Relationship btw philosophy and religion

Difference Between Philosophy and Religion | Difference Between | Philosophy vs Religion

relationship btw philosophy and religion

But it is not here that any serious tension arises between Religion and Philosophy, so that we may conveniently leave the nature of their relationship to be. Religion is based on emotions and beliefs. Religion is the basis of virtues. Religion is an inspiration of happiness and peace. Relationship between Philosophy. Many have come to think that philosophy and religion are the same . Another way to explain the relation between religion and philosophy is.

There are following characteristics of a religion: Every religion gets its start from the teachings of a particular prophet.

The Relationship Between Philosophy And Theology In The Postmodern Age

Every relation has its own scripture which is the sacred book for its followers who regards every part of its text as final authority. Every religion propagates a special mode of worship, fixes up a place of worship and sets up an order of priests for management of religious affairs.

Every religion preaches a definite way of life and outlook based on a special philosophy of life which is different from one religion to another.

relationship btw philosophy and religion

Religion of basis of confidence and morality. Religion is based on emotions and beliefs. Religion is the basis of virtues.

Religion is an inspiration of happiness and peace. Relationship between Philosophy and Religion Both religion and philosophy are normative in nature. Religion and philosophy are complementary. Philosophy is helpful in the development of religion. Philosophy interprets assumptions of religion.

Religion broads the scope of philosophy. Religion is not a collection of truths about God, they insist, but a way to salvation.

relationship btw philosophy and religion

Religious symbols are important for many contemporary Christian theologians not as they serve to disclose religious truths that might not be expressible in non-symbolic language, but rather because they present a framework within which meaning for human life is to be found.

In the past, Christian theologians claimed that the doctrines of Christianity were true, and that all those doctrines inconsistent with Christian dogma were false. Among the dogmas of traditional Christianity is the claim that there is only one way to salvation-for Catholics, the Church, and for Protestants, participation in Christ's redemption of sin by faith.

In short, traditional Christianity would exclude Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists from salvation and eternal felicity unless they would accept Christianity on learning of its gospel. As Christians are becoming increasingly aware that there are good people, even saintly people, who follow a path other than that of Christianity although they are familiar with the gospel, they are finding it difficult to accept the traditional dogma that would bar the non-Christian from paradise.

A number of Christian theologians are even beginning to take the view that Christian theology has been too preoccupied with the truth of dogma altogether.

  • List of scholars on the relationship between religion and science
  • Difference Between Philosophy and Religion

In reaction to the exclusivism of traditional Christianity, according to which the acceptance of certain truth-claims is a necessary condition for salvation, some have gone to the extreme of thinking that the truth of religious doctrines is insignificant, and attempts to justify religious beliefs or show them to be rational are irrelevant to the issue of salvation. Instead of occupying themselves with the central questions of traditional theology, constructing proofs to support doctrines, analyzing the logical structure of various religious concepts, and defending their interpretation of doctrines against rivals, many if not most contemporary Christian theologians have turned their attention to questions about how religious concepts develop and change, how they function in religious communities, how religious ideas inform religious experience, and how Christian symbols, practices and institutions have been used and abused by Christian communities in various historical and social contexts.

When these theologians turn their attention to questions of ethics, they are concerned about how to prevent the future abuse of Christian symbols, practices and institutions and how to encourage what they consider to be the positive and morally responsible development of the various elements of Christian life, although there is often a lack of critical reflection on the philosophical perspective which informs their own moral standards.

relationship btw philosophy and religion

Many believe that claims to have religious knowledge or certainty reflect a sinful desire to gain intellectual control over what must remain ultimately a mystery.

Today's Christian theologians are much more interested in postmodernist thought than the work of Christian philosophers trained in the analytic tradition. Postmodernism is a movement which has emerged from the ideas of certain contemporary French writers such as Jean-Franbois Lyotard, 25 Jacques Derrida, 26 Georges Bataille, 27 and Michel Foucault. Many of the postmodernists look to Nietzsche for inspiration. Contemporary Christian theologians who are reluctant to defend or try to justify Christian doctrine, some of whom even admit agnosticism, find common cause with the postmodernists.

Religion and Philosophy

Instead, the postmodernist offers consolation to the fideist theologian for his reluctance to attempt to show that his beliefs are reasonable and excuses for not engaging in the reasoned defense of the truth of his beliefs. Postmodernism is not a philosophy, but an intellectual movement against philosophy as traditionally understood. Traditionally, the term philosophy functions as an encomium-it is not merely descriptive, but has a strong evaluative sense. To imply that postmodernist thought is not philosophy, but anti-philosophy, is to express allegiance to the traditional ideal of philosophy as love of Sophia, as a quest for the truth which the postmodernists find somewhat preposterous.

Relation of Philosophy with Religion | Elements of Philosophy

In castigating postmodernism as anti-philosophy, however, I do not mean to be dismissive. Postmodernism is a very important trend that has had a profound influence on many Christian theologians.

To the postmodernists, the Christian philosophers seem a bit naive-still arguing about how to defend the rationality of asserting the truth of various religious doctrines. To the philosopher, however, what room remains for religion in the confines of postmodernism is little more than a sentimental attachment to the symbols and rituals of religion shorn of the metaphysical or transcendent significance which gives them their power and is responsible for the strong emotional response they provoke in the first place.

This is a claim. I suspect that most of my readers will agree with it, and that we do not have to look very far to find arguments to back it up. The claim is that the strength of the hold on the human imagination exerted by religion as evidenced by phenomena as diverse as the Islamic Revolution in Iran and allusions to religious themes in contemporary American fiction depends on the fact that religions allege that they contain truths that are absolute, truths that go beyond the particularities of their expressions in various cultural contexts.

The questions of whether or not this allegation is correct, and whether it is even rational to believe it, are central to contemporary discussions of the philosophy of religion. For this reason alone, the skepticism of the postmodernist is important and requires a response. But aside from how this response is formulated, there is this other question of whether postmodernism can provide a philosophical perspective from which theology is more profoundly understood or whether it undermines theology by denying that it has any real connection with Ultimate Reality.

This contention is dubious for several reasons. First, because the vast majority of believers, past and present, of the world's religions have understood their religions as making important claims about reality. Any denial of the importance of religious truth is a distortion of religious thought.

Second, in Islam and Christianity, the Ultimate Reality is known as God, and the practical, symbolic and social dimensions of religious life are directed toward obedience and worship of God as the means to salvation. If claims that God exists are dismissed as naive, then the doubts generated about the reality of the object of worship threaten to make the meaningfulness of worship doubtful.

Without God, worship is pointless, and without meaningful worship, there is no salvation.

What is the difference between philosophy and religion? - Philosophy Stack Exchange

Third, the aura of the sacred and feelings of holiness generated by religion seem to involve the idea that the sacred provides us with a vehicle by means of which the mundane is to be transcended, the merely perspectival is to be escaped. In revealed religion, particular historical events are designated as revelation, and with this designation Christians and Muslims cease to see Jesus AS as a merely historical personality, and Muslims cease to see the Qur'an al-Karim as a mere artifact of early medieval Arabian culture, but as the Word of God.

This transformation of awareness from the mundane to the sacred is accomplished by means of a recognition of an ontological status for the Source of revelation, so that without the metaphysical dimension of religion, the rest of it, including the salvific potency of its symbols, the feelings of obligation to respect its commandments, the attachment to participation in its rituals, all would weaken and wither.

Despite the fact that religious authorities might feel threatened from time to time by questions that arise out of unfamiliar philosophical discussions, many of whose participants are indeed hostile toward religious authority, if not toward religion itself, ultimately the theologian cannot escape an involvement with philosophy. Perhaps the most persuasive reason we can offer to the theologian is that the philosophical criticisms of religious ideas that plague the minds of the young require a philosophical response if the young are to be guided.

Even if no amount of merely philosophical expertise will be sufficient to remove doubt, some philosophical wisdom is necessary in order to engage the sincere seeker in the spiritual work of rising above the widespread Satanic suspicions that religion is little more than a pack of lies.

The presence of philosophical doubts in the minds of the young was also the reason given to Ayatullah Burijirdi by 'Allamah Tabataba'i for publicly teaching philosophy in Qom.

relationship btw philosophy and religion

Philosophy presents itself to theology as a servant without whose help, the mess philosophy herself has made cannot be cleaned up! But there are other reasons for theology to graciously accept the services offered by philosophy. Allah has graced the human mind with a thirst for wisdom, and the wisdom sought includes knowledge of the things of which religion speaks, as well as skill in practical evaluations and the sort of precision in which logicians, mathematicians and physicists take pride, and other things, such as history, as well.

The philosophical quest is one that propels the seeker to some degree of understanding of all these areas and an attempt to fit them together. From time to time philosophy might devote too much attention to a single dimension of understanding, resulting in waves of logicism or empiricism or historicism, but the structure of the human spirit ultimately cannot be satisfied with a narrow slot from which to view reality.

I am told that Sohravardi Maqtil said that a person who is not able to leave his body at will is not a real philosopher. I am not sure what this means, but it suggests to me the philosophical need to escape the confines of a physical perspective, the need to succumb to what some have derided as "the transcendental temptation". The business of theology is not to offer a comprehensive theory of reality, but merely to show that there is a Supreme Reality and how this is related to lesser things.

Without some attention to philosophy, the business of theology is not likely to be very profitable, because we do not get a very clear picture of God's relation to the world unless we pay some attention to what the world is supposed to look like. This does not mean that theology has to give an absolute stamp of approval to some particular metaphysical speculation, but theologians should not shy away from metaphysical issues either.

Theology is well served by philosophy if it interacts with philosophical ideas without developing a dependency for a single philosophical way of doing things. Philosophy, too, perhaps finds its true vocation in service to theology. For, if philosophy is to fulfill its goal of providing an intelligible comprehensive synthesis, it must make room for theological truth and knowledge of that truth, that is, by providing for the needs of theology.

This becomes the worship of philosophy, to be at the service of theology; and as in all things human, the highest degree of perfection is to be approached through worship of Allah, recognizing one's own faqr before al-Ghani.

Plantinga's articles on this topic have not yet been collected in the form of a book, but two anthologies in which there are articles by him and discussions of his work are especially worth mentioning: Robert Audi and William J.

relationship btw philosophy and religion

Reason and Belief in God Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, His definitive statement of his position is to appear in the forthcoming Warranted Christian Belief. Also worth mentioning is a book devoted to criticisms of Plantinga's ideas and his responses: Plantinga's claim has been disputed by John Beversluis, who argues that Calvin and the Reformed Church object to natural theology for reason incompatible with the epistemological position advocated by Plantinga.

His major work on this topic is, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience Ithaca: Cornell University Press, Oxford University Press, Yale University Press, Wayne Proudfoot, Religious Experience Berkeley: University of California Press, Nelson Pike, Mystic Union: An Essay on the Phenomenology of Mysticism Ithaca: See Peter Geach, The virtues Cambridge: University of Notre Dame Press,pp.

MacIntyre's most important books are After virtue, 2nd ed. Encyclopedia, Genealogy and Tradition Notre Dame: Translations of the first two of these works into Farsi are being prepared, and a Farsi summary of After virtue may be found in the journal Ma'rifat, Nos.

See the articles in Linwood Urban and Douglas N. Essays in Philosophical Theology Ithaca: Phillips, Religion Without Explanation Oxford: I take it the question is meant to be along the lines of What's the difference between a fish and a giraffe?

In other words, there's two categories of things and something can at most belong to one of the categories. Unfortunately, I don't think that's what we have here. I think we have something more like: Is a vegetable a root vegetable or sweet? First off, both religion and philosophy are terms that have had a large number of differing definitions.

Looking just at the philosophy side, the epicureans lived together in communities, had parties, and prostelytized.