Saturday, March 28, 2015

Religion In Philosophy

When talking about religion, especially academically, people like to stay as unbiased as possible due to the backlash that would come from taking one stance or another. Thankfully, as one of those fence-sitters, I'm pretty unbiased as they come; I like religion for the stories that are told through the sacred texts, but think of them as nothing more than folklore or moral stories. I don't believe in God nor do I dispute the lack of one, but I can see how it affects people to have someone, or something, to lean against for support.

As I wrote on my Discussion, for there to be a belief in religion of any kind, there also needs to be a suspension of belief to an extent. I've noticed that within the topics in philosophy we've looked at, a common theme is transitive property; if A is B, then B is C. Logic and reasoning, which would heavily go against the suspension of belief, would it not? Those kinds of set-ups make it very hard for you to argue from a logical perspective, but religion doesn't require logic. I remember during the lecture, there was a philosopher (can't remember the name) who said something like: all people have mothers, so we can assume that humanity as a whole has a mother. I can't remember exactly what he was arguing for, but I remember thinking that this was very odd; if you look at it from a scientific view, you'd see that humans evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and that our only "mother" is the single-cell organism that was able to develop and thrive in the primordial soup.

I guess before I start ranting too much about science, I should stop. In the end, although philosophy and for example, faith, have nothing to do with each other, it shares the same relationship as religion and science: they're trying to argue the same thing from different perspectives. And really, when you get down to it, that's pretty much any kind of study, be it scientific, spiritual, or what have you.

1 comment:

  1. The 'mother' argument is really saying that what holds of a part (a stone) does not necessarily hold of the whole (the universe). You can make claims about things IN the universe that don't hold of the universe itself