Share:

Why is religion considered philosophy?

Written by in Opinion at October 7, 2011

I have always found it strange that people with a doctorate relating to religion get the designation Ph.D. It’s the “Ph” that really gets me. Why, I ask, is theology (with the exception of historical fields) considered a form of philosophy? The way I understand it, philosophy is a way of critically thinking about some aspect of the universe. Moral philosophy deals with explaining our moral impulses and creating coherent systems for real-world application. Natural philosophy attempts to describe the natural world and come to logical conclusions about the state of nature. And metaphysical philosophy attempts to construct and determine first principles that flow from the universal to the particular. What do all of these philosophical systems have in common? They all involve heavy discourse founded in an ultimate goal to describe the way things are, or aid in understanding. They are built upon, changed, and are adjusted based on new facts and insights—their aim is to discover truth. The same cannot be said of theology.

Theology represents stagnance. Views and ideas are set down and are never changed (at least that’s the goal). Theological systems claim that truth in its most pure form is already known through scriptures and supposedly “Holy” books. Any new thought, any amount of mulling things over or adjustments are forbidden, since that would be seen as a desecration of what is already true and pure. Truth is assumed a priori; no further investigations are deployed or are even seen to be needed.

How, then, is theology considered a branch of philosophy if there is no active discourse or progression? Let’s look at definitions of philosophy taken from dictionary.com:

Philosophy:

1. The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

2. Any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.

3. A system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.

4. The critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.

5. A system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

6. A philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

Theology seems to be gripping onto definition #3, a system of philosophical doctrine, for the rest of the definitions show an interest in truth, or at least some sort of resolution brought about by discourse. Definition #5 is one such example, for it refers to guidance in practical affairs. I wish to contend definition #3, however, because Sesame Street has made me rather adept in determining which of a set is not like the others. Number 3, as a definition for philosophy, just doesn’t belong. You see, there already exists a niche in the human condition for systems that bear no relation to the search for truth, but instead exercise another vein of human desire—aesthetic pleasure, otherwise known as artistic value, or simply just The Arts. Here is the first definition of art that I was able to find:

“The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.”

Religion has value, as many people will testify. As wellsprings of symbolism, metaphor, allegory and simile, books such as the Holy Bible and Koran clearly have tremendous value. But their value ends there, as purely aesthetic symbolism. We all agree that theologians are not engaged in active discourse to ascertain the truth or falsity of their claims, and, as I have said, the goal of a theological system is intellectual stagnancy. Sure, religious apologists abound, but the mental acrobatics required to have their systems make even the smallest breath of sense is astounding, illustrating their utter disregard for the principle of parsimony. These facts alone remove theology permanently from the realm of philosophy.

A system of ideas can have great value in one of two forms. Firstly, a system of ideas may have tremendous value for its chance of accurately reflecting reality. These systems are brought about by intense deliberation, investigation, and above all a willingness to be open to ideas that may provide new insight. These insights will hopefully lead to better understanding and toward more accurate depictions of reality than had previously been attained. It is precisely these types of systems that are thought of as philosophical. Secondly, value may be attributed to a system of ideas because it is beautiful, or traditional (so long as the tradition hurts no one). Such systems may have some sort of progression of ideas, but the march in any direction is not a requirement. Art requires no justification. A debate on whose poetry is most beautiful, whose brush-strokes better represent passion, or whose religion best instills in its adherents a sense of the Divine, are all the same. They are all pointless, because they all represent statements of value, not fact. These systems are comfortably in the realm of The Arts. I would observe Christian doctrine in the same manner I would observe a Rembrandt—as a thoroughly impressive contrivance of the human mind before which I stand in awe.

A world without religious ideas would be more boring; that is, we would be deprived of fascinatingly intricate and often beautiful human inventions. So long as students of theology are void of the notion that they are in any way philosophers, religion has a role to play in society. Philosophers argue with one another, theologians nod at one another. These two systems could not be on more polar ends of the spectrum of worldly investigation

I recommend not acknowledging a Ph.D. that is related to most theological disciplines. Divinity is not a branch of philosophy, sorry. Divinity is a topic of The Arts. Those going through a Ph.D. program in divinity are not breaking new ground. Divinity does not have its graduate students jump through the mental hoops required to earn the title of philosophy. It is a bit like studying poetry, paintings, and sculptures; it may be interesting, it may be fun, and it may require a lot of time, but if it does not require one to think critically or contribute to understanding the world or ourselves objectively and empirically, it is simply not philosophical.

Discussion

Hughe

“The term “philosophy” does not refer solely to the modern field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is “love of wisdom”. In most of Europe, all fields other than theology, law and medicine were traditionally known as philosophy.” -Wikipedia

I don’t thing theologists tout themselves as philosophers. You’re right, religion isn’t necessarily the same as philosophy but I’m not sure who’s saying it is.

“if it does not require one to think critically or contribute to understanding the world or ourselves objectively and empirically, it is simply not philosophical.”

Are you saying philosophy is objective and empirical? Is moral philosophy objective and empirical? Thinkers have argued about the objectivity of morals for a while no with no conclusive answer (intellectual stagnancy). You shouldn’t toss around words like that in a philosophy setting.

Colin Wright

I think that “love of wisdom” is a good definition for philosophy. I fail to see how faith and wisdom can be joined. It is not wise to believe things on faith.

Whether or not morality has successfully been grounded objectively is OK. Moral philosophers are at least trying to do so; there is active discourse that attempt to see things more clearly. Also, I think there have been good cases for an objective moral philosophy. Sam Harris’ new book attempts to do this, and I think the outline is rather solid, though some details need filling in. If you don’t know to what I am referring, Google search for the Sam Harris TED talk, or any of his other talks about his latest book (not eBook).

What I am stressing is active discourse. I hesitate to call anything without it philosophy.

Robin Marie

“They are built upon, changed, and are adjusted based on new facts and insights—their aim is to discover truth. The same cannot be said of theology. …Theology represents stagnance. ”

I’m going to take a little issue with this, although I am in agreement with most of the post.

First there is a problem of what you would say theologians are doing, and what they would say they are doing — I think they would almost all claim to say that their aim is to discover truth. Now, you can say that clearly, they don’t *really* value truth as much as they think they do, and you’ll have lots of evidence for that — nonetheless, historically, I don’t think it can be denied that the search for truth is certainly what most theologians at least *thought* they were doing, and by and large I don’t have reason to doubt their sincerity — just the conclusions they came to.

Secondly, historically theology has not, in fact, been completely stagnant and it usually responds to new facts and situations. Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes, Luther — all these people were both philosophers and theologians, in varying combinations, and Christian doctrine, at least, has been worked over and changed and adjusted for new known information (and changing political situations) for all of its history. What is liberal, non-science denying Christianity if not a direct response to the reality of evolution and other advances in science? Now again, I agree that their conclusions don’t ultimately live up to a standard of truth that you and I, as atheists, think is required. But theology does have a diverse, complex, and thoughtful history behind it, so to characterize it as stagnant, or even necessarily aiming to be stagnant, is not always accurate, I think. (In other places, it is obviously much more so.)

All of which is not to say that I think religion and philosophy should be in the same category; there are clear differences between them, many of which you went on to elucidate. But I think the line can get fuzzy, and messy in places; because surely religious believers are in fact trying to figure out many of the same Big Questions that philosophy addresses, and so in some sense are going about the same project as philosophy. The fact that we think their methods suck is the distinction, I think; but they are related insofar as the goals are concerned.

Colin Wright

I agree that theologians don’t see themselves the way I have depicted them. Certainly they think they value truth; the only difference being that they start with a conclusion and then stitch together disparate bits of “evidence,” piecewise, to support it, instead of drawing conclusions from the evidence itself. It’s completely backwards thinking in the quest for “truth,” but I suppose they may look at it as being something akin to the way historical sciences, like paleontology, operate (i.e., working under the assumption evolution is true, and reconstructing patterns based on that fact).

Before we had science as we know it today, people studying the natural world described themselves as “natural theologians,” who thought that God’s design, and the nature of God Himself, could be better revealed through a rigorous study of His Creation. However, while setting out to explain the nature of the biosphere, it soon became alarmingly clear that invoking God became less and less necessary. While many minds were changed by this realization about the nature of God, still others held to the word of the Bible with white knuckles.

It is that type of mindset, the willingness to hand wave away enormous bodies of fact, that is still seen today, and precisely the type that we, as atheists, speak out against. I too don’t doubt they are being sincere (most of them anyway), but there comes a point where, setting their sincerity aside, I think it’s safe to say that they aren’t really concerned with how the world is, but instead are rather ambivalent to the nature of reality, or are actually repressing their mental faculties to maintain belief in a comforting falsehood, especially if they draw much of their personal identity from holding such beliefs.

Also, just to clarify, I carved out an exception for historical theology in my third sentence: “Why, I ask, is theology (with the exception of historical fields) considered a form of philosophy?”

And lastly, while I agree that theologians and philosophers do indeed ask some of the same Big Questions, I think the route one takes next matters greatly in order to determine the distinction between theology and philosophy. Theologians attempt to discover truths about the universe via deduction from an unsubstantiated premise (i.e., God exists). The fact that they are by and large unwilling to question their premise makes me more than hesitant to offer them a seat at the table of actual worldly investigators.

Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks for the thoughtful response!

Discuss

Required.

Required. Won't be published.

Related posts:

  1. Science, philosophy and non-belief
  2. “Spiritual?”
  3. Naturalism

Copyright © 2009–2011 Christopher Thielen & others. Some rights reserved.

RSS Feed. This blog is proudly powered by Wordpress and uses a variation of Modern Clix, a theme by Rodrigo Galindez.

An American Atheist Podcast by The panelists and folks behind An American Atheist podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.