is supporting our notion with the example of fundamentalist faiths that
cling much too tightly to the explanations of their religion.
While philosophy and religion both provide answers, and with them certain
levels of satisfaction, the two differ substantially in the path traveled to reach those
answers. Philosophy rests squarely on the human intellect – human’s ability to think
logically and rationally. Philosophy and great philosophers attempt to lead minds
down the path of reason, forming sound arguments, and thus arriving at truth.
Philosophy puts great faith in the human mind and its capacities; in this way,
philosophy is quite optimistic, maintaining the belief that humans can achieve
knowledge and understanding. Religion (in this case referring to theism) rests on the
notion that God possesses truth and human beings cannot obtain or understand it on
our own. This leaves humans hoping for a messenger or a translator to deliver God’s
truth. Then, when humans receive it, we must accept it without a doubt.1 This concept
paints religion as quite pessimistic because it contains the assumption that human
understanding is severely limited. Populations of people are willing to accept this lessthan-flattering view of themselves, however, because they obtain from it the answers
they desire. In fact, from these perspectives of philosophy and religion, if you had to
1
The Bible – Deuteronomy 6:16, “Do not put the Lord thy God to the test…” The Koran – 2:147, “The truth is from your Lord,
therefore you should not be of the doubters.”
choose a source of explanations, religion may be more appealing because it requires less
effort. God or some more powerful being has supplied the answers and nothing more
is required of you except belief. Philosophy, on the other hand, requires attention,
effort, and mental maturity. To demonstrate, let us look at a specific question being
examined by religion and philosophical inquiry simultaneously.
A person experiences a temporary state of being so profound that “no adequate
report of its contents can be given in words.” The person in this mystical state feels “as
if he were grasped and held by a superior power.”1 Naturally, the mystic questions the
cause of this experience. A common place to go for the answer is religion. Buddhists,
Hindus, Sufis, Christians and others have attributed such experiences to their religion,
God or some higher power being felt with the senses. 1 As far as religion is concerned,
the inquiry can end there, a question (what caused that feeling?) and an explanation
(God). The great philosopher William James, on the other hand, takes the inquiry
further. He carefully defines the mystical states that he is dealing with, uses logic,
reasoning, and careful analysis to arrive at several conclusions. Most notably, James
claims that mystical states can be authoritative over the individuals who experience
them, and other people have no right to challenge the belief of that individual. He also
says that the mystic cannot force others to accept the explanation for the experience
offered by the mystic himself. James looked at the situation objectively and rationally,
he considered the implications of mystical assumptions. After reflection and
contemplation of the evidence he drew his conclusions. James’ thought process is a
wonderful example of why philosophical inquiry deserves credibility. The result is not
1
James, William. “Mysticism” as cited in Exploring the Philosophy of Religion by David Stewart, 10-12.
simply blind faith, but instead is built upon a string of sound argument and thorough
reasoning. This view of philosophy as an active process is quite a contrast to the view
of religion as a stagnant collection of answers. A person subscribes to a religion, they
have a question, and their religion gives them an answer the person accepts so they can
move on and rest easy.
From this forthright description, however, it does not
necessarily follow that religions are useless or unhealthy. As John Hick points out,
religion can be a powerful vehicle that leads to self-improvement; and we will see that
his description of religion – the changing force – is quite compatible with the definition
of religion we have been discussing – the repository of answers.
A philosophical analysis of religion may come to the conclusion that “great
postaxial traditions…are directed towards a transformation of human existence from
self-centredness to a re-centring” in God.1 This is true of Christianity and the other
great religions. Now consider the following progression of thought: A question arises –
who created and controls the universe? An answer is provided – God. Thus, it is right
and salutary to worship and praise God. It is even more desirable to know and form an
intimate relationship with this divine being who you believe granted your very
existence. This logical sequence takes us from the idea of religion as a set of answers, to
the very enlightening concept offered by Hick of religion as a transformational force. It
would also not be illogical to conclude that belief in the answer of God leads to respect
and mercy toward his entire creation, whether it be the earth, the animals, or other
human beings. This explains much of the positive phenomena that can flow from
religion even given the lowly explanation of its essence. It should be noted, however,
1
Hick, John. “The Pluralistic Hypothesis” as cited in Exploring the Philosophy of Religion by David Stewart, 40-42.
that goodness coming from religion does not imply that religion holds the true answers
to our questions. Philosophy, thinking of it apart from religion in this situation, also
leads to transformation and improvement through self-examination and intellectual
meditation. It could even be argued that the transformation provided by philosophy is
more “true” than that offered by religion because it is not based solely on assumptions
that cannot be proven, but on sound reasoning and rationality.
One central claim has been made in this exposition, that philosophy and religion
both arose from human’s strong and collective tendency to question their world, their
society, and their thinking.
Philosophy is a process that requires effort and
understanding, a discipline that gives thinkers a set of guidelines and a depth of
resources to utilize in the pursuit of truth.
Religions can be viewed as distinct
collections of answers to life’s great questions that persons subscribe to and are
influenced by. Religion can be the subject of philosophical inquiry, as we saw with
William James and John Hick. The conclusion that mystical experiences led to religious
belief and the description of religion as a vehicle of self-transformation both follow
logically from the concept we discussed of religion. While it cannot be determined
whether philosophy or a particular religion (if they indeed must be separate) possess
the real and absolute truth, perhaps this is not important. Perhaps the value is in the
fact that aching has been relieved because people have found answers to the questions
that lie at the core of their being, and these answers allow them to plunge ahead and
develop a way of living in accordance with their beliefs.