Philosophy and Religion: Cohesive or Coercive? Midterm Post H1G1 - Zach H

Let’s face it, a major theme that has been presented, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, is that religion and philosophy are different entities.  At times, we consider them to be counteractive to each other, working towards different goals.  Other times, it would appear as they are attempting to achieve a similar objective. 

                That leads us into the first debate: what is philosophy trying to achieve versus what religion is trying to achieve.  By universal definition, philosophy is the love of thinking.  As our book stated though, the actual act of being a philosopher is such a varied and undefined act.  Most, though, would agree on one fundamental principle of philosophy: it is the search for the ultimate truth.  What that ultimate truth is…well nobody knows.  An answer to all questions, a purpose in life, the origins of the universe?  I think it is acceptable to say that most humans desire to know the truth, but understanding it is a different argument.  This is where we enter the realm of religion.  Religion is an establishment that offers some truth.  Told through the stories and practices of the faith, a religious organization general offers an answer to all three of the above questions. The difference, though, is understanding.  Religious orders rely upon faith to decisively believe and follow their stated “ultimate truth”.  Thus, religion’s goal isn’t focused on discovering or understanding the ultimate truth, but spreading the truth that they have accepted to be factual.

                Philosophy on the other hand can go through a variety of pathways when talking about its true goal.  The most obvious is that a philosopher is trying to achieve the ultimate truth and understand what it means.  This would mean that that particular philosopher couldn’t inherently be religious because he is openly rejecting the ultimate truth of the church.  But do all philosophers fall into that camp?  And what about the philosopher that accepts a religion’s truth?  Can he or she still be a philosopher?

                I present this as a valid response: yes.  Philosophy in its basic definition is the love of thinking.  Anyone can do that, right?  And if we take it a step further and say that philosophy is the search for understanding an ultimate truth, then I argue that one can still be religious and identify oneself as a philosopher.  A philosopher who is simple trying to understand a religion’s ultimate truth and search for meaning, but still accepts that church’s idea of the ultimate truth would still be both a philosopher and a religious man.

                It boils down to one hard question: does the individual let his or her philosophical nature affect his or her religious principles?  If you answer yes, then you can’t be a religious man (to a particular religion).  If you answer no, then it makes a clear distinction.  I am trying to understand my faith, but I do not question it.  That is the philosopher who is identifies himself with a religious organization.  So, in the search for the ultimate truth, it can be said that philosophy and religion can both be cohesive and independent.  It solely depends on the specific philosopher that you discuss.

                Now, a place I see a strong distinction between philosophy and religion is independence. This is especially true in modern times where religion attempts to gather as many followers as possible, assert its truths and values upon the world, and then maintain a membership of people following a set guideline ( such as the Bible).  Let’s take Christianity as an example.  What is taught to a Christian child from a young age?  Read the Bible, follow its word, go to church on Sundays (even Wednesdays too), and not to question authority, which includes the established church.   Other religions follow suit such as Mormonism, Islam, and Judaism.  The central theme to every religion is this: follow without question.  Inherently, not questioning also means a lack of understanding.  This is where philosophy can bridge the gap.  Follow, but with understanding.  So, in that small way it could be considered cohesive with religion, but I tend to disagree.

                Personally, I think philosophy fosters independence and individual growth.  Not to say that religion does not eventually provide that, but I feel like philosophy is entirely centered on those two central themes.  Philosophy isn’t blindly following, but it is all about asking tough questions, challenging established answers, defining the answer for yourself, and seeking a better understanding of our world.  Instead of accepting what you are told, challenge it!  This has been echoed throughout philosophy in the words of philosophers such as Socrates and Pyrrho. Trust not even your senses.  A bit extreme? Maybe, but you get the idea.  It’s all about searching for the truth and finding the ultimate truth, even if it is just YOUR ultimate truth.  Now don’t get me wrong, some philosophers tried to take advantage of their position in society. Plato made that clear, but humans will be humans.  Dominance, control, and greed are engrained fundamentals that drive us (even the philosophical us).  Controlling these emotions are essential to truly understanding your world without slant.

                Let’s break this down one more level.  What is the point?  Why challenge the world around you or why follow an ultimate truth that is predetermined? People need to have something to hold on to.  Be it a faith based idea or just a quest for knowledge, simply going on through life as human is nearly impossible without addressing fundamental questions.  Even atheists had to address the question, think and reason, and then come to their own solution.  It is a human desire to understand or even feel like we understand.  We cannot as a complex intelligent life simply not address questions of significance such as origins.  Some say that philosophy better addresses these questions, or maybe science, or even religion, but one thing is for certain.  Nobody knows the truth.  Or do we know the truth and just not know it?  How do we determine when we have arrived at the ultimate truth?  For all we know, humanity may have already achieved this and just not know it.

The difference between philosophy and religion with regards to this aspect can be related to the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.  Both believe in similar basic ideas: God created heaven and Earth, Adam and Eve were our original lineage, and that good practices earn you a spot in Heaven.  Christianity simply took it one step further: Christ is the savior.  Judaism still believes their prophet has not come. 

                How this related you may ask, well its simple?  Christianity was simply an existing idea that was taken to the next level, and then stopped once they reached their ultimate truth.  Philosophy and religion are comparable.  Philosophy is simple continuing that search for knowledge and understanding, whereas religion has drawn the line in the sand.

                It is almost as if every time a major philosophical idea is thought of, a wall is built.  Some people go over the wall and continue to search for the truth and others obey the wall as the truth.  Even philosophers abide by this principle.  Think of all the philosophers in the world…when has on changed their ideas and opinions.  Maybe specifics vary slightly, but stoics will be stoics, pragmatists will be pragmatists, and so on.  So, within the field of philosophy exists almost miniature organizations that are devout to one principal of thinking.  Hmm… that kind of sounds like, you guessed it, religion.  Each religion has denominations that believe different specifics, and differences between the religions themselves (Islam, Mormon, Christianity, etc…) are similar to the differences between philosophical viewpoints.

                I would like to pose a question: if every philosopher came together and made an announcement that the ultimate truth had been obtained would you blindly follow them, or ask questions?  Some would follow, some would question, and others would flat out reject the ideas.  Sounds very familiar…like religion!  Here is the fundamental truth:  philosophy is headed down a road to form a pseudo religion.  Organized religions are essentially a stopping point along the philosophical road.  When a group of people reaches a point at which they are satisfied, they form a religion, gain a following, and no longer try to understand or obtain a higher truth because in their mind, they have reached that point.

                Religion and philosophy have combated each other for the past 3000 years.  To sum up the post, it is my opinion that philosophy and religion are in fact cohesive and not coercive.   By that, I mean that the two ideas are so closely connected and resemble such a familiar structure that it is hard to reject the idea that they are related.  In short, religion and philosophy can be taught hand in hand.  Yes, some philosophers may question their religion to the point at which it changes them, some may simple try to understand existing ideas, and others may diverge from a religious stand point.  But no matter what, all of us who have faith, or ask questions, or try to understand are simply performing a natural human phenomenon to understand our world.

        

        I leave with a quote from another MTSU professor of sciences.  He states it like this: “Either everything was created by nothing, or everything was created by something.  It is the quest of understanding that something that defines science, the quest to think of these understandings that defines philosophy, and the quest to believe your faith that defines religion.”   The middle ground is just that, it’s a middle ground.  Nobody knows the answers, and in a sense, it is pointless to try to say you do.  That is why I believe philosophy is such a personal idea and concept of thinking.  Two people can think about a similar subject, but the resulting explanations will not be identical.  That is the beauty of human nature, individuality and choice.  Pick your team, play in the middle ground, or reject reality and substitute your own.  The facts are this: we are all stuck in this playground of life together…why not enjoy it.