Metaphysicians sought to know the way the world “really is.”
Not motivated by curiosity or the scientific spirit alone.
Metaphysics in particular and philosophy in general has been motivated by a kind of religious devotion to and reverence for truth.
PHIL SOPHIA
So the “religious sentiment” this concern for Ultimate reality pervades philosophy as well as religion. It may well be a necessary feature of religion. But if it were sufficient, then there would be no difference between philosophy and religion.
But religions may have this reverence concern at their centers. Indeed this explains why religions have inspired some of the greatest art, the bloodiest wars, the kindest actions, and the most brilliant philosophy in history. But of course religions are social economics, historical entities. There is (much) more to them the way we might call the “religious sentiment.[1]”
What Is Religion?
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of thing not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Modern scholars of religion largely agree the task of defining what religion is nearly impossible. Some have suggested it is in fact impossible.
This is not to say that many people have not tried over the centuries. But these definitions fail in one way of another.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn1.htm
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/concise/def.html
http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Definitions.htm
William James, Lecture III The
Reality of the Unseen, The Varieties of
Religious Experience
"the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto."
Henry Fielding, 18th. Century novelist, in Tom Jones, book 3, chap. 3.
"By religion I mean Christianity, by Christianity I mean Protestantism, by Protestantism I mean the Church of England as established by law."
An adequate definition for a concept would identify all the necessary and sufficient qualities of the thing defined such that the definition picks out all and only members of set named by the concept. This is, famously, what Socrates is always looking for in the early Platonic dialogues.[2] (What is it that all and only things of that kind have in common, and in virtue of possessing are things of that kind?)
The concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions help us understand and explain the different kinds of connections between concepts, and how different states of affairs are related to each other.
Necessary Conditions
To say that X is a necessary condition for Y is to say that it is impossible to have Y without X. In other words, the absence of X guarantees the absence of Y. A necessary condition is sometimes also called "an essential condition". Some examples:
· Having four sides is necessary for being a square.
· Being brave is a necessary condition for being a good soldier.
· Not being divisible by four is essential for being a prime number.
· To show that X is not a necessary condition for Y, we simply find a situation where Y is present but X is not.
Examples
· Being rich is not necessary for being happy, since a poor person can be happy too.
· Being Chinese is not necessary for being a Hong Kong permanent resident, since a non-Chinese can becoming a permanent resident if he or she has lived in Hong Kong for seven years.
Additional remarks about necessary conditions:
We invoke the notion of a necessary condition very often in our daily life, even though we might be using different terms. For example, when we say things like "life requires oxygen", this is equivalent to saying that the presence of oxygen is a necessary condition for the existence of life.
A certain state of affairs might have more than one necessary condition. For example, to be a good concert pianist, having good finger techniques is a necessary condition. But this is not enough. Another necessary condition is being good at interpreting piano pieces.
Sufficient Conditions
To say that X is a sufficient condition for Y is to say that the presence of X guarantees the presence of Y. In other words, it is impossible to have X without Y. If X is present, then Y must also be present. Again, some examples:
· Being a square is sufficient for having four sides.
· Being divisible by 4 is sufficient for being an even number.
· To show that X is not sufficient for Y, we come up with cases where X is present but Y is not. Examples :
· Loving someone is not sufficient for being loved. A person who loves someone might not be loved by anyone perhaps because she is a very nasty person.
· Loyalty is not sufficient for honesty because one might have to lie in order to protect the person one is loyal to.
Additional remarks about sufficient conditions:
Expressions such as "If X then Y", or "X is enough for Y", can also be understood as saying that X is a sufficient condition for Y.
Some state of affairs can have more than one sufficient condition. Being blue is sufficient for being colored, but of course being green, being red are also sufficient for being colored.
Four Possibilities
Given two conditions X and Y, there are four ways in which they might be related to each other:
X is necessary but not sufficient for Y.
X is sufficient but not necessary for Y.
X is both necessary and sufficient for Y. (or "jointly necessary and sufficient")
X is neither necessary nor sufficient for Y.
This classification is very useful in when we want to clarify how two concepts are related to each other. Here are some examples:
· Having four sides is necessary but not sufficient for being a square (since a rectangle has four sides but it is not a square).
· Having a son is sufficient but not necessary for being a parent (a parent can have only one daughter).
· Being an unmarried man is both necessary and sufficient for being a bachelor.
· Being a tall person is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a successful person.
Pitfalls of
Definitions
Too Narrow
In some cases the definitions are too narrow, defining religion in terms of the speaker's religious beliefs or those of his or her culture and tending to exclude the religious beliefs of other cultures.
Too Broad
Others have been so broad as to include practices and ideologies which we would not want to call religions. Indeed would seem to be the opposite of what a religion is.
Presumptive
Still others fail because they presume a religious understanding of terms and so, in some sense, end up defining religion in terms of itself.
“Paradox of Analysis”
Since the days of Plato, philosophers have worried about the “paradox of analysis.” Plato put it this way. The pursuit of the pursuit of truth is either unnecessary or impossible. Either we know the truth already and thus the pursuit of truths is unnecessary, or we don’t know the truth and thus would not recognize it even if we found It.
His solution to this problem was that we knew the truth but forgot it. Philosophical discourse serves to remind us of the truths were no innate.
The paradox of analysis is pretty much the same problem. Either we know what the word “religion” means, and thus there’s no need to define it. Or we do not know what the word means and therefore would never know an adequate definition even if the found one.
Defender of the search for a definitions suggest that, while we might have a pre-theoretical understanding of “religion,” this can be sharpened and clarified through discourse and debate.
Nominalism vs
Realism
Nevertheless, there are other objections to even the search for the definition of religion. Some would argue that the search for a definition of religion is fundamentally misconceived. It is premised on an unsupported assumption. It presumes that religion it is a “natural kind” and therefore has an essence which can be defined. However, if religion is NOT a natural kind there may be no “essence” to discover, no definition to be discovered.
Those who hold a “nominalist” view of universals would suggest that a common noun (say, “sandwich”) names a set of objects culled together by our linguistic practices. Think of it this way, there is a box someplace with the label “sandwich” on it. Whatever it is in the box is a sandwich. To say that something is a sandwich is merely to say it is in the box. To say that something is a religion is only to say it is in the religion ox.
But things get into the box simply because our linguistic community puts them. Only thing which guides this sorting of objects the practical concerns. Today there seems to be some debate what a marriage is. Some ask whether or not same-sex marriages are really marriages or not. They are presuming that there is a essence to marriage or that marriages are a “natural kind” and we must discover whether same-sex marriages are really members of the species or not.
A nominalist about this matter would caution us not to think there is a truth to be discovered. Rather we should ask ourselves what the practical benefits would be from expanding our “definition” of “marriage,” putting things in the box that were not in the box previously. If we take that approach to our investigation of “religion,” then we should see this not as an exercise in discovering an essence but rather, investigating what practical advantages there are by using or discarded this or that definition, sorting one way or another.
We would want then to make a definition of religion that is not overly vague and general, but that still is “inclusive enough” so as not to leave out practices it would be practically beneficial to include. Ah, but this raises a further questions: Beneficial for what purposes? It seems that a definition that might be useful to the economist might not be useful to the art historian, etc.
Is there an “essence” to religion?
Does it form a natural kind?
Is there something that all and only religious have in common in virtue of the possession of which they are religions?
So is religion a natural kind with an essences to be discovered and named? The ubiquity of religion may suggest an innate “religious instinct.” Rudolf Otto certainly seems to think that religions do form a sui generis (He actually quite adamant about that.)
Is there no “there” there?
Is “religion” merely a conjurey of linguistic practice?
Is this a linguistic sorting for phenomena such that we define and redefine what a religious “is” and the only thing guiding this sorting process is practical value?
But other argue that the very diversity of conflicting religious is evidence that religion is more a socially manufactured and acquired characteristic of human life, perhaps one we would do well to abandon. (Dennett seems to suggest as much.)
Hard to say what they have in common.
For instance, you may be inclined to cite "belief in God or gods" as a criterion for calling something a religion.
But this suffers from two problems immediately:
1. one of the largest religious traditions in the world-Buddhism-has no such concept.
2. It is not immediately clear what one means by “god” or “God” (people have meant importantly different things) so asserting that any religion must affirm its existence is not really that helpful on its own.
We may try to identify religions by using social or historical criterion:
· Institutional organization
· a church
· prayer gatherings
· a priestly class
But there are Christian Protestant sects who believe that religion is ultimately a private affair for which no congregation is necessary.
Many believe that the word ‘religion’ derives from the Latin verb ‘to tie’, with ‘re-ligare’ meaning ‘to tie back’
Religare
Latin root
Re plus ligare
‘again’ combined with ‘to bind’ meaning ‘to tie fast’
Others suggest that the word derives from a different Latine word: Religia
Religia
Latin – ‘obligation’ or ‘bond’
Religian
The words ‘religion’ and ‘religious’ can indicate:
· the recognition of an unseen higher power
· the reverence for a higher power
· a commitment to a system of faith or worship
Religion is a ‘world view’, a set of beliefs which shape the way a society sees the world. But it seems set apart from merely an ideology in that the worldview frequently entails uniquely religious concepts:
Transcendence
· This concept refers to an existence beyond the world.
· This idea is present in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Immanence
· The belief that the divine is present or manifest in the phenomena of the natural world
· Linked to Hinduism and Buddhism
Sacred and Profane
· Sacred: That which is wholly “other,” set apart for worship (a deity or other object worthy of worship.
· Profane: Nonreligious. Outside the sphere of religion.
Mircea Eliade
“The sacred always manifests itself as a reality of a wholly different order from ‘natural’ realities. ...The first possible definition of the sacred is that it is the opposite of the profane.”
Seven Dimensions of religion
As described by Ninian Smart:
Not a definition, but identifying features that help us understand the way academics think about the topic.
1. practical ritual dimension – worship, prayers (Formal/ Informal, Temporal and Spacial)
2. experiential/ emotional dimension (Numinous/ Mystical Experience)
3. narrative and mythical dimension – stories, texts a vehicle that relates a truth defying normal expression and sets pattern for human behaviors/ Cosmogony Accounts of creation of the world Eschatolog: ccounts/Beliefs about the end of the world Scriptual or canonical (Greek kanon measuring riod)
4. Doctrinal and philosophical dimension – beliefs (Typically explain complex ideas May or may not be familiar to the average believer, but is part of the scholarly tradition
5. Ethical and legal dimension – laws, ethics
6. Social and institutional dimension – the group, society
7. Material dimension – art, architecture,
– Buildings
– Art
– Music
– Symbols
– Natural World
Three Types of
Religion
Another way of categorizing religion is as Exoteric, Esoteric and Both
1. An exoteric religion generally emphasizes dogmatic and ritual. There are certain codes, creeds, practices and symbols that followers must adopt in order to be recognized as true followers. Rigid adherence to these is required for membership.
2. An esoteric religion focuses on the inner life of the souls placing less emphasis on outer practices. Followers determine their own lifestyles. But however they choose to live their lives, they must remain mindful of their inner spiritual life. This sometimes results in followers who consciously or unconsciously follow more than one traditions or religions.
3. A balance of both esoteric and exoteric religion, is one that encompasses both virtues. Outer practices are signs of devotion, that shape the followers inner core. Are you comfortable with your "truth"? How certain are you of this Truth?
Twentieth century philosopher John Wisdom, a student of Ludwiq Wittgenstein, claims that the essential feature of religious belief is a certain "attitude" that the religious person has toward his or her surroundings and that the gap between the religious "attitude" and that of the philosopher or scientist who is interested in explanation is unbridgeable.
The Western
Religions
Among the world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam bear a special relationship to each other and to philosophy. They may be called the "Abrahamic" religions because all three trace their roots to Abraham of the Old Testament. Thus, the God worshiped in all three of these religions is the "God of Abraham." We may also call them the three "western" religions, in that they all originated among peoples living west of the Indus River (one traditional dividing line between the East and the West).
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are closely associated with each other and with the West for another reason as well. The early religious thinking of all three was heavily influenced by the Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Although some other religions make use of Greek philosophy. Its influence in other faiths does not approach the status it holds in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thought.
Consequently, much of the Philosophy of Religion that has been produces that been steeped in the religious concepts and practices arising from these traditions. Indeed, much is a philosophical examination of issues that arise from these practice of these religions. Some have gone so far as to say that Philosophy of Religion, both historical and contemporary, is so focused on Western monotheism, that it unfairly and unjustifiably privileges these traditions over other world religions. They go on to say that it has not place in secular universities.
I am sensitive to this critique. Nevertheless, we shall begin our course by looking as arguments for and against Theism. For a bit more on the Philosophy of Religion, you may wish to look over this brief article by former FIU professor and colleague Paul Draper.
http://philosophyofreligion.org/?p=14582
[1] Leo Tolstoy talks about “the religious perception” which he claims is the shared values and worldview that bind a community together as a community.
[2] For instance in the dialogue Euthyphro Socrates asks Euthyphro to give him a general definition that identifies that feature or features that all holy deeds share in common.