To promote independent thought about ultimates. Philosophy, commentary on the passing scene, and whatever else turns my crank. Since 4 May 2004. By William F. Vallicella, Ph.D., Gold Canyon, Arizona, USA. Motto: "Study everything, join nothing." (Paul Brunton) Latin Motto: Omnia mea mecum porto. Turkish motto: Yol bilen kervana katilmaz. (He who knows the road does not join the caravan.) All material copyrighted.
In a desert of money-grubbing, this site is an oasis of the noncommercial. Here you will find no advertising and no tip jar. Instead, you will find, for free, the free thoughts of a free man.
Please read Comments Policy before applying to comment.
Athenaeum Library of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Philosophy of Religion Articles
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
1735 Aphorismen von 35 Autoren
About Me, My Blog, and its Purposes
Against Positivism and Scientism
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Aphorisms and Observations by Others
Being Independent: How and Why
Belief, Knowledge, Truth, Certainty
Critique of Analytic Philosophy
Critique of Continental Philosophy
Hard Publications: Ontology of Relations
Hard Publications: Philosophy of Religion
Meditation, Mysticism, Matters Monkish
Ontological Proofs and Disproofs
Psychology and Personality Typology
Social and Political Philosophy
Stoicism, Skepticism, and Epicureanism
billvallicellaAZcsFULLSTOPcom
Civil e-mail containing comments, constructive criticisms, and the like is gladly received, although I cannot promise to answer everything. I will, however, make an honest attempt. Offensive e-mail is deleted unread. Choose your subject headings carefully as I sometimes decide to delete from them. I do not open attached files from unknown parties. If you send a message not addressed to me in particular, I will be tempted to let someone in general answer it. Pith is king and neatness counts. E-mail is subject to posting in whole or in part at my discretion unless the sender requests otherwise.
Comments Policy
You must be pre-approved to leave comments on this site. If I know you and you have already established your bona fides, then you are in like Flynn, whether or not you hide behind a pseudonym. But if I don't know you, or you have proven yourself to be offensive in the past, then you are out like Stout — unless you reveal your real identity and provide me with some way of verifying it. In other words, no one I don't know will be approved who comments anonymously or pseudonymously. Full statement here.
The Best of the Web
History of Philosophy Blogs
Outstanding Philosophy Blogs
Other Sites Featuring My Work
Maverick Philosopher (Precursor Blog)
Get Out!
Superstition Search and Rescue
Acolytes of Caissa and Philosophia
Dennis Monokroussos' Chess Site
Ed Yetman's Desert Paradise Chess Club
Other Chess Sites
Red Hot Pawn (Correspondence Chess)
Classics, Bibliomania, Curmudgeonry, Linguistic Punctiliousness
Darwin and Design
Psychology
Politics, Economics, Law, Culture
David Horowitz' Front Page Magazine
DiscovertheNetwork.Org: A Guide to the Political Left
Reflections on Equity Research
Keeping an Eye on the Left
Humor
Sites of Philosophy Ph.D.s
Other Philosophy Sites
Bishop Berkeley, Bacon, & Bird
Religious and Anti-Religious Perspectives
BigHominid's X-Rated Korea Blog
Is religion a quest for comfort? This is a dubious idea, as explained here. Religion in pure form is rather a probing into the Unfamiliar, not a flight to the familiar and comforting. What we seek is not mundane comfort, but transcendent truth, and with it, but only secondarily, whatever transcendent comfort comes along with it.
While I agree that for philosophers religious study may not be a search for comfort, I do in fact believe that for the great majority of people that is exactly the role that religion plays. It provides structure, guidance, an authority figure, an absolution of responsibility for choosing the right way to live (yes, one still must choose the religion; a meta-choice, but that choice is usually made for people during their cultural imprinting), a social community, and most of all, it offers the possibility of transcendence of death. Yes, there are nasty bits, but even to look at the example you gave - Ash Wednesday - at the same time we are being reminded that we shall be dust, we are comforted that while the body becomes dust our souls will be with God in Heaven, if we play our cards right.
In the way that philosophers generate their positions starting from some basic metaphysical intuition I find the possibility of a 'rational' religion - 'an argument Jim, but not as we know it'. For instance it is a theme of Maritain's that we will never get Thomism until we have a basic intuition of connaturality as embedded in existence. Mascall (Existence and Analogy) has it that the 5 ways have no force until you feel contingency viscerally. Philosophers for all their firstly, secondly....eightly start from an itch that won't be scratched out such as the queerness of how things outside us get inside us in some manner.
How you get to realism from there, or how that is realism is a fascinating excursion which everyone won't embark on. Similarily the keel of faith is laid by a cumulative series of intuitions and insights. We live in an age of unbelief like the 18th.century and in philosophy a conference with 'Back to Wonder' as theme is unlikely.
Happy New Year.
Comfort is indeed one of the purposes and effects of religious belief, at least of the form I'm familiar with, evangelical/Biblical Christianity. Does that make it the primary purpose it serves in the minds and lives of most adherents, to the exclusion of actually dealing with reality?
In my experience one cannot assume that non-philosophers are so unaware and unthinking as you have painted them here. Ordinary church people are well aware of the warnings and judgements of Scripture; that's not so comfortable. To say they are absolving themselves of responsibility is hardly germane, because that meta-choice is one whose huge implications most recognize. Many, many have made that choice as adults; the stereotype that all Christians are born that way is not accurate. And what absolves people of responsibility more than the non-religious viewpoint that says there are no ultimate consequences for our choices? I think atheism may be a "religion" of comfort viewed in that way.
Bill suggests that people who follow Christianity (I'll stick with that religion here if I may) are primarily seeking transcendent truth. I'm not sure that's true of every Christian, but it is for a large proportion.
I don't deny that there are thoughtful and questioning adherents of each and every religion; to the extent that they are such, they are on the way to becoming philosophers, one might say.
Even the warnings and judgments of Scripture are comforting, in my view, because implicit in every warning is a complementary promise of reward in Heaven for avoidance of whatever is being cautioned against.
Yes, the choice of religion is sometimes made by adults, and in some cases (I think they are very rare) the choice is for a religion that is NOT a prevailing religion of the local culture (or one that is rapidly taking root in the local culture as a result of missionary efforts). I've certainly not suggested that all Christians were "born that way"; I think, rather, that they are acculturated, either as children, or sometimes as adults. That religions are as regionalized as they are is very telling in this regard, though as the world becomes increasingly interconnected that effect may soften.
I also think that it is a caricature of those who are not religious to suggest that their viewpoint is that "there are no ultimate consequences for our choices", which seems to me to hint at the oft-repeated canard that there can be no morals without religion. Those nonbelievers I know are keenly aware that actions have consequences; the difference is that the focus is entirely on the consequences in this world, rather than the next. If there is a comfort in nonbelief, it is not in acquiring some sort of license for behavioral irresponsibility, but rather in being guided - in the search for the truth that calls so many of us, religious or not - by inquiry into the observable world, rather than by antique Scripture and medieval dogma.
To see the primary role of religion as providing comfort, one need only look at the times when we are most in need of comfort. Upon the death of loved ones, and upon occasions of crisis, great uncertainty, or sorrow, we see religion coming to the fore:
Yes, there are those believers for whom religion is not so much a comfort as an ongoing process of inquiry - of "research", one might almost say, and such types are perhaps in the majority here at Maverick Philosopher - but to suggest that that is most people's relationship to their religion is, I think, a bit disingenuous.
By the way, I did not mean to imply, above, that genuine Christians care only about the consequences that their actions may have in the next world. The enormous charitable efforts made by many church-based organizations are ample evidence of genuine concern for the suffering of others.
Atheist or believer, there is, quite naturally, ethical comfort to be had in helping one's fellow man.
As Tom G suggests, we should perhaps distinguish between the primary purpose of religion and secondary effects it may have such as providing comfort. I think what you need to show is that religious beliefs and practices are nothing other than attempts at securing psychological comfort in a world seemingly hostile to human hopes and desires. I will concede, though, that for many people religion has no element of truth-seeking in it, but is merely a 'security blanket.'
Can an atheist be moral? Yes, of course, in one sense, and indeed more moral than some theists. But the more interesting question would be whether an atheist would have an objective basis for an objective morality. In other words, even if it is true that many atheists are morally superior to many theists relative to some agreed-upon standard of behavior, would these atheists be justified in making the moral judgments they do if there is no God? Perhaps, but the answer to this is not obvious, whereas the answer to the first question is obvious. I should write a post on this.
As for the regionalization of religions, a fact you find "telling," it is indeed true that, for example, people raised in India become Hindus mostly whereas those raised in Iran become Muslims mostly. But it is also true that you and I who were raised in the West would never think to consult a witch doctor for a medical ailment whereas many people in Africa would. But this fact about 'scientific regionalization' does not tend to undermine the credibility of scientific method. Why then should the relgionalization of religion tend to show that no religion contains any truth?
If that is directed to me, I'll pass. Freud had a go at that in his book The Future of an Illusion, but I agree that there are many for whom the motivation is a quest for truth, and that comfort is secondary. Of course the feeling that one is effectively seeking truth is a primary source of comfort for many people in itself, including most scientists, so the distinction gets a little muddled anyway. For me, for example, the primary factor that drives me away from religious belief is the uncomfortable feeling, despite how appealing it all is - and it is! - that none of it is supported by any evidence, and that I have no compelling reason to believe any of it. It all seems too pat, and yes, too wishful.
But yes, as you have already conceded, for many people - the overwhelming majority, in my opinion - religion's role is as a provider of existential, ethical, and social comfort, as well as offering handy, preformatted answers to difficult and troublesome questions.
I'll take a moment to collect my thoughts before responding to the "objective morality" question, but one point is that an atheist would say that the allegedly God-based "objective morality" of the believer is an illusion anyway, so to the nonbeliever the field is level.
I too think this is worth a post of its own. Nonbelievers get tired of being taxed with this allegation, and many have quite eloquently responded to it. I will gather up some resources.
One last thing. You asked, regarding my remarks about regionalization of religion:I'd just like to point out that I have never made the claim that "no religion contains any truth." (That would be quite a position to have to defend!) I made the remark in quite a different context, one having to do with why people come to the particular religions that they do.
I understand your sentiment, but I take issue with a recent comment about what religion offers:
The implication of this statement seems to be an indictment of such "preformatted" answers. If that is a correct reading, I think that a rather unfair oversimplification of the answers that religion may be able to provide.
These so-called preformatted answers have the weight of a collective history behind them that argues for measured consideration of their merit. Surely, one ought not follow a crowd off a cliff, but if many people across the vast expanse of history have agreed that something is wise or true, I think that "something" is worthy of consideration, though not necessarily acceptance, regardless of the format in which it is presented.
Similarly, having an "answer" come to us in a preformatted fashion does not obviate the consumer of that answer from thinking about it critically and making their own assesment. That people do not think critically about such matters is not a symptom of religion, but a symptom of our unthinking culture as such behavior extends into every other area of life (e.g. politics, entertainment, etc). Indeed, it may be, in so few words: merely human.
Best,
Chris
-Chris
Quite right. As I mentioned above to Bill, I am in no way suggesting that nothing in religion is true, and various of its preformatted answers (a synonym, of course, for dogma) may in fact be right on the money.
There are already, however, as mentioned above, areas where some of the preformatted answers that are hotly defended are palpably wrong.
So, as you say, critical examination of such ideas, is, well, critical. Measured consideration of their merit is all that I would ask.
I've scribbled a little post in response to your "objective morality" question; it's here.
I second Spur. You must try to be both pithy and clear especially in this fast medium. People won't exert themselves to understand obscure formulations.
I'll take a look at your post.
You find it "telling that religions are regionalized." Well, beliefs about health and medicine also vary from time to time and place to place. So what exactly is your point?
Beliefs about health and medicine do indeed vary from place to place. The global enterprise of science does not; a scientist measuring the charge of an electron in Tibet will find the same value as his counterpart in Gold Canyon. As I mentioned above: to the extent that local health practices and treatments are effective in a repeatable and explicable way, they'll find their way into the growing body of scientific medical understanding, to the benefit of all.
My point - made only in response to Tom's comment about one's particular religion often being an adult and carefully considered choice, which I think is the exception rather than the rule - was that the regionalization of religion seems to me to indicate a heavy layer of local acculturation upon what is represented, sometimes with lethal passion, by the adherents of each of the world's often-contradictory faiths as transcendent truth. I doubt that the truth itself is actually so localized, and the notion that one might have equally solid faith in this, that, or another description of the supernatural, depending only upon whether one hails from Sindh, Sinkiang, or Cincinnati, rather undermines my confidence in the entire enterprise. They can't all be right.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.